A new State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) report shows that the association between student protection authorization policies and enrollment and completions after college closure is not overwhelmingly positive. 

A Dream Derailed? Investigating the Causal Effects of Student Protection Authorization Policies on Student Outcomes after College Closure is the third and final report from a collaborative research team of SHEEO and the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. The research seeks to quantify the impacts of college closures on students’ subsequent postsecondary enrollment and completion outcomes and to identify the policy levers states may have to support students who experience a closure. This final report incorporates the state authorization policy context to determine if policy interventions can improve the negative impacts of closures on students. It uses the treatment and control samples developed for the second report and adds a longitudinal dataset capturing state authorization policies related to student protections.

As outlined in the first report, A Dream Derailed? Investigating the Impacts of College Closures on Student Outcomes, more than 100,000 students experienced their institution closing without adequate notice or a teach-out plan from July 2004 to June 2020. As outlined in the second report, A Dream Derailed? Investigating the Causal Effects of College Closure on Student Outcomes, the data show college closures have an overwhelmingly negative impact on students, with students 71.3% less likely to reenroll within one month and 50.1% less likely to earn a credential than students who did not experience a closure. This third report focuses on the post-closure student protection policies that aim to reduce the harms associated with closure: collection of tuition recovery funds, payment of surety bonds, preservation and dissemination of student records, and creation of teach-out plans. As part of consumer protection, many states have enacted a mix of these policies.

Collectively, these four policies can provide students with tuition refunds, completion or transfer opportunities, and access to transcripts, all of which can assist students in recovering from an institutional closure. Among the four policies examined, student records policies tied to closure were the most common form of student protection across all states that had any institutional closures between 2004 and 2020. During this time frame, the largest percentage of states had no tuition recovery policy (79.3%), no surety bond policy (43.9%), no teach-out plan policy (47.3%), or a student records policy tied to closure (45.5%). Additional findings include:

• Tuition recovery and surety bond policies have no positive correlation with reenrollment within four months after closure.
• Student records and teach-out plan policies have a strong positive correlation with reenrollment that lessens over time. 
• Tuition recovery and surety bond polices have no consistent positive effects on credential completion, type of credential completed, or time to completion for students who experienced a closure. 
• Student records and teach-out plan policies may have some positive effects on the type of credential completed and time to completion, but results are mixed. 
• The most encouraging results indicate that students are more likely to immediately reenroll in states that have records retention and teach-out policies in place. Both policies are designed to ease the transfer process for students after a closure, and results suggest the presence of both policies is more effective than just one.

“These findings reinforce how disruptive institutional closures are for students and suggest that states should consider stronger consumer protection policies and procedures,” said SHEEO President Rob Anderson. 

As currently designed, surety bond and tuition recovery fund policies do not allow students to receive a refund and utilize a teach-out option. This policy design requires students to make a difficult decision between reenrolling at a teach-out institution or receiving a refund. In this regard, the student protection policies counteract each other (e.g., students can only pursue tuition reimbursement if a teach-out opportunity is not pursued).

Surety bond and tuition recovery fund policies are designed to reimburse students for harm caused by closing institutions and are not designed to help students reenroll let alone advance toward the completion of a credential. Similarly, records retention policies help ensure students have access to transcripts and other records that will help aid the transfer process to another institution. Once students have transferred and their previously earned credits have been accepted, records retention policies do little to promote completion.

State agencies of higher education and institutions can play a key role in helping to minimize the negative impacts on students due to college closures. Several policy implications were outlined in the report, including that states should provide greater oversight of teach-out institutions to ensure that they are financially viable, offer quality educational opportunities, and provide program alignment to prevent students from having to retake courses. While the results that show that the presence of a student records retention and teach-out policies led to a greater likelihood of reenrolling within four months, the other results suggest that the consumer protection policies could be improved to better promote reenrollment within one year to improve the likelihood of completion.

For additional data resources and to access all three reports and an interactive data visualization, visit the project website at  https://sheeo.org/project/college-closures/. 

This series of three publications examining the impacts of college closure on student outcomes is supported by Arnold Ventures.

State higher education agencies and leadership recognized for dedication and innovation

Portland, OR – The State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) has announced the organization’s 2023 SHEEO Excellence Awards recipients. The awards recognize the leadership, dedication, and innovation of exceptional SHEEOs, agency staff, and agencies at a time when state postsecondary policy is increasingly linked to student success and, in turn, states’ economic and social prosperity.

• The Exceptional Leader Award recipient is Michael P. Meotti, executive director of the Washington Student Achievement Council.
• The Exceptional Agency Award recipient is the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
• The David L. Wright Memorial Award recipient is Tracey Cook, chief fiscal officer, University System of Georgia.

Reflecting on the SHEEO Excellence Awards, Dr. Robert Anderson, president of SHEEO, said: “SHEEO is proud to acknowledge the dedication of all our state higher education executive officers, their agencies, and agency staff members. The hours worked, the ideas generated, and the tenacity demonstrated by these individuals and agencies to help address the needs of students and promote equitable educational outcomes are worthy of praise. We are honored to recognize the winners of this year’s SHEEO Excellence Awards.”

Exceptional Leader Award

The Exceptional Leader Award is presented to a current state higher education executive officer from a member agency who has shown exceptional leadership, a commitment to higher education, a contribution to the greater good, and service to the SHEEO Association within the last year.

This year’s recipient of the Exceptional Leader Award, Michael P. Meotti, is the executive director of the Washington Student Achievement Council. Meotti has extensive experience in higher education policy, finance, and innovation, dedicating his time and expertise in multiple states and for myriad organizations. Meotti became the executive director of WSAC in 2016. In this role, he works with partners across higher education, elected officials, employers, organized labor, and community-based groups to increase student access and success. Meotti previously served as commissioner of higher education in Connecticut and as executive vice president of the Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education. He has shared his experience and leadership with others, serving two terms on SHEEO’s executive committee, and as commissioner of the Education Commission of the States (ECS) and Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), where he also serves on the executive committee.

Under Meotti’s leadership, Washington developed the Regional Challenge Grant program to build partnerships between state and community leaders to increase postsecondary enrollment and credential completion for students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, English language learners, students with disabilities, and foster and homeless youth. 

Meotti oversaw implementation and expansion of the Washington College Grant (WA Grant), considered a model for need-based state financial aid programs and named the most equity-focused free college program in the country by the Education Trust. Meotti also helped lead efforts to secure a highly competitive federal grant through the Good Jobs Challenge to establish the Washington Jobs Initiative, which aims to support Washington’s robust career-connected learning system, increase diversity and equitable outcomes in the workforce, and connect Washingtonians to good-paying, high-demand jobs.

“It has been a privilege to work alongside Michael Meotti during the past four years to find innovative solutions to increase the number of Washington adults obtaining some type of postsecondary credential to improve their chances for success in a rapidly changing economic environment,” said Jeff Vincent, WSAC chair. “The launch of Washington’s Regional Challenge Grant initiative during the last 12 months is an excellent example of Mike’s leadership in this area. I want to personally congratulate Mike for receiving this well-deserved recognition by his peers.”  

According to Paul Francis, WSAC member and executive director of the State Board for Community & Technical Colleges, “Mike’s accomplishments at the Washington Student Achievement Council include successfully advocating for full funding for the Washington College Grant—one of the most generous state aid programs in the nation. He has also successfully built bridges with K-12, higher education, nonprofit, and community leaders across the state to pilot new regional partnerships to grow college enrollment. And he was a valuable partner in working alongside college and university leaders, the governor’s office, and state agencies to ensure that teaching and learning continued during the COVID-19 pandemic while retaining our focus on health and safety. Congratulations, Mike, on this well-deserved recognition!”

Exceptional Agency Award

The Exceptional Agency Award is presented to a member agency whose innovative actions, policies, or practices advanced student success in their state; which displayed exceptional governance practices; overcame exceptional challenges; or displayed other meritorious attributes within the last year. SHEEO has selected the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board as this year’s awardee.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) is leading the way in advancing higher education and driving the state’s economic competitiveness. Texas is one of a few states that immediately prioritized federal stimulus funds through the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) fund for higher education. GEER investments in Texas totaled more than $360 million dollars, demonstrating an investment that is critical to Texas’ economic recovery and future competitiveness.

Texas recently unveiled its ambitious strategic plan for higher education, Building a Talent Strong Texas. This comprehensive plan expands on the successes of its previous initiative, 60x30TX, by emphasizing the value of credentials earned and providing greater opportunities for Texans, including working adults, to earn degrees, certificates, and other credentials that lead to meaningful careers. Texas is the first state to condition its postsecondary completion goals on the value of credentials earned, and the plan focuses on three measurable, data-driven goals: 1) attainment of postsecondary credentials; 2) postsecondary credentials of value; and 3) research, development, and innovation. 

Over the past several years, Texas has undergone significant modernization efforts to redesign its data infrastructure so it is modern, flexible, and meets the needs of users. Texas has also built a world-class advising tool to help students access and persist through higher education with technology-enabled college and career planning. The My Texas Future tool makes the planning experience more personal, meaningful, and connects to students’ goals and aspirations—all while rooting their decisions in practical information like real-world earnings and regional job demand. 

During the 88^th Texas legislative session, THECB was able to secure a once-in-a-generation commitment to higher education, with legislative investments of more than $5 billion over the next two years. As part of this historic session for higher education, Texas celebrated the signing of House Bill 8 (HB 8) into law, which codified an innovative new model to fund community colleges in Texas. The new model moves to an outcomes-based approach and rewards colleges for awarding degrees, certificates, and other credentials of value.

These outstanding achievements have positioned the THECB as a role model among SHEEO agencies.

“Texas is raising the bar for higher education opportunities, and I am proud we are being recognized with SHEEO’s Exceptional Agency Award,” said Commissioner for Higher Education Dr. Harrison Keller. “Texas is making a strong commitment—in policy and funding—to help more Texans achieve credentials of value so they can contribute to, participate in, and benefit from our world-class economy. I’m proud of the achievements we’ve made over the past several years and look forward to what we will continue to accomplish.”

“The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is honored to have received this special recognition from SHEEO,” said Chairman of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Dr. Fred Farias. “Texas has set out to achieve bold new goals in Building a Talent Strong Texas and in doing so, more Texans will be able to achieve greater economic mobility and prosperity.”

David L. Wright Memorial Award

The David L. Wright Memorial Award is named in honor of the late David Wright, an esteemed colleague and leader in state higher education who served in the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, and the Florida Governing Board. This award recognizes a current SHEEO agency staff member from a member agency who embodies the exceptional commitment, work ethic, and ethical practices of David Wright and made outstanding contributions to their agency. This year’s David L. Wright Memorial Award is presented to Tracey Cook, chief fiscal officer for the University System of Georgia and treasurer to the system’s governing Boarding of Regents. 

Cook brings extensive experience and effective leadership to her position, including over 30 years in higher education. Prior to joining USG, she worked as a senior auditor for KPMG and as controller at Morehouse College in Atlanta. She joined USG’s Atlanta Metropolitan State College before taking a job with the fiscal affairs team in USG’s University System Office. In total, she’s been with USG for 20 years. 

Cook and her team within the Office of Fiscal Affairs make the USG’s mission of knowledge possible. They impact Georgia students by prioritizing the goal to keep the state’s 26 public colleges and universities affordable and obtainable. This includes working with an over $10 billion annual budget to support more than 48,000 faculty and staff and more than 334,000 students across the state. Under her guidance, the system has consistently maintained strong financial ratings while staying focused on student success. The board for the 2023-34 academic year has approved a budget that for the sixth time in eight years includes no tuition increase—a record that makes Georgia the seventh lowest in the nation among its peers for tuition and fees.

Just one example demonstrating Cook’s work ethic is that, despite her own workload to accomplish day-to-day responsibilities, she goes above and beyond to support the chief business officers at all the institutions. Tracey has been instrumental in helping institutional staff navigate the university system. 

Sonny Perdue, chancellor of the University System of Georgia, shared, “Tracey is always the first to credit her team for any success, but I don’t think anyone is more deserving of this award. Her leadership has kept USG moving forward no matter the challenges, and her humility and positivity have made working with her a pleasure. While her smile and laugh make her fun to work with, she gives 100% and that shows in the success of our institutions and students.”

Learn more about SHEEO Excellence Awards, including past winners at https://sheeo.org/membership/sheeo-awards/. 

Only six states report a unified strategy for addressing affordability

Many states believe tuition should be as low as possible but leave institutions in control of creating their own tuition-setting philosophy. Most states also do not have a statewide unified strategy for addressing affordability and don’t have a formalized relationship between financial aid and tuition-setting policies. State higher education offices shared these and many other insights into tuition, fees, and financial assistance policies in a survey distributed last year. 

SHEEO’s new Tuition, Fees and Financial Assistance Report provides details on policies and practices that differ between two-year and four-year public institutions. It also includes specific information about the tuition-setting process for graduate students, details on state policies for setting nonresident student tuition, and more information on state policies regarding student fees. While the report does not provide actual tuition costs, it focuses on the policies that establish and regulate tuition, fees, and financial aid amounts. This year’s report provides more enhanced data to include years in which each state had tuition freezes and/or limitations, the institution types subjected to those limits, and the amount of those limits. A new longitudinal dataset, with survey responses back to 1979, has also been published to give a more historical view of these policies.

Across sectors, nearly half of survey respondents indicated that their tuition-setting philosophy was not formalized in statute or policy. The remaining states either formalize their tuition-setting process in legislative statute or through board rule or policy. 

While tuition philosophy often guides a state’s process and intention in setting tuition rates, other factors, such as state budget levels, cost of instruction, and inflation, may take a controlling lead in influencing the tuition-setting process. In both sectors, the factors with the most influence were: ensuring affordability for students, the level of state general fund appropriations, and the cost of instruction. In most states, boards of individual institutions or the system-level coordinating/governing agency is primarily responsible for setting undergraduate tuition rates. 

However, states have recently increased their efforts to control public institutions’ tuition rate increases. In the last five years, 40% of states placed restrictions on tuition rate increases in the two-year sector, and 60% of states placed a limit or a freeze on four-year tuition rate increases. This is up from 54% of states between 2014-2017 and 43% of states between 2010-2014. Most tuition limits capped tuition rate increases between 2-4%.

“When states were asked to clarify the relationship between tuition and financial aid policies in their state, the most common response was that there was no relationship between the two,” said Jessica Colorado, SHEEO policy analyst. Thirty-four percent of the two-year sector and 31% of the four-year sector said there is no intentional relationship between tuition and financial aid policies in their state. For states with an intentional relationship between tuition and financial aid, the most common relationship was to have low tuition and high aid (19% of two-year, and 14% of four-year). Of the states who selected a relationship, 63% of two-year and 72% of four-year respondents reported that the relationship between tuition and financial aid was more of an informal policy or goal.

States have considered, proposed, or adopted several strategies to improve student affordability in the last five years. When compared to the last iteration of this survey, more states have recently implemented or adopted free college or promise programs for the two-year sector (20) than what was reported in the 2017 survey (3). Following free college programs, the next most common programs states adopted were statewide financial literacy programs (15), which include FAFSA completion programs, and open educational resource programs (15). Two states adopted debt-free college, a twist on the traditional free college program.

While affordability has become an increasingly influential factor in tuition-setting policies for state policymakers, codified strategies on affordability that consider tuition rates and availability of financial aid together are absent in most states. Only 10% (six states) of respondents reported a statewide, unified strategy for addressing affordability, down from 32% in the 2017 survey.

A key recommendation from the report is for states to take a multiyear, transparent approach to tuition policy. States should allow for longer-term, multiyear strategies around tuition rate setting. In many states, limitations on how much tuition can increase vary from year to year. One year, the legislature may limit tuition increases to an inflationary adjustment, followed the next year by a freeze on the allowable rate increase.

“In this environment, there is little incentive for institutions and systems to raise tuition to an amount below the allowed limit in a single year since they can’t anticipate what the future will allow,” said Rob Anderson, SHEEO president. 

A more rational approach would provide allowable increases for three to five years and be based on state revenue projections and policy direction from the state with respect to expected higher education funding for institutions and state financial aid. This would allow for better planning by institutions and create a more transparent environment for the students and families who ultimately must pay the tuition costs.

The full State Tuition, Fees, and Financial Assistance Policies 2022 report, survey instrument, the longitudinal dataset, and technical report can be found online at https://sheeo.org/project/tuition-and-fee-survey/. Additional reports, which focus on changes states made to tuition policy following the COVID-19 pandemic and tuition policy for undocumented students, will be released in the coming weeks.