Luận án: Phân tích định lượng về giảm học phí trong giáo dục đại học tư thục

DISSERTATION APPROVED BY 11 \,^^t 1^t) Date Timotþ Guetterman, Ph., Chair Lucie Lapovsþ, Ph., Committee Member J Moss Breen, Ph., Dean TUITION REDUCTIONS: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PREVALENCE, CIRCUMSTANCES AND OUTCOMES OF AN EMERGING PRICING STRATEGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION ___________________________________ By SARAH KOTTICH ___________________________________ A DISSERTATION IN PRACTICE Submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of Creighton University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Interdisciplinary Leadership _________________________________ Omaha, NE September 27, 2017 Copyright 2017, Sarah Kottich This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no part of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. iii Abstract This study analyzed tuition reductions in the private not-for-profit sector of higher education, utilizing a quantitative descriptive and correlational approach with secondary data analysis. It resulted in a listing of 45 institutions with verified tuition reductions from 2007 to 2017, more than previously thought.

It found that the characteristics of these institutions tended to correlate with the rest of the sector, with the exception that tuition reducers tended to serve higher proportions of students with high financial need, to have smaller endowments, and were more likely to be religiously affiliated. The study found that the operational outcomes of tuition reducing institutions in the year of the tuition reduction tended to be positive for students (improving retention, lowering average annual student loans, and lowering net price). The results for institutions varied with approximately half increasing new student enrollment and net tuition revenue in the year of the change. It was found that religiously affiliated tuition reducing institutions had higher retention rates than non-religiously affiliated.

Additionally, institutions with stronger financial health prior to the reduction were more likely to increase net tuition revenue following the pricing change, then their tuition reducing counterparts with lower financial health. The study is significant because it provides higher education leaders and policy makers with a greater understanding of tuition reductions over the last decade. It also provides a decision framework for higher education leaders considering if a tuition reduction strategy is appropriate for their institution, and a plan for continuing to disseminate research about tuition reductions to help fill the void that existed about this topic prior to the study. iv Keywords: access to education, affordability of education, college administration, financial aid, higher education, higher education finance, higher education policy, pricing policy, student debt, tuition, tuition reduction, tuition reset, tuition setting, tuition trends, university administration v Dedication This study is dedicated to my loving family.

Rich, you are my rock. Zach, Carlie, and Sadie, you are my joy and greatest accomplishments. Mom, Dad, John and Bridget, you are my pep squad. Thank you for the patience, support, and encouragement you have shared with me throughout this journey.

vi Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the support and wisdom of the following people: - Dr. Maryanne Stevens, RSM, my mentor for the last decade, for believing in me. - The College of Saint Mary Board of Directors, for having the wisdom and courage to reduce tuition for our students. Tim Guetterman, my wise and patient dissertation chair.

Lucie Lapovsky, for challenging me and sharing her tuition strategy expertise as a member of my dissertation committee. - Bill LeClaire, partner at CliftonLarsonAllen and his team for providing composite financial index calculations. Laura Casamento and Dr. Eric LaMott for sharing their expertise after leading tuition reductions at Utica College and Concordia University, Saint Paul respectively.

- Phil Tahey, for assisting in analysis design for assessing institutional financial health and outcomes in this study. - My colleagues at College of Saint Mary, especially Kim Savicky, Bridgette Renbarger, Beth Sisk, Carolyn Ziemann, Sarah Marie Livingston, Sara Nordquist- Davis and Jessica Hochstein who took on additional responsibilities to lighten my load. Titus, for opening my door into higher education administration. - My friends, especially Nicki Coco-Schlenker and Kristen Combs Bicaba, who have provided me with laughter along the way.

vii Table of Contents Page Abstract. vi Table of Contents. vii List of Tables .x List of Figures. xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .1 Introduction and Background .1 Statement of the Problem .2 Purpose of the Study .3 Aim of the Study .4 Definition of Relevant Terms .6 Delimitations and Limitations.12 Leader’s Role and Responsibility in Relation to the Problem .13 Significance of the Study .14 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .15 The Sectors of the Higher Education Industry.15 Higher Education Price by Sector .16 Historical Pricing Trends .19 Forecasted Trends in Net Tuition Revenue .21 The Value of Higher Education .22 Likelihood of Degree Completion .23 viii Perception of Price .23 Perception of Value and Affordability.23 Impact of Family Income on College Attendance .24 Higher Education Pricing Strategies .26 Potential Advantages of Reducing Tuition .27 Potential Risks of Reducing Tuition .29 Advice to Those Considering a Tuition Reduction.33 The Need for a Comprehensive Analysis of Institutions Reducing Tuition .38 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .53 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .54 Results of Phase One .55 Tuition Reducing Institutions from 2007 to 2017.55 Prevalence by Year for the Last Decade .57 Magnitude of Tuition Reductions .58 Results of Phase Two .60 Proportion of Transfer Students .61 Proportion of Students with High Financial Need .63 ix Religious Affiliation .65 Results of Phase Three .67 Increasing or Maintaining Enrollment .67 Improving Student Affordability .73 Improving Student Access .78 Improving Institutional Financial Health .81 Summary of Phase Three .82 Results of Phase Four.84 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .86 Purpose of the Study .86 Aim of the Study .86 Summary and Significance of Findings .95 Implementation of Recommendations .100 Implications for Future Research .100 Summary of the Study .128 x List of Tables Page Table 1.

Average Published and Net Prices and Total Grant Aid per Full-Time Undergraduate Student for 2016-17 by Sector (CollegeBoard, 2016a). Summary of Results of the Verification Process of Phase One. Department of Education (n.) Fields Utilized in Phase Two. Possible Motivations for Reducing Tuition and Success Outcomes for Phase Three.

Tuition Reducing Institutions Verified in Phase One. Strategies for Composite Financial Index Scores (Tahey, et al, 2016), used in Figure 11. Operational Outcomes of Tuition Reducing Institutions Relative to the Sector. Characteristics of Tuition Reducing Institutions Relative to the Sector.

Decision Framework for Leaders Considering a Tuition Reduction .97 xi List of Figures Page Figure 1. Average published tuition and fees, grant aid and tax benefit, and net tuition and fees by sector for 1996/97 and 2016/17. Number of verified tuition reductions from 2007 to 2017, as identified in phase one of this study, by year. Magnitude of annual in-state tuition percentage decrease of 45 tuition reducing institutions between 2007 and 2017 validated in phase one of this study, with the maximum, minimum, and median labeled.

Magnitude of annual in-state tuition dollar decrease of 45 tuition reducing institutions between 2007 and 2017 validated in phase one of this study, with the maximum, minimum, and median labeled. Distribution by enrollment size of 45 tuition reducing institutions from 2007 to 2017 compared to the private not-for-profit sector in 2015. Distribution by geographic region of 45 tuition reducing institutions from 2007 to 2017 compared to the private not-for-profit sector in 2015. Distribution by proportion of new full-time undergraduates which were transfers of 45 tuition reducing institutions from 2007 to 2017 compared to the private not-for-profit sector in 2015.

Distribution by proportion of full-time undergraduates awarded Pell grants of 45 tuition reducing institutions from 2007 to 2017 compared to the private not- for-profit sector in 2014. Distribution by endowment size of 45 tuition reducing institutions from 2007 to 2017 compared to the private not-for-profit sector in 2015. Distribution by religious affiliation of 45 tuition reducing institutions from 2007 to 2017 compared to the private not-for-profit sector in 2015. Composite financial index in the year prior to a tuition reduction for 29 private not-for-profit tuition reducing institutions from 2011 to 2015, with suggested strategies as described in Table 6.

Changes in new full-time undergraduates for 34 tuition reducing institutions from 2011 to 2015 compared to the private not-for-profit sector for the same timeframe. Median percentage increase in new full-time undergraduates for 17 tuition reducing institutions with increases in this outcome from 2011 to 2015 compared to the private not-for-profit sector institutions with enrollment increases for the same timeframe. Median percentage increase in new full-time undergraduates for 17 tuition reducing institutions with increases in this outcome from 2011 to 2015 compared to the private not-for-profit sector institutions with enrollment decreases for the same timeframe. Changes in retention for 34 tuition reducing institutions from 2011 to 2015 compared to the private not-for-profit sector for the same timeframe.

Median percentage increase in retention for 25 tuition reducing institutions with increases in this outcome from 2011 to 2015 compared to the private not-for- profit sector institutions with retention increases for the same timeframe. Median percentage decrease in retention for nine tuition reducing institutions with decreases in this outcome from 2011 to 2015 compared to the private not- for-profit sector institutions with retention decreases for the same timeframe. Changes in net price for full-time first-time undergraduates for 24 tuition reducing institutions from 2011 to 2014 compared to the private not-for-profit sector for the same timeframe. Median percentage increase in net price for first-time full-time undergraduates for six tuition reducing institutions with increases in this outcome from 2011 to 2014 compared to the private not-for-profit sector institutions with net price increases for the same timeframe.

Median percentage decrease in net price for first-time full-time undergraduates for 18 tuition reducing institutions with decreases in this outcome from 2011 to 2014 compared to the private not-for-profit sector institutions with net price decreases for the same timeframe. Changes in average annual student loans for 23 tuition reducing institutions from 2011 to 2014 compared to the private not-for-profit sector for the same timeframe. Median percentage increase in average annual student loans for nine tuition reducing institutions with increases in this outcome from 2011 to 2014 compared to the private not-for-profit sector institutions with increases in average loans for the same timeframe. Median percentage decrease in average annual student loans for 14 tuition reducing institutions with decreases in this outcome from 2011 to 2014 compared to the private not-for-profit sector institutions with decreases in average loans for the same timeframe.

Changes in the percentage of undergraduates awarded Pell grants for 25 tuition reducing institutions from 2011 to 2014 compared to the private not-for-profit sector for the same timeframe. Median percentage increase in the percentage of undergraduates awarded Pell grants for 11 tuition reducing institutions with increases in this outcome from 2011 to 2014 compared to the private not-for-profit sector institutions with Pell increases for the same timeframe. Median percentage decrease in the percentage of undergraduates awarded Pell grants for 14 tuition reducing institutions with decreases in this outcome from 2011 to 2014 compared to the private not-for-profit sector institutions with Pell decreases for the same timeframe. Changes in net tuition revenue from the year prior to versus the year of a tuition reduction for 17 private not-for-profit institutions from 2013 to 2015.

Summary of results of phase four assessing correlation in individual operational outcomes in the year of a tuition reduction as grouped by institutional characteristics. private not-for-profit institutions which reduced in-state tuition for full-time first-time undergraduates from 2007 to 2017, previously published by NAICU (n.d) and added through this study. Operating outcomes of tuition reducing institutions relative to the sector. Distribution of 34 private not-for-profit tuition reducing institutions from 2011 to 2015 by religious affiliation and change in full-time first-time retention in the year of the pricing change .