===== PAGE 1 ===== ## American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) 2012 Public Policy Agenda Synopsis 2012 Public Policy Principles 1. Common Good/Individual Benefits “Higher Education is a common good that provides significant benefits to individuals and society as a whole. ..” 2. Embodiment of democratic ideas “America’s public higher education system stands as an embodiment of the nation’s democratic ideals.” 3. Promised return on America's investment in Education “State colleges and universities are committed to delivering America's promise through quality 4. Accessibility “No American should be denied the opportunity to pursue higher education for lack of financial resources ..... 2012 Public Policy Priority Areas • Affordability (AFF) • Access and Completion (AC) • Accountability (ACC) • Competiveness© Some of the specific priorities include the following:
| Area | Priority |
| AFF | Baseline Pell Amount of $4,860. |
| AFF | Pell Grant amounts are based on income. |
| AFF | Make Tax Credits for college tuition permanent. |
| AFF | Exempt Pell Grants from a factor in determining the amount of the tax credit. |
| AFF | Make permanent the opportunity to transfer (up to $100K) from an IRA tax free, to charitable and other non-profit organizations. |
| AC | Direct support to public higher education institutions that enroll a high percentage of low income students. |
| AC | Increase funding to help states align P-12 and higher education curricula, standards and assessment. |
| AC | Support continued appropriation levels for Title III of the Higher Education Act. |
| AC | Support and promote the benefits provided to veterans. |
| ACC | Support the continued development of comprehensive data systems based on common data elements. |
| ACC | Hold states accountable for appropriation levels. |
| ACC | Work to devise more accurate student progress and completion measures. |
| C | Support the strengthening and funding of high-quality clinical experiences in all traditional teacher preparation programs. |
| C | Support meaningful partnerships between state and local education agencies and higher education to support teacher education. |
| C | Secure a dedicated funding stream to support reform in university-based teacher preparation. |


| Advocate for sufficient funding to sustain the value of Pell Grant awards\nby ensuring an appropriations base of\n$4,860 given the escalating demand for awards. This amount will ensure the path of predictable and continuous growth laid out by President Obama as realized through the passage of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. | In the 2010-2011 academic year, AASCU institutions enrolled over 1.4 million Pell Grant recipients who received more than $5.6 billion in Pell Grant funds. The 2011-2012 maximum Pell Grant award ($5,550) covers approximately 33 percent of the 2011-12 in-state cost of attendance at public four-year institutions ($17,131) and approximately 67 percent of in-state tuition and fees ($8,244). |

## College Savings Plans
Support state efforts to provide and sustain fiscally sound state prepaid tuition plans. Encourage states to make every effort to keep enrollment open to future enrollees.
Encourage state policy reforms of 529 savings plans to increase future savings for lower-income families. Consider "seed" funding initiatives that provide an initial contribution and/or matching monies up to a specified dollar amount. Provide greater individual protection of 529 savings plans from creditors. Urge states to extend tax benefits to families using any state's 529 plan.
## Recognition of Inflationary Pressures Impacting Higher Education
■ Encourage states to recognize the higher-than-average relative price level of the goods and services purchased by colleges and universities, and to choose appropriate inflation indexes when drafting state policy that affects tuition
pricing, state operating support
and grant aid programs. Alternative
indices to the CPI include the Higher
Education Price Index (HEPI),
administered by the Commonwealth
Institute, and the Higher Education
Inflationary costs for the typical market basket of goods purchased by higher education institutions were 2.3 percent, more than doubling between FY 2010 and FY 2011, according to the Commonfund Institute. This reversal of recent trends was driven by increases in every market basket cost factor except administrative salaries and service employee salaries.
Cost Adjustment (HECA), administered by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) association.
## Improved Transparency of Tuition Cost Changes
Urge states, coordinating boards and other agencies to improve transparency and comparability by expressing tuition changes in dollar terms as opposed to percentage terms—especially as it may relate to formal policy affecting state institutions, such as the provision of state operating support.
Reporting tuition cost changes in dollar figures rather than in percentages leads to greater transparency and clarity. For example, according to the College Board, in-state tuition and fees rose by an average of 8.3 percent in 2011-2012 at state public four-year colleges, higher than the 4.5 percent increase at the nation's private four-year not-for-profit colleges and the 3.2 increase at for-profit institutions—yet, the actual dollar increases paid by students were $631, $1,235 and $447, respectively.
===== PAGE 21 =====
## Mandated Tuition Caps
■ Discourage mandated tuition caps on state colleges and universities that are set by state legislatures. Externally imposed tuition caps may lead to decreased academic quality, reduced ability to respond to market opportunities, and reduced institutional student financial aid. Exceptions may exist in cases where state appropriations sufficiently offset losses in tuition revenues.
## Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)
Discourage efforts to amend state constitutions to place arbitrary limits on revenues and expenditures through Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABORs) or similar means. Inadequate funding of institutions of higher education penalizes students. The imposition of arbitrary limits on revenues and expenditures constrains the flexibility of state elected leaders to respond to changing needs and circumstances and to invest strategically in the state's economic future, and they have proven devastating to higher education funding.
答:根据题意,该物体的质量为 m = 100 kg (填“kg”)
已知物体质量为 m = 10 kg (填“kg”)
由题意知,物体在静止时速度为 v = 1/2 g (填“m/s”)
已知物体质量为 m = 10 kg (填“kg”)
由题意,物体在静止时速度为 v = 1/2 g (填“m/s”)
已知物体质量为 m = 10 kg (填“kg”)
由题意,物体在静止时速度为 v = 1/2 g (填“m/s”)
已知物体质量为 m = 10 kg (填“kg”)
由题意,物体在静止时速度为 v = 1/2 g (填“m/s”)
已知物体质量为 m = 10 kg (填“kg”)
===== PAGE 22 =====
# ACCESS AND COMPLETION
Access to college means ensuring that all students who wish to pursue a higher education have the opportunity to do so, regardless of their socioeconomic, demographic, geographic or academic backgrounds. It includes the opportunity to earn admittance, experience a supportive environment during their studies, and graduate from college prepared to succeed in the workplace and participate as a citizen of the world.
While state and federal governments, as well as institutions, play a role in ensuring that the path to college is as smooth as possible for all students, state and federal governments play an especially important role in ensuring equal access to college. The states and federal government, in partnership with the nation's P-12 system, have a responsibility to focus the most effective strategies for access and inclusion on the precollege years and work to reduce barriers in the transition from secondary to postsecondary education. AASCU is assisting institutions through two initiatives focused on college readiness that offer insights for policymakers.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has begun to implement changes to the Post 9/11 GI Bill Program. AASCU is actively monitoring this implementation and the effect it is having on veterans and campuses. AASCU and its member institutions continue to be asked to testify before Congress to provide observations and share perspectives. As Congress continues to revamp and review the implementation, AASCU will remain actively engaged in discussions with policymakers, advocating positive change that will reduce confusion and lead to a more simplified process.
AASCU institutions enroll significant numbers of low-income and first-generation students. Ensuring that these students are college ready is important, but just as important is having a substantially supportive environment at the postsecondary level. To this end, AASCU has historically supported institutional funding that rewards enrollment and success of this population of students.
Looking forward, Congress will be reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. AASCU will work to strengthen teacher development programs and prioritize critical applications learned from our college ready efforts in order to better prepare high school graduates not only with an understanding of curricula, but also armed with the skill sets needed to achieve college success.
===== PAGE 23 =====
# FEDERAL ROLE IN COLLEGE ACCESS AND COMPLETION AASCU POLICY STATEMENTS
## Institutional Support
Advocate for direct support to public institutions of higher education that enroll a high percentage of low-income individuals.
## K-12 and Postsecondary Education Alignment
Support funding directed toward states in their efforts to align P-12 and higher education curricula, standards and assessments to ensure that students are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in postsecondary education and the workforce.
Support state efforts in the implementation of the Common Core State Standards in mathematics and English language arts.
## Diversity and Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs)
■ Support higher education policies that ensure equal access to educational opportunities for all students.
Support continued appropriation levels for Title III of the Higher Education Act, which supports the development and strengthening of: Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Predominantly Black Institutions; American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities; Alaska Native and Hawaiian Serving Institutions, Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander
Serving Institutions; and Native American Serving Institutions.
• Advocate for sustained funding for Title V of the Higher Education Act, which supports the development and
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), between 2008-2019, college enrollment is expected to increase 7 percent for white students, 30 percent for black non-Hispanic students, 45 percent for Hispanic students, 30 percent for Asian/Pacific Islander students, and 5 percent for Native American/Alaskan Native students.
strengthening of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) in order to address the nation's changing demographics and increasing enrollments at HSIs.
===== PAGE 24 =====
## Federal Early Outreach and Student Services Programs: TRIO and GEAR UP
Protect funding for TRIO and GEAR
UP, and oppose any proposal to scale
back or eliminate any significant
component of the programs.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, in FY 2010 there were 2,962 TRIO projects, 840,863 total participants (not including TRIO Training participants), and a total funding allocation of $904,285,427 for TRIO. The FY 2011 appropriation for the Federal TRIO Programs was cut by approximately 3.1 percent for a total appropriation of $826,521,644. According to other data, two-thirds of TRIO participants come from households where neither parent graduated from college and where family income is under $30,975.
## Veteran Students, Students Called to Active Duty and Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Students
Support continued legislative changes and/or technical corrections to the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 in order to make procedures simpler and more transparent, as well as standardize benefit processing in accordance with accepted higher education practices.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 or "Post-9/11 GI 8ill" also has a Yellow Ribbon component, where institutions whose tuition and fees are higher than the base Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit (in-state tuition and fees at the most expensive public college or university in that veteran's state) can sign agreements with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to contribute up to 50 percent of tuition and fees toward the remaining cost. The VA will match up to 50 percent of the school's Yellow Ribbon contribution. According to September 2010 VA testimony, in the 2009-2010 academic year VA paid out $41.7 million under the Yellow Ribbon Program.
1
Assure that veteran students receive their full education benefit entitlement for military service, irrespective of other forms of financial assistance. Continue collaborating with appropriate stakeholders to attempt to mitigate the confusion for veteran students and increased administrative burden for institutions created by the “payer of last resort” and other amendments to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Oppose unfunded mandates imposed by the VA or Congress on institutions without regard to established higher education processes and funding streams. Tuition and fees paid by the VA defray the cost of veteran students' classroom education—as all other students' tuition and fee payments defray the cost of their classroom education. These monies cannot be diverted to other veteran support services, such as psychological counseling or veterans' centers, without jeopardizing the academic enterprise.
■ Support efforts to have school certifying officials given appropriate, secured access to VA data systems that will contain timely information on veteran students' remaining education benefit eligibility. Institutions need appropriately limited access to this data in order to better serve veteran students.
===== PAGE 25 =====


| Oppose any attempts to impose federal cost containment measures on institutions. | Public institutions of higher education in only 11 states have full independent authority to set their own tuition rates. These include Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia and Wyoming. |
| Increases in tuition at public colleges are strongly related to declines in state appropriations; that is, when state appropriations decrease, tuition and fees must be increased—sometimes significantly—to make up the shortfall. While the recession has sharply exacerbated disinvestment in state operating support for higher education on a per-student basis, enrollment is surging at many state colleges. According to College Board data, state appropriations per $1,000 of personal income dropped from $8.22 in 1990-1991 to $6.33 in 2010-2011. State funding for higher education, excluding federal stimulus funds received by states, was only $6.11 per $1,000 in personal income in 2010-2011. | |
| Encourage federal recognition of voluntary reporting structures such as the Voluntary System of Accountability. |

