Presidential Hopefuls Are Pushing Free College Back Into the Spotlight. But What Does ‘Free’ Mean, Anyway?

When U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar told a young town-hall participant on CNN that she couldn’t get behind four years of free college for all, the news quickly spread. The Democratic presidential contender was breaking ranks with her party and voting “no” on free college tuition, the headlines read.

Well, not exactly. The Minnesota Democrat, who has carved out a position as a centrist, was rejecting the four-year version championed by the progressive wing of her party — most notably, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont. But she supports the more limited kind of free-college proposal President Barack Obama promoted, which would have covered two years of community-college tuition.

The free-college movement, which was largely pushed outside the beltway after President Trump was elected, is once again making headlines as the nation grapples with student-loan debt that has ballooned to more than $1.5 trillion.

But it’s also creating confusion as presidential hopefuls stake out their positions and state and local politicians unveil their own plans. That’s because the proposals, like their sponsors, are all over the map, varying widely in scope, strings attached, and even the definition of free.

Supporters and skeptics from the right and left are scrutinizing the plans for evidence that they’re reaching the people who need them most without saddling taxpayers with unreasonable costs.

Those same questions are being raised on a national level with the reintroduction earlier this month of the Debt-Free College Act by two Democrats: Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin. The federal-state partnership would match states’ investments if they agree to help students pay for the full cost of attending either a two- or four-year college.

An earlier version of the same measure died in committee when the Republicans held majorities in both chambers. Even with Democrats controlling the House this time around, the expansive — and expensive — program faces long odds of passing.

Many of the primary presidential candidates have yet to unveil their college-affordability proposals, but their past statements and recent endorsements make it clear that some version of free college will be prominent in their platforms.

Among the Democratic presidential candidates who co-sponsored the Debt-Free College Act are Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Free tuition and fees at public colleges and universities was a centerpiece of Sanders’s earlier presidential campaign.

Klobuchar said she wants to make college more affordable by creating easier ways to refinance loans, and make up to two years of community or technical college tuition-free.

“I am not for free four-year college for all, no,” Klobuchar said, when pressed, at last month’s town hall. “I wish — if I was a magic genie and could give that to everyone and we could afford it, I would.”

Underlying the concerns about affordability and equity lies a central question: What does free college mean, and who benefits? To cut through some of the confusion, here’s a look at some key points that are sparking debate.

Much of the money under current proposals ends up going to middle- and upper-income students, rather than the low-income students who need it most.

A report last year by the Education Trust, a nonprofit that works to close opportunity gaps in education, found that many free-college programs are not designed to benefit low-income students. One reason, it says, is that many, including programs in New York and Tennessee, use a “last dollar” approach. That means tuition is covered only after other aid has been applied.

“Students from low-income families attending community colleges can typically afford tuition with help of the Pell Grant, so they don’t benefit from statewide free college programs designed to cover only the cost of tuition,” Katie Berger, a former senior higher-education policy analyst, wrote. “However, these students still cannot afford college because they struggle with non-tuition costs, such as books, housing, and transportation.”

“First dollar” awards, like those used in some Indiana and Louisiana programs, aren’t reduced when students receive other grants, so the extra money can be used to cover housing, meals, books, and other expenses.

That can make a big difference because tuition only makes up 20 percent of the cost of attendance for the average community-college student, according to the Education Trust report, which was based on an analysis of 15 existing and 16 proposed statewide programs.

An equitable approach, the group argues, would allow students to use the money at four-year colleges, rather than making community colleges the only affordable options for low-income students. Two-year programs, it argues, have lower graduation rates and higher loan-default rates, and are already filled with disproportionate numbers of low-income and minority students.

“Students are making choices based on what they can afford,” said Tiffany Jones, director of higher-education policy for the Education Trust. “Let’s make sure we’re being thoughtful and strategic and addressing racial-equity issues at the forefront. We don’t want to look back on these big moments and say we’ve really missed the mark on equity.”

In Missouri, for instance, black residents make up about 12 percent of the state population but only 2 percent of those receiving free tuition, Jones said. That’s because minority students are more likely to have Pell Grants that cover tuition, so most of the state’s “free” money ends up going to middle- and upper-income students. More than a third of Missouri’s free-college recipients were from families earning more than $100,000, the report notes.

Another analysis of free-college programs in Tennessee and New York — this one by the Institute for Higher Education Policy — also concluded that free college is failing low-income students. It found that too much money is going to students with the means to pay for college.

Sara Goldrick-Rab, a professor of higher-education policy and sociology at Temple University and a major proponent of free community college, rejects the idea that extending free tuition to all will end up benefiting the wrong people.

For one thing, she said, wealthy people generally don’t go to community colleges, and the middle-class students who do also need help. And while she understands the push to extend free tuition to four-year colleges, proposals focused on community colleges stand the best chance of getting the needed financial support, she said.

“We’re trying to balance equity with pragmatic, political reality,” Goldrick-Rab said.

Offering free college to everyone could open the floodgates to marginally motivated students without the money colleges need to help them succeed.

John Mullane, who started an advocacy group called College Transfer Solutions, is fighting current proposals to offer free tuition to community colleges in Connecticut, saying the focus should be on supporting and retaining the students they already have.

With financial aid, he said, community college is already free for low-income students, but the problem is, few of them graduate or transfer to four-year colleges. That’s partly because so many of their credits fall through the cracks. Mullane is a counselor at Gateway Community College but said he’s speaking in his role with his advocacy group and not for the college.

“We’re thinking about spending millions of dollars to bring in more students when we should be focusing on getting students through so they can graduate or transfer to a four-year college,” he said.

While states with free tuition have touted their successes in bringing more students in, it’s too early, in most cases, to see how many will make it to graduation.

Four-year colleges could suffer further enrollment declines if free tuition is offered only at community colleges.

“The regional four-year colleges would be on the front lines of free community college bills,” said Thomas L. Harnisch, director of state relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

“The flagship universities have pretty strong demand because of their brand names,” he said, but that isn’t always the case with regional campuses, many of which are located in rural areas and already suffering from declining enrollment and state budget cuts.

“If significantly higher numbers of students attend a community college instead of a four-year college, that could weaken the four-year college funding model,” Harnisch added. Here’s why. Lower-division classes that pack hundreds of students into a lecture hall with a single professor are relatively inexpensive to offer. They often subsidize the cost of more expensive upper-division and lab-based courses, Harnisch said. Enrollment in many of those large lecture classes has already taken a hit as high-school students load up on dual-credit classes that allow them to bypass introductory courses in college.

Despite such risks, it’s becoming clear that 12 years of public schooling is no longer enough to land a decent job.

In today’s economy, as one expert contends, 14 is the new 12.

President Barack Obama, in his 2015 State of the Union address, pledged to make two years of college “as free and universal in America as high school is today.” His free-college idea went nowhere in a Republican-controlled Congress but helped stimulate a lot of activity in states and local communities.

There are now more than 300 free-college programs in 44 states, with statewide efforts in at last 23, according to a report by the public-policy group Civic Nation.

Several cities, including San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and New Haven, offer their own free-tuition programs.

Not everyone needs a four-year, or even a two-year degree, many argue. But a job that pays enough to support a family is likely to require some kind of training, certification, or other credentials beyond high school. Recent studies bear out that the gap between the credentials employers are demanding and the postsecondary education students are receiving remains wide.

By 2020, 65 percent of all jobs will require education and training beyond high school — up from 28 percent in 1973, according to Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce.

However, only 48 percent of American adults between 25 and 64 have a college degree or certificate, according to a report by the Lumina Foundation.

Fans of free tuition say that if jobs require postsecondary education, everyone should feel that it’s attainable. But others smell the danger of credential creep. Would making two years of college free give employers an excuse to demand ever-greater credentials for the same job? Will the executive assistant whose job used to require a high-school diploma now need a bachelor’s degree?

“I think we already had evidence of employers increasingly requiring degrees for jobs without a lot of evidence that what you need to know or do for the job has changed,” said Neal P. McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

But the message free tuition sends to students — that education past high school is affordable and necessary — outweighs any such risks, proponents say.

Students may be set up for disappointment when “free” has too many strings attached.

Even as free-college proposals are becoming bolder on the presidential campaign trail, most states that are considering plans now are tailoring them more narrowly, said Sarah Pingel, a senior policy analyst at Education Commission of the States, a policy think tank.

More states are limiting free tuition to fields where employers are having trouble hiring workers. Some have income caps for participation and require minimum grade-point averages or full-time attendance. Some, like West Virginia, are following New York’s lead and proposing that students be required to work in the state for a few years or else pay the money back.

Free college is an issue that appeals to people on both sides of the aisle when it can be promoted as a tool for both personal and economic empowerment. At the same time, “States are getting nervous because their budgets are tight,” Pingel said. As more and more restrictions are imposed, she said, the question becomes, “Is this still in the spirit of the free-college movement?”

In the months ahead, as proposals are fine-tuned and programs tweaked, the idea of free college will continue to evolve. Many such programs have rebranded themselves with the word “promise” to reflect President Barack Obama’s 2015 proposal for free community-college tuition and the popular Tennessee Promise program.

Martha J. Kanter, a former under secretary of education under Obama, said the term “promise” can cause confusion if there is no guarantee the program will continue.

States shouldn’t make promises they might not be able to keep, said Kanter, who is now executive director of the College Promise Campaign, which works to promote free-college programs. In addition, “‘free’ is confusing everyone,” she added.

It’s an effective messaging strategy for families that think college is beyond their reach, she said. “But you have to be clear what you mean. Students and families are asking. ‘Why am I getting a textbook fee if this was supposed to be free?’”

Katherine Mangan writes about community colleges, completion efforts, and job training, as well as other topics in daily news. Follow her on Twitter @KatherineMangan, or email her at katherine.mangan@chronicle.com.