BANGOR — The state wasn’t alone in receiving a failing grade for the affordability of its educational system in a recently released national report. The reasons for Maine’s F ranking, however, are specific to the state.
“Measuring Up 2008,” a biennial state-by-state report card on higher education compiled by the California-based National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, said Maine, one of 48 other states to receive a failing grade, did so because the share of family income needed to pay for college has increased, and because students and families pay more than the U.S. average to attend public two- and four-year colleges.
Affordability grades were based on families’ ability to pay, strategies for affordability and reliance on loans.
Maine families of all income groups devote an estimated 36 percent of their income to pay for costs, minus financial aid, for public four-year institutions compared to 22 percent in 1990, while families in the top-performing states in previous years devoted 10 percent of income. The report assumes families’ costs are for first-time, full-time certificate or degree-seeking undergraduate students.
The percentage of Maine’s investment in need-based financial aid compared to federal investment was 37 percent, up from 23 percent in 1993 but still far from the 89 percent of the top states.
Maine’s loan numbers have climbed since 1995, when the average loan amount for undergraduate students each year was $2,982. In 2007, the number was $4,440. In previous years, the top states averaged $2,619 in loan amounts.
UM System spokesman John Diamond said the report’s determination of affordability puts Maine at a disadvantage, and the state’s ranking is negatively affected by several factors.
First, Diamond said, because the system has made student access a top priority, the system has seven relatively small universities, three with satellite campuses, and 10 academic outreach centers spread out across the state. Therefore, the system’s total cost of maintaining campus infrastructure is “disproportionately high” com-pared to the number of students the system serves, which is approximately 45,000 students during the academic year.
Second, considering several of those campuses are located in the poorer areas of the state, the cost of a year’s expenses is proportionally higher than the average local income.
“For example, Washington County is one of the poorest regions [in the nation],” Diamond said. “Yet one of our smaller universities, the University of Maine at Machias, is located there to help address the needs of place-bound students and the region’s educational and economic needs.”
Maine’s method of doling out financial aid directly to students (through the Finance Authority of Maine) rather than including state financial aid assistance in the system’s annual appropriation, Diamond added, also played a role in the negative ranking. Therefore, the amount of aid students receive as university funding doesn’t take into account the additional public money.
Maine is one of a few states which operates in this way, Diamond added.
System Chancellor Richard L. Pattenaude recently announced an effort to cut operating costs.
“We are in the midst of a major cost-containment effort to reduce those costs through increased use of technology and centralizing some of our common backroom services,” Diamond said.
California received a C-minus in affordability, the only state to escape an F grade.
The state did show improvement and better rankings in other areas.
Maine received a B-minus in preparation, which means the state prepares its young people for college fairly well; a C-minus in participation, indicating college opportunities for Maine residents are only fair; a C-plus in completion, which means Maine performs fairly well in awarding certificates and degrees related to the num-ber of students enrolled; and a C grade in benefits, which indicates only a fair number of residents has a bachelor’s degree.
The state either remained at the same level or showed improvement in the four latter categories.
Data for “Measuring up 2008” came from sources including the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Education. Grades reflect data from 2006 and 2007.