that I will speak about shortly. We are fortunate to have each of you representing us. As you know, the Higher Education Act has contributed immeasurably to our nation's social and economic well-being by opening the doors of postsecondary education to millions of individuals who would not otherwise have been able to afford it. Because New York's delegation constitutes the largest delegation from any single state on the House Education and Labor Committee, and three of its members serve on the subcommittee responsible for HEA reauthorization, we look to you to keep those doors of opportunity open for New York's students. I appreciate the interest that all of you have already shown in this reauthorization and thank you for your attention today. As the largest supplement to State and local support for educational opportunity in New York, the Higher Education Act is of vital importance to our students. In purely economic terms, HEA student assistance programs provide nearly one-third of all government funds spent on postsecondary education in our State. In 1990-91, for example, HEA Title IV programs provided New York's students with roughly $1.5 billion to supplement the $3.3 billion we spent on higher education from State and local taxes. In more human terms, over half of our undergraduates rely on one or more types of HEA student aid awarded on the basis of financial need. New York's students can be expected to rely even more on Federal assistance in the future if current economic trends persist. During the past 6-7 months, our State has experienced reductions in tax support for higher education that have led to higher tuition prices and cutbacks in State grant aid, both of which threaten access. Without Federal aid as a safety net, the doors of opportunity would close for most of New York's neediest students. A closely related reason for New York's interest in the HEA is that its programs promote access to higher education for our future teachers and school administrators. The national call for reforming and restructuring our schools-like the New Compact for Learning in New York State-requires that our colleges and universities be accessible to low-income and underrepresented populations who will be the educators of the future. This April, in response to Chairman William D. Ford's request, we submitted legislative proposals to the House Education and Labor Committee, with copies going to each of you. Our proposals are designed to address what we consider to be the most pressing issues for this reauthorization. High on our list of priorities is the need to eliminate the waste and abuse that threaten the very existence of Title IV student assistance programs nationwide. To improve accountability for the Federal investment in postsecondary students, we are proposing a State Postsecondary Approving Agency program that would permit the states to receive Federal funds to assure a wide range of quality standards at institutions whose students received Title IV funds. Our proposals are based on our long experience as an oversight agency and our more recent experience in enforcing the Nation's strictest_laws pertaining to non-degree vocational schools. We appreciate Congresswoman Lowey's work on this proposal and her efforts to introduce a bill with Representative Goodling of Pennsylvania. Of equal importance on our list of priorities is the need to improve programs for disadvantaged students. We want to thank Congresswoman Lowey for introducing H.R. 2350, the National Liberty Scholarship and Partnership Act, that would support state-based programs of early intervention and special grant aid for at-risk youth. The effectiveness of such programs has been demonstrated by programs operating in several states, including New York, and by programs sponsored by private individuals and foundations. In a related bill, we propose that states receive grants to be used to support prefreshman summer programs for disadvantaged youth at colleges and universities that already provide comprehensive support services. This pre-freshman summer program was part of our larger recommendation to restructure HEA programs providing campus support services for disadvantaged students. We recommend that such programs be consolidated into one National Opportunity Program administered by the states. In addition, we propose to strengthen the Pell Grant program by enabling recipients of that aid to be funded beyond a 9-month academic year during any 12-month period. This extension would enable low-income undergraduates to pursue summer study to complete their degrees in a timely fashion. The extension is important because summer TAP awards, which had been available for years, were cut from New York State's budget this year. Lastly, we recognize the need to support access to teacher preparation programs. We are looking forward to Congresswoman Lowey's introduction of our Teacher Corps bill that would support innovative programs to improve the diversity and supply of qualified teachers in the Nation and to Congressman Serrano's introduction of our Teacher Opportunity Corps bill to enable paraprofessionals working in schools serving_at-risk youth to become certified teachers through part-time and summer study. Paraprofessionals in New York-many of whom are black or Hispanic-provide a valuable pool of recruits to teaching, especially in urban districts facing serious shortages of certified teachers. I would be pleased to provide you with information about our proposals and to answer your questions. Thank you again for your kind attention. Mrs. LOWEY. Dr. Bruce Johnstone? STATEMENT OF BRUCE JOHNSTONE, CHANCELLOR, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, ALBANY, NEW YORK Dr. JOHNSTONE. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Lowey, Congresswoman Molinari, Congressman Owens and Congressman Serrano. I am pleased to be here, partly with a hat on as Chancellor of the State University of New York, partly perhaps as well as someone who has written in the field of economics and finance of higher education and student financial assistance for many, many years. I've done two books, and dozens of articles, and have been on more panels with Tom Wolanin than I could count on this field. Most recently, I've been engaged in the study of American financial aid and other nations attempting, here again to looking what we are doing for some guidance in their own systems. Mindful also of the Red Apple bomb, I will, too, not read my testimony. I'd rather mention five points that I think summarize-two points here and leave you with things I feel very strongly about, personally again with both of these hats. First of all, just a moment about SUNY, we are a diverse institution of 64 campuses, over 400,000 students and we administer over $210 million in Title IV funds, including $80 million for 91,000 Pell grant recipients. Nineteen million dollars for 39,000 recipients of campuses based programs, $111 million for 55,000 Stafford loan borrowers. I mention this not to show off about big numbers, but to let you know that your State university badly needs these Federal programs. In fact, we suppose-presume the basic underlying Federal commitment implied in the Pell program, the campus-based programs and the loan programs. New York State does more with TAP than any other State. TAP and BUNDY and special programs. SUNY is still accessible in our tuition, even though we had to go up too sharp of an increase in 1 year. Some 60 percent increase in a year, just to maintain survivability of our system. Without the Federal programs, we would have put access in severe jeopardy. My second point is one that I probably feel strongest about. Talking to the four of you somewhat personal right now, and that is how Title IV works. I implore you as I have implored others in positions like yours, not to fall into what I think is perhaps an understandable trap of lamenting its demise, alleging its failure, maintaining that it perhaps is broken or needed total vast restructuring. It has problems as all complex aid programs do in our society. It's a big program that tries to do lots of things as it has to do. It needs some help, it needs some fixing, it needs a lot more money, but the basic Federal Title IV design largely through the intelligence of Congress and intelligence of others and through the extraordinary period of management by financing officers has come to be a program of enormous, I would say even efficiency and purposefulness. It does things it does because you wrote laws that way. When you cease to want to have Federal aid accessible to students who are admissible regardless of their academic preparedness, then of course you could change the law. But that's how the law was written. When you cease to want to have a Federal program which is available to all students regardless of their program or study, than you can of course change that. But those are basic purposeful, meaningful, and I believe important features of Title IV as thus written and I hope that they will be preserved. It's a program that also maximizes resources from all sources. Anticipating a possible question for Mr. Serrano, we as a Nation have devised a complex system that relies on parents, on students and on taxpayers. Other countries are looking to us for our ability to have a diverse system of support, leading also to donors, and philanthropists and businesses. That again was a purpose of system when we do well. I would hope that you would retain Pell as the underlying basic grant, enhance it, consider making it an entitlement, which I think indeed it ought to be, it some day must be. I would hope that you would retain and strengthen in the campus base programs, SEOG, Perkins Work Study, those things that maximize the flexibility and purposefulness of our financial aid profession. And, I would finally urge you to beware of any solution that seems to work magic with access and opportunity and somehow does so with no cost to the taxpayer. Generally, on close perusal those solutions are less than they promise to be. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Bruce Johnston follows:] Chancellor D. Bruce Johnstone TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important issue of reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. My comments will focus on the Title IV student financial aid programs, their importance to the State University of New York (SUNY), their effectiveness and management and how they might be improved. The State University of New York is a diverse institution of 64 campuses and 403,000 students. SUNY campuses administer over $210 million in Title IV funds including nearly $80 million for 91,000 Pell Grant recipients, $19 million for 39,000 recipients in the campusbased programs and $111 million for 55,000 Stafford Loan borrowers. SUNY's institutional financial aid resources are severely limited, so reliance on state and federal student financial assistance is extensive. My testimony today will focus on broad program management themes rather than technical administrative issues. Much testimony on technical issues has already been offered by groups such as the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, Congress' own Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, the American Council on Education and other broadly representative groups. In general, there is consensus on the need to achieve simplification, equity, access and accountability. There is even some agreement on how to improve the programs in these important areas. Generally, SUNY supports the recommendations in documents such as NASFAA's "Plan for Reform". This proposal recognizes the limitations of the present need analysis and delivery system and makes substantive recommendations for change. I also support proposals by the College Scholarship Service to create an application "by-pass" for those who have established eligibility for other Social Service programs. These kinds of innovations will enhance the Title IV programs. 1. The Title IV financial aid programs are vital to SUNY to meet New York State's commitment to accessible, quality public higher education. Although SUNY's tuition and total cost is relatively low, for many New Yorkers the University simply would be financially out-of-reach without the additional support provided by need based financial aid. The role of financial aid at SUNY must be viewed in light of the University's special mission as a public institution. The mandate of accessibility is a determining factor in the University's organization and operation. Financial Aid is really one of an array of access-related functions which include out-reach programs, educational opportunity programs, special admissions options and other practices intended to enhance access to the University. 2. The Title IV programs are essentially sound but need better leadership from Considering the diversity and changes in American higher education, the complex legislative and funding history of the Title IV programs and the competing interests of the parties involved, financial aid functions quite well. For the most part, over the years, the programs have delivered billions of dollars to millions of students who would not otherwise have attended college. But it is also clear that the system does not function well enough to meet the demands for an educated citizenry and workforce in the 21st century. Clearly, reforms are needed. But the basic structure is sound if adequate funds are made available and the programs are not over-regulated. A diverse set of need based financial programs is the most economical public subsidy for overcoming the enormous financial barriers to higher education. For a variety of reasons, I fully endorse making Pell a genuine entitlement. As a nation, we must demonstrate the resolve to provide the funding commitment necessary for this task. To restore the purchasing power of Pell, to re-establish its role as the foundation for other programs and as a signal to families that higher education is indeed within their reach, Pell must be made an entitlement and marketed as such. To build on the Pell foundation, we must make a serious commitment to restoring the campus based programs. For the most part, these vehicles have been quietly and successfully operating in the shadow of concerns about Stafford Loan default rates and special allowance costs. It has been a serious mistake to allow problems in one program to undermine otherwise successful efforts. Perkins, SEOG and CWSP deserve the full commitment of Congress. For SUNY campuses and for many public institutions across the country, these programs are the only significant source of discretionary student financial aid and are therefore the only funds available to meet the needs of those students who are not adequately served by Pell Grants or Stafford Loans. Establishing clear, operational goals for the student aid programs is the responsibility of Congress. Clear objectives will assist the department in understanding and carrying out the intent of Congress and will assist other partners in meeting those same goals. 3. Congress should refrain from addressing the needs of small, special populations through legislation and rely on the professional discretion of Financial Aid personnel to assure the programs are equitable at the level of the individual. |