Last year the U.S. Department of Education announced that it was considering eliminating or changing some of its Adult Education Act regulations. One of the issues on the table was whether or not to get rid of the regulation that has for years prohibited DOE-funded programs from charging students tuition or any other fees. (This prohibition was never actually part of the Act itself as passed by Congress, but rather developed out of the Department's own regulatory process.) Through an announcement last fall in the Federal Register, the USDOE asked for comments on this possible rule change, one which could potentially have great impact on adult basic education programs and students. This article will attempt to summarize the various proposals being made and to look at the arguments, both pro and con, surrounding them.
The question of whether adult basic education programs should be allowed to charge their students draws strong opinions on both sides. Many people believe, very passionately, that it would simply be wrong to allow that to happen, arguing that basic public education should be free, regardless of the age of the recipients, and that it would be especially unfair to require adult basic education students, many or most of whom are low-income, to pay for these services when they must struggle constantly to pay other bills for shelter, food, health care, etc. Others believe, also strongly but probably less passionately, that programs should be allowed to charge, at least some students, for adult basic education services. Not everyone who supports this does so for the same reasons, however. For some, it's another way for programs to raise money, while others see intrinsic benefits to simply charging students something, regardless of the amount.
Initially, the Department of Education indicated that it was reconsidering the rule on the grounds that opening the door for programs to charge students would give those programs another means of raising revenue and thus possibly avoiding threatened service cutbacks. Some others see it as potentially a way for programs to raise money in order to offer more classes and to serve more students, but in either case the goal of charging students would be, in fact, to raise money for the program. Critics, however, point out that in order to actually raise enough money to have some significant impact on a program's finances--whether to avoid having to cut classes or to be able to add new ones--programs would have to charge students fairly sizable amounts in tuition or fees, amounts that many, if not most, current students would be unable or unwilling to pay. The alternative of charging on some sort of sliding scale through which most students would still attend for free and only those with higher incomes would be required to pay would raise some money for programs but probably not enough to make much of a difference in a program's financial health. So, in terms of fund-raising as a rationale for charging students, the danger is of the "destroy the village in order to save it" variety: To be able to continue serving students or to serve more students, programs would be charging tuition and/or fees that would themselves probably drive away sizeable numbers of students.
Then there is the second group of reasons for charging students advanced by some proponents of changing the rule. In these cases the recommendation is usually to charge a relatively small amount, either in weekly or monthly tuition (for example, $1-5 per week at one program or $10 per month at another), or as a one-time registration fee ($15, for instance), or as a fee for materials. Each of these approaches is currently being used by one or more programs that aren't receiving DOE funds. At some, these payments may be required; at others, they may be requested, but not required. And another variation used by at least one program is to allow students to pay in either money or time; they are given the option each month of either paying the fee or doing some number of hours of "volunteer" service at the program.
In these cases, the reason for charging students isn't primarily to raise money, since the amounts taken in are usually too small to make much of a dent in the program's operating budget. Instead, students are required to pay for one of four, somewhat related reasons: 1) A program believes there is a feeling on the part of potential students that if a program is free, it can't be any good, and conversely that if a program charges, it must be good. 2) A program believes that students become more "invested" in their education, leading to improved attendance and outcomes, if they have to pay something for it. 3) A program believes that, by charging students, it provides them an opportunity to give something back to the program, to contribute in some way to the community of learners, and enables them to feel proud that they are helping to pay their way. 4) A program recognizes that not all undereducated people are low-income and believes that those that aren't don't want to be treated as though they were.
Those opposed to charging students take issue with some of these specific rationales. For example, other programs report from their experience that they have found no correlation between students paying for classes and their level of commitment to learning and to their education. Many also feel that opening the door just a crack on this would be a mistake, that allowing programs to charge even just some students now would establish a precedent that could later be broadened to permit charging more or all students in the future.
Another possible aspect of "opening the door" has to do with the nature of agencies offering ABE services. The current ban on DOE-funded programs charging students has also worked in reverse to prohibit programs that charge students from applying for DOE funding. If the regulation were removed, this would presumably mean that essentially-for-profit programs which charge students larger amounts in tuition and fees might be eligible to apply for public DOE dollars. This could certainly change the make-up of service providers, with the possibility that such companies would be primarily interested in their own profitability and less devoted to the education and welfare of their students than are the non-profit community-based organizations now providing many of the available ABE and ESOL services.
At this time, it is not at all clear what position the USDOE will take on this issue. We invite you to tell us what you think: Should the USDOE rescind the rule against programs' charging ABE students or should the rule be left in place?