Running Head: Financing Higher Education Kadell 1

Financing Higher Education

Alexandra Kadell
Cameron Beatty
EDU 723: History of Higher Education
May 7, 2017
Financing Higher Education Kadell 2

Introduction
During the 2016 Democratic primary, political candidate Bernie Sanders sparked a

nationwide conversation revolving around tuition and a debt free higher education. Gaining

popular support by thousands of students across the country, the idea of a tuition and debt free

nation has been provoked by the rising cost, lifelong debt, and unequal accessibility into higher

education institutions. While tuition continues to rise for students, states are allocating less

funding for higher education. From 2008 through 2011 43 states cut their funding for higher

education (Klein, web, 2015). If the country continues to prioritize funding elsewhere, how

could a tuition and debt free higher education prosper in our society. The complexities of funding

higher education have evolved into our current economic and political structure.

In addition, the United States historical development over time has shifted its emphasis

on funding. In order to properly understand the implementation of affordable education it is

critical that the history of higher education’s financing is explored. Beginning with the early

development of financing in the progressive era, to the impact of the great wars, and policies

made within the twenty and twenty-first centuries a historical context of financing will be

demonstrated. Furthermore, an analysis of three states, Massachusetts, Texas, and Utah as well

as the political climate we are engaged in ultimately will provide evidence to see if tuition or

debt free higher education is achievable.

Background and Concepts

Before addressing the historical concepts of funding for higher education it is essential

that an explanation of funding is articulated. The focus of the historical context will be centered

on the policies and data results within the progressive era, great wars, twentieth and twenty-first

century time frames. Note that the colonial era finances are not discussed within the paper due to
Financing Higher Education Kadell 3

the lack of resources and the complex governing issues, the divide between the colonies and

Great Britain, which has influenced our current understanding of funding for higher education.

Funding can incorporate many different avenues as well as be related to public or private

institutions. Large endowments, wealthy alumni, tax revenues or legislative votes and resources

are examples of revenues that influence an institutions financing (Yeager, Glenn, Potter,

Weidman, & Zullo, 2001). Additionally, funding can come from agencies that allocate money to

specific sectors or accrediting agencies which “influence expenditures on laboratories, libraries,

and work stations” (Cohen, 2007, p. 388). The government’s role in funding is generated through

either state legislatures who allocate money for initiatives or the federal government who provide

money for specific projects, but withdraw the funds when no longer needed (Cohen, 2007).

Overall funding in the context of this paper is loosely defined and incorporates a variety of

factors.

Progressive Era
The first establishments of higher education institutions were primarily focused on the

education of white, elite males. As institutions began to incorporate greater access, institutions

with specific specialties including grant institutions in 1862 and normal schools in 1860 began to

evolve. These types of institutions primarily focused on occupational education (Thelin, 2004).

As a result, funding policies began to be established to promote the success of the newly

established institution’s. The Hatcher Act of 1887 provided federal money to assist agricultural

college and expand their resources for agricultural research (Cohen, 2007). Over twenty-five

years later the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 was created by the federal government which allocated

funding to support home and agricultural economic program’s (Cohen, 2007). Also, established

by the federal government was the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 which provided a source of
Financing Higher Education Kadell 4

income to train vocational educational teachers (Thelin, 2004). Although, the policies were

specific towards occupational support, the progressive era started the financial aid trend that the

government could provide institutions.

The Great Wars

The World Wars that struck the global society had a monumental impact on the financing

of higher education. In 1914, the first World War throughout Europe began with the United

States joining in 1917. Twenty years after in 1939 the second World War broke out and the

United States involvement began after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Both World Wars had

devastating impact on the survival of higher education institutions. Major implications such as

tightening budget expenditures, course offering slashes, and under staffing were seen throughout

both wars (Impact of the War on Higher Education, web). Focusing on aiding money into the

war capital investments were halted or cut causing material shortages and the restructuring of

resources to occur at a variety of institution’s (Impact of the War on Higher Education).

After the first war the United States economy severely crashed causing the great

depression to ripple throughout the nation. Therefore, financial assistance for institutions from

the government were depleted. Financial support such as “foundational grants declined from 52

million in 1930 to 40 million in 1940” (Cohen, 2007, p. 164). The lack of students also caused

financial tensions to arise throughout institutions. Soldiers that were volunteering or being

drafted into the war were primarily within the age of attending college. Enrollment between 1939

– 1940 declined 78.7 percent causing institutional income to drop from 16 million to 12.7 million

(Impact of the War on Higher Education, web, p. 212).

1,728 thousand institutions were associated with the United States office of education in

1944. Within a three-year period 133 of the institutions on the list disappeared (Impact of the

War on Higher Education, web, p. 214). Although the wars produced financial hardships for
Financing Higher Education Kadell 5

many colleges and universities some institutions were able to survive. Typically, these

institutions consisted of highly endowed structures which produced war efforts. In the context of

Williams College, a large endowed private liberals arts school in Western Massachusetts “. . .

actually kept educational costs down. The national inflation rate in that decade was seventy-three

percent. . . far higher than the colleges 57 percent increase” (Thelin, 2004, p. 293). Additionally,

institutions with scientific focused explorations were allotted federal appropriations for war

related research and personal training for officers after the start of World War II (Cohen, 2007).

Institutions that were able to excel throughout the World Wars were results of specific financial

concepts and speciation’s.

After the conclusion of the second World War, institutions of higher learning grew to

popular demand. Men returning from the war now had opportunities to participate in education

due to the institutional and governmental policies. For example, military contracts granted

institutions civilian tuition money (Impact of the War on Higher Education, web). Therefore,

allowing access for veterans to receive an education. Most importantly, the establishment of the

GI bill in 1944 provided veterans an affordable option to attend a college. The bill not only

created access for individuals returning from the war, but state aid also fostered the economic

growth of institutions due to the increase of student enrollment (Thelin, 2004). Throughout the

World Wars institutions were grappled by the lack of economic assistants. Institutions that

prospered experienced new financial assistants from the government. This switch helped foster

new attitudes towards access and aid for higher education. Truman’s 1947 commissions report

showcased the necessary shift the government needed to take in order to produce affordable

tuition for all students (Thelin, 2004).

Financing Higher Education Kadell 6

Twentieth - Century
Although the executive branch placed emphasis on making higher education affordable

after the great wars the process of doing so became complexed and little implementation was

done directly after. The technological advancements to gear institutions to a new level of

management had not been created. In fact, by 1967 institutions were still using simple bank

checking accounts with a pen and notebook to manage their budgets (Thelin, 2004). In addition,

during the twentieth-century financial aid abuse by both students and the institution, cost of

education increased, and student national debt escalated (Thelin, 2004). The tuition gap between

four year private and public schools as well as colleges dramatically increased tuition causing

inflation to rise and student debt to take new meaning (Thelin, 2004). Lastly, in 1970 the

National Student Marketing Corporations stock fell from 140 dollars a share to seven dollars

(Thelin, 2004). As a result of the alarming financial situations that were beginning to occur

within higher education the government began to implement new initiatives to help stimulate

economic security for institutions and students.

The total higher education funds between 1969 – 1970 was 21. 5 trillion dollars (Thelin,

2004). Significant initiatives that aided in institutional and student benefits are programs that are

still active today. For example, in 1970 the federal government developed and implemented

work study programs and competitive research grants to financially aid students throughout their

college experience (Thelin, 2004). Another initiative was the 1964 Higher Education Act, which

was created to help establish financial support by the government. Throughout the century, the

act was amended twice. Both amendments happened in 1972, the first was the establishment of

higher education coordinating agencies whose purpose was to bridge the gap between institutions

and the federal government. While providing some federal financial support, the states would

remain a key component in the financial support for institutions (Thelin, 2004). As well, the Pell
Financing Higher Education Kadell 7

Grant amendment was added to the act in order to provide students educational opportunities. In

the 1990’s “. . . the program served about 3 million students, with awards totaling $4 billion, per

year ($5.2 billion in 2000 dollars). In 1997-98 the figure has increased to 3.8 million students,

with total funding of $3.8 billion ($4 billion in 2000 dollars)” (Thelin, 2004, p. 325). What was

unique about the Pell Grant incentives is that it is awarded to the individual student not the

institutions. Therefore, if students meet the requirements they can choose which institution they

would like to attend (Thelin, 2004).

Even though the state and federal governments were passing legislation that boosted

higher education funding and the pressures to limit tuition from rising, it was still critical that

institutions restructure their process of accumulating funding. Therefore, new efforts such as

fundraising and grant acquisition were established at institutions to increase their endowments

and overall budgets (Thelin, 2004). Furthermore, some institutions began to privatize as well as

readjust their admission standards to generate revenue (Thelin, 2004). The governments

emphasis on helping students financially forced institutions to consider new and creative ways to

manage their budgets. These newly formed concepts have expanded further and has become an

implemented norm within our current funding for higher education.

Twenty First - Century

The complexities of funding for higher education during the twentieth-century cultivated

our current structure of funding higher education. Taking aspects of funding from the twentieth-

century and expanded the policies or initiatives has provided some creative solutions for students

and institutions to gain financial support. However, the attention to new funding initiatives

within institutions and the increase of staff and administrative positions has produced both

beneficial and negative implications. The lingering federal and state budget cuts and student debt

continues to impact the financial situations of institutions and the students who attend. Overall,
Financing Higher Education Kadell 8

the political advocacy on behalf of higher education has evolved into a necessity for the daily

operations of institutions.

State funding for higher education was greater before the start of World War I then the

start of the twenty-first century. In 1914 state governments allocated 75 percent of the operating

budget compared to the 19 percent in 2001 (Thelin, 2004). Similar to the past experiences within

the United States history due to the trend of depleting funding resources new institutional

incentives were created to expand their budgets. For example, on campuses that have large

athletic presence the institution can have the authority to make the athletic association pay rent

on facilities that are university property. Additionally, institutions were able to charge the

athletic associations for using their logo or mascot (Thelin, 2004). Although a small incentive,

the profit that institutions produces through charging the athletic association provides a steady

income in the uncertain financial climate of our society.

Likewise, the development of performance funding was being established at many

institutions. Performance funding is based off of the performance and persistence of an

institution through credit accrual and college completions, rather than the traditional funding of

institutions (Dougherty, Jones, Lahr, Natow, Pheatt & Reddy, 2016). However, performance

funding is not always fluid and can change due to the lack of enrollment, policy implementation,

and universities mission (Dougherty et al., 2016). Overall, the creation of performance funding

incentivizes institutions and ensures economic benefits.

Although institutions nation-wide were implementing funding initiatives in response to

the governments lack of support and the rise of student debt, the restructuring and business

mentality of institutions has also negatively impacted funding. It is critical to recognize that the

institutions decisions directly influence tuition and funding. A larger emphasis on creating a
Financing Higher Education Kadell 9

meaningful experience for all students beyond the classroom has evolved into the various

support services and offices on campus. To support these services and provide student

development funding is necessary to implement programing, resources, and labor. Throughout

the past two decades’ administrative positions nearly doubled faculty (Thelin, 2004). The

creation of new administrative positions led to salaries needing to be paid. As a result of the

dramatic increase of institutions expenditures, student tuition increased.

Another constraint that institutions were participating in and sill are, is within the

admissions process of students. A shift in undergraduate admissions offices caused a change in

“. . . financial aid offerings from need-based aid to merit scholarships, justified on the grounds

that colleges ought to be able to participate in the talent hunt for new students” (Thelin, 2004, p.

392). Through this process institutions are able to award full time scholarship opportunities to

students whose talents surpass their peers. However, in many situations the students being

awarded full time scholarships are already connected to wealthy families who can afford higher

education (Thelin, 2004). The substantial financial support is problematic because it reinforces

students with low socioeconomic statuses to continue in the trend of debt and unequal access to

education.

Although, individual institutions are partially responsible for the economic difficulties

many colleges and universities presidents blamed the state and federal government for their lack

of support in this issue (Thelin, 2004). Despite of these frustrations, throughout the twenty first

century several policies were enacted to assist higher education’s finances. In 2008, congress

passed the Ensuring Continued Access to student Loans Act which granted the United States

Department of Education the authority to buy and increase limits of unsubsidized Stafford loans

(FinAid, web, 2017). In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was established
Financing Higher Education Kadell 10

and “. . . provided 151 billion in flexible emergency funding to state governments between the

fiscal years 2009 and 2011” (Klein, web, 2015). In addition, the federal government was

engaging in grants competition which created new revenue streams for institutions operating

budgets (Thelin, 2004). Furthermore, the legislation of these acts was to aid in the financial

assistants for institutions throughout individual states and across the country. However, the

longevity and applicability of these political incentives were not secured for all institutions. With

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2012 the funds were depleted in turn creating

budget crises (Klein, web, 2015). As well the federal government competition grants were only

allocated to a small collection top federal research universities. Therefore, the access for a

variety of institutions was limited and involvement was risky as well as expensive (Thelin,

2004).

State Analysis
The historical context of the development of funding for higher education from the

progressive era to the early twenty first – century provides a foundation for understanding the

trends, complexities, and the emphasis of an affordable education our society instills as we

progress further. It is evident that the implementation of a variety of legislation can affect the

financial situations across institutional types, states, and nationally. Henceforth the importance of

analyzing the current policies and structures of funding higher education at three different states

and how it would influence institutions of higher learning. This section will dive deeper into the

higher education funding of Massachusetts, Texas and Utah in order to better understand the

current financing structures that are emplaced and if a tuition free higher education is obtainable.

Massachusetts is the largest educated population throughout the country. During the 2016

fiscal year, the department of higher education’s budget was 151,113,334 dollars with 8,097,235

dollars for federal grant spending (Mass.gov, web, 2016). However, throughout the decade
Financing Higher Education Kadell 11

public institutions have increasingly become more expensive. Between 2002 and 2013

approximately 335 million dollars of public support was cut by Massachusetts (Schuster &

Jones, 2015). Additionally, the state has also cut spending per student by 31 percent since 2001

(Schuster, web, 2016). The devastating cuts on funding has caused a trickledown effect to occur

throughout the state. Students who attend institutions within Massachusetts tend to stay in the

state. However, as a result of the financial cuts, tuition and fees for institutions has spiked. More

specifically, “student loans have increased from 54 percent in 2001 to 75 percent in 2014”

(Schuster, web, 2016). This relationship causes several implications on the greater economic

structure of Massachusetts. Although, graduating students are consumers within the society they

are not contributing their earnings because of the financial commitments they have towards their

loans. Lastly, in 2008 the Massachusetts legislature enacted a 2.2 million dollar capital

investment which allocated funds to modify current and launch new buildings on campuses

throughout the state. Even though the distribution of finances was established, Massachusetts

still ranks as one of the lowest states in capital investment (Schuster, web, 2016). Overall, even

though Massachusetts is the leading state in education and the benefits of having an educated

population are present, the financial assistance from the state is not reflective in supporting

higher learning.

By 2030 Texas aspires to have 60 percent of its residents earn a certificate or degree

(Texas Higher Education Data, web, 2017). With such a push for educating the population

funding is necessary in order to create the opportunity for Texans to attend college. Through the

60X30 Higher Education plan the state legislature allocated a 3.3 billion dollar grant to fund

crucial fields and aid low income students (Texas Higher Education Data, web, 2017).

Institutions throughout the state primarily obtain funding for infrastructure, student services,
Financing Higher Education Kadell 12

administration, employee benefits, capital equipment and special items through the state’s

legislative appropriations (Legislative Budget Board, 2013). During the fiscal year 2013, “$7.7

billion in General Revenue Funds and $1.3 billion in general Revenue-Dedicated Funds.

Including in this amount are an increase $392.5 million in General Revenue Funds and an

increase $56.2 million in statutory tuition in General Revenue-Dedicated Funds” were provided

to financially support higher education (Legislative Budget Board, 2013, p. 1). The revenue

funds provide essential funding for institutions and students to utilize. Additionally, to encourage

institutions to use funds from the revenues the General Appropriations Act (GAA) was

established for institutions to use at their discretion (Legislative Budget Board, 2013). Although,

Texas has created initiatives to assist funding cuts have been made. From the fiscal year 2014 –

2015 to the current year the total funding decreased by 1.0 million dollars (Legislative Budget

Board, 2013). Much like Massachusetts, Texas is creating legislative policies on funding higher

education. Although more emphasis could be placed on increasing funding from the state, it is

imperative that the efforts Texas has done and continues to do is acknowledged.

According to the national average Utah is 14 percent below, making the state the third

lowest tuition and fee systems. Utah legislatures give this success to the increase in state

appropriation funding that was implemented to support Utah Systems of Higher Education (Utah

System of Higher Education, web, 2016). However, analyzing deeper, institutions and students

attending the institutions are still routinely underfunded. Before the recession of 2008, the Utah

Systems were underfunded by 18.9 percent and continue to be ranked 9 percent below the

national average (Utah System of Higher Education, web, 2016). Similar to students within

Massachusetts and Texas, after the recession institutions began to increase tuition in order to

compensate for the lack of federal and state aid. In the case of students attending institutions in
Financing Higher Education Kadell 13

Utah tuition increased by 1,723 dollars for four year institutions (State Higher Education

Executive Officers Association, web, 2015). Along with institutional tuition raises the state has

cut over 1,200 dollars per student funding (State Higher Education Executive Officers

Association, web, 2015). As our economy has transitioned to a more stable situation the state

legislature still has yet to put more emphasis on funding higher education and the students

attending. Overall creating a divide that limits the access for students to attend institutions within

Utah as well as create financial strains on the institution. There is a clear disconnect between the

state legislature of Utah and the Utah University system. The discrepancies may be a result of the

state legislature only being able to see specific aspects of an institutions budget such as

appropriation bills (Utah State Legislature, 2015). The state legislatures who are the allocators

and policy makers for funding cannot fully comprehend the economic situations of institutions

by seeing the surface level. In order for the legislature to truly support funding initiatives

restructuring and transparency between the state and the Utah Higher Education system needs to

be implemented. Although, Utah system had evident flaws with prioritizing funding for higher

education, its situation is not completely unique. Throughout the country states are cutting

funding, institutions raising tuition, and overall leading to student debt escalating.

What would it take?

As seen throughout the history of funding higher education and the analysis of three

current state structures of funding the priority of funding for education is significantly decreasing

every year. Therefore, as our society is wrapped around the political idea of a tuition free higher

education, politicians, institutions, and individual students need to consider if the concept is

tangible. By comparing the potential benefits as well as disclosing the limitations provides a

surface level answer to the question at hand.

Financing Higher Education Kadell 14

The growing popularity surrounding a tuition free United States higher education system,

was not all due to Bernie Sanders political campaign. After years of tuition increases, state and

federal budget cuts, and a spike in student debt the opportunities for individuals to gain an

affordable education is no longer obtainable. Therefore, causing limited access for all to attend

institutions of higher learning. However, as a society, we have reaped the benefits of having

large educated population in our society. Having a highly-educated population fosters a society

that is productive, civically engaged and more democratic. (Schuster & Jones, 2015).

Nevertheless, the high-costing education reduces the accessibility for individuals to attend

college which ultimately infringes on the social benefits of education. As well the economic

increase that could occur by producing an affordable education is monumental to state and

national debt. Specifically, for Massachusetts, individuals who graduate from four year

institutions make about 21 thousand dollars more than those who obtained a two year or high

school degree (Schuster & Jones, 2015). As a result, higher incomes produce higher tax revenues

and consumer buying would increase by 2.81 billion dollars, ultimately encouraging a healthy

economy to develop. However, the rise of debt and commitment to pay them off restricts this

economic boost from occurring. Creating tuition free initiatives would provide access, produce

productive and educated members of our society, and overall stimulate the United States

economy.

Although creating a tuition free higher education could generate both social and

economic benefits it is essential that the logistics and implications of how its effects could

impact our society are addressed. If an initiative within Massachusetts was established to abolish

tuition and fees for in state students attending any institution type it would take approximately

631 million dollars a year (Schuster & Jones, 2015). In order for institutions to survive the
Financing Higher Education Kadell 15

money that would have been paid by students needs to be covered by the state. However, due to

economic restraints throughout the nation states have been increasingly cutting their budgets and

do not have the revenue for a massive expenditure such as the example in Massachusetts. A

solution that some politicians have advocated for is the reallocation of money from other

subsided programs. On July 24, 2014, the United States Senate debated on the issue of creating

an affordable education for students. The key points from this discussion were that senators

agreed that funding for higher education by states has decreased dramatically. About 30 percent

of an institution’s budgets are comprised of state aid while the other 70 percent is paid by the

student (Klein, web, 2015). However, the senate could not agree on how to provide financial

support in order to reduce student expenditures. The conversation geared towards reallocating

funds from other programs such as the Affordable Care Act. Programs, such as Medicaid helps

provide low income families and individuals with disabilities equal access to health care. If

legislation stripped money from programs such as the Affordable Care Act, many individuals

who utilize these services would be at risk (Klein, web, 2015). The economic balance, political

association, and logistics are heavily intertwined and critical to why our greater society has not

progressed with a tuition free society.

Despite potential setbacks, On April 11, 2017, the New York legislature passed The

Excelsior Scholarship which is a tuition- free degree program that will provide more than

940,000 middle class family in New York the opportunity to attend any CUNY or SUNY school

tuition free in the 2018 fiscal year (New York State, web, 2017). Within SUNY institutions, it is

estimated that over 80,000 students and close to 5,000 students in the CUNY system would

benefit from this program (Chen, 2017). In order to qualify for the program students must be

enrolled full time, be a current resident of New York, have a household income that is less than
Financing Higher Education Kadell 16

125,000 dollars, as well as live and work in New York State for however long the student is a

part of the program (New York State, web, 2017). However, if a student breaks the requirements

of the scholarship they are responsible for paying the money back. (Chen, 2017). During the

fiscal year of 2016, New York spent around 10.7 billion dollars on higher education and

collectively this scholarship would annually cost New York approximately 163 million dollars

(Seltzer, web, 2017). The Excelsior Scholarship will be implemented for the fall of 2017 and will

continue for three years, therefore the effects of this initiative will not be seen until the full cycle

is completed. Although, New York State is being criticized for the stipulations of the scholarship

New York is also being commended for its efforts in making college affordable and accessible to

its citizens.

Conclusion
Overall the history of funding higher education has been long and complex. Each

century brought new policies and has shaped the current funding structure of higher education

today. The Bernie Sanders movement brought light to the economic situations institutions and

students are experiencing throughout the nation. The positive social and economic outcomes

along with its limitations needs to be evaluated before longitudinal policies are enacted to create

a tuition free society. Generally, a greater financial emphasis needs to be instilled in order to

help lower the cost of education, but the total elimination of tuition may not generate the type of

outcomes that impact all who live in our nation. As student affairs practitioners, it is essential

that we have a foundational knowledge of the history of funding for higher education and the

current shifts that are effecting our campus communities and individual students.
 Financing Higher Education Kadell 17

Reference Page
Chen, D.W. (2017). New York’s free-tuition program will help traditional, but not typical, students. The

New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/nyregion/new-yorks-

free-tuition-program-will-help-traditional-but-not-typical-students.html

Cohen, A. M. (2007). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth of the

contemporary system. John Wiley & Sons.

Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., Natow, R. S., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2016). Performance

funding for higher education. JHU Press.

FinAid. History of Student Financial Aid. (2017). Retrieved from

http://www.finaid.org/educators/history.phtml

Impact of the war. Higher Education Colleges and Universities in World War II. Retrieved from

https://www.depts.ttu.edu/education/our-

people/Faculty/additional_pages/duemer/epsy_5314_class_materials/Impact-of-the-war-on-

higher-education.pdf

Klein, M.W. (2015). Setting a U.S senatorial debate: Understanding declines in state higher education

funding. Journal of Education Finance, 41(1) Retrieved from

http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2094/login?gwurl=http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2090/ps/i.do?p=I

TOF&sw=w&u=mlin_n_state&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA439632963&asid=33af2207d07ce

5bd5615fe492814a06c

Legislative Budget Board. (2013). Financing Public Higher Education in Texas. Retrieved from:

http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Publications/Primer/3148_Financing_Public_Higher_Ed_

Texas_Aug_2016.pdf

Mass.gov. (2016). Department of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://www.mass.gov/bb/gaa/fy2016/app_16/dpt_16/hrgt.htm
 Financing Higher Education Kadell 18

New York State. (2017). Tuition-free degree program: The Excelsior Scholarship. Retrieved from

https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-excelsior-scholarship

Schuster, L. (2016). In 16 charts: Higher education funding in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Budget and

Policy Center. Retrieved from http://massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=higher-education-

funding-in-massachusetts.html

Schuster, L., & Jones, C. (2015). Debt-Free Public Higher Education: What Would It Take?.

Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. Retrieved from

http://www.massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=Debt-Free_Public_Higher_Education.html

Seltzer, R. (2017). Free tuition idea revived. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/04/new-yorks-tuition-free-plan-sparks-debate

State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. (2015). Cuts to Utah’s higher education system

jeopardize our economic future. Illinois State University. Retrieved from:

http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/sfp_highered_ut.pdf

Texas: Higher education data. (2017). Retrieved from:

http://www.txhighereddata.org/generatelinks.cfm?User=PolicyMakers

Thelin, J.R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins

University Press.

Utah State Legislature. (2015). Higher education tuition and state tax funding. Retrieved from:

http://le.utah.gov/interim/2015/pdf/00000074.pdf

Utah System of Higher Education. (2016). USHE annual report 2015 – 2016: Funding higher education.

Retrieved from: https://higheredutah.org/reports/utah-system-of-higher-education-2015-2016-

annual-report/ushe-strategic-plan-2015-2016-funding-higher-education/
 Financing Higher Education Kadell 19

Yeager, J. L., Glenn, N. M., Potter, E. A., Weidman, J. C., Zullo, T. G. (2001). ASHE reader on:

Finance in higher education. Pearson Custom Publishing.