Hildreth Institute in The Boston Globe

State aid should focus on helping low-income students obtain college degrees

The Senate’s free community college for all proposal may sound appealing, but it raises questions about adequacy and effectiveness.

This article originally appeared in The Boston Globe.

Massachusetts is getting closer to adopting free, universal community college. Senate President Karen Spilka champions the idea, and the Senate included funding for it in its version of the state budget, now in conference committee.

As Nate Mackinnon, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of Community Colleges, points out, “free” is a powerful incentive. When Massachusetts this year began offering free community college to students over 25, community colleges saw decades of declining enrollment reversed. There is certainly a legitimate public interest in helping students get degrees, since businesses across the state report labor shortages.

But before lawmakers approve free community college for all, they should answer some important questions: Will it accomplish the intended goal of educating more students who could not otherwise afford college? Are the state’s community colleges well-poised to serve an influx of students and shepherd them to graduation? And is this the best use of education funding versus, for instance, more investment in early childhood education?

The Senate would spend $75.5 million making community college tuition- and fee-free for all students, on top of the existing program that offers free community college for students over 25 and nursing students. All students, regardless of their income, would be able to take advantage of the free tuition in the Senate’s proposal. It would also channel a $1,200 stipend to students whose families make 125 percent or less of the median income in the state, to help them with college costs other than tuition.

This board has argued that any free college program should prioritize helping lower-income students and avoid incentivizing students to attend a college that is not the best educational fit simply because it is free. Others are raising similar questions. Eighteen advocacy groups focused on equity in education — including MassINC, the Education Trust, the Hildreth Institute, Latinos for Education, the Boston Foundation, and others — recently wrote to lawmakers raising concerns about the Senate proposal.

One question they raised is whether the stipend envisioned in the Senate bill would be adequate to help the lowest-income students, given costs of housing, food, and child care. A Hildreth Institute analysis finds the average cost to attend a Massachusetts community college is $21,100, including tuition, books, housing, and other expenses. Hildreth’s analysis says a student from a family earning $95,000 or less would get $1,200 from the Senate program on top of aid they are already receiving and would pay an estimated $11,800 out of pocket. A student from a family earning more than $131,000 annually would get $6,600 in additional aid and pay $14,200 out of pocket.

In other words, the wealthier student would see a greater overall benefit.

The advocacy organizations put forth an alternate proposal that focuses on the neediest. Instead of paying tuition and fees for everyone, their plan would increase aid to lower-income students by doubling the size of their Pell grant and letting them use the aid at any public college. Under this proposal, a student from a family earning less than $69,000 could get an additional $4,300 toward community college or $5,000 for a state university above current aid. The advocates’ proposal is more expensive than the Senate’s, and their goal of doubling the Pell grant may not be an amount the state can afford. There may be other ways of structuring a program to ensure middle-income students who aren’t Pell-eligible get aid.

But the principle behind it — providing more aid to lower-income students, some aid to middle-income students, and little aid to higher-income students — is one that is progressive.

Allowing aid to follow the student would also alleviate concerns about whether free community college would incentivize students to attend a two-year college over a four-year college, even if that is not the best educational option for the student.

Other states have made free-college programs more flexible. Colorado, for example, just passed legislation covering tuition and fees for two years at all public colleges, including trade schools and two- and four-year schools, for students from families earning less than $90,000.

If lawmakers are committed to universal free college, one option might be to scale up gradually. Boston, for example, launched a tuition-free community college program in 2016 for Pell-eligible students, then, in 2023, expanded eligibility to all Bostonians.

For any free college program to be worthwhile, students who start college must finish it. According to the Department of Higher Education, only around 26 percent of Massachusetts community college students earn a degree from that institution within six years, a number that has stayed consistent the last five years. Only 34 percent of students who enter a Massachusetts community college receive a degree from any US institution within six years. Although community college can be a less expensive path to a bachelor’s degree, only around 20 percent of community college students transfer to a four-year institution within four years. (Rates vary by institution. At Roxbury Community College, only 21 percent of the class that started in 2017 obtained any degree within six years compared to 43 percent at Greenfield Community College.)

Providing more financial aid may improve outcomes by alleviating financial barriers. However, adding an influx of students to community colleges could strain colleges’ resources. WBUR reported that with the influx of students over 25, community colleges are struggling to hire financial aid and enrollment officers. Mackinnon said community colleges struggle to hire faculty, largely because of low pay.

State-funded SUCCESS grants, which pay for services like advising and mentoring for students at risk of dropping out, have shown early promise. The Senate is proposing continuing those grants and creating a new $10 million Student Persistence Fund to help low-income students pay for unforeseeable expenses.

Expanding funding for programs that provide students with advising, coaching, mentoring, or help accessing resources will be vital for any proposal to succeed, as will ensuring schools have money to scale up academic programs. There will also be a need for improved transfer pathways so students can more easily advance to a bachelor’s program, with support services available at four-year universities.

Ultimately, the point of any policy must not be to serve institutions but to serve the students who attend them. State resources are finite, and it is important policy makers use this money effectively to help as many students as possible obtain college degrees.