In recent years, policy makers in the federal government have repeatedly acknowledged a policy problem surrounding the rising cost of higher education and its relation to attendance and retention of low- and middle-income and minority students. With higher education policy making mainly confined to state governments, however, distinctive solutions to this problem have been arising in individual states. This article presents an overview of the data collected about students that were eligible to sign the covenant, a discussion about the effect of this type of funding on the redistributive nature of higher education, and a hypothesis about the ability of this program to achieve its goal. The authors find that the program participation rate is lower in more racially diverse public schools and in public schools with more students qualified for subsidized lunches.
Allen, John.2006. Priced out of the promised land? On Wisconsin. NA, online newsletter, http://www.uwalumni.com/home/pricedout.aspx.
2.
Baker, Therese, and William Velez.1996. Access to and opportunity in postsecondary education in the United States: A review. Sociology of Education69:82-101.
3.
Beattie, Irenee.2002. Are all ‘‘Adolescent Econometricians’’ created equal? Racial, class, and gender differences in college enrollment . Sociology of Education75:19-43.
4.
Bishop, John.1977. The effect of public policies on the demand for higher education. The Journal of Human Resources12:285-307.
5.
Cameron, Stephen, and Christopher Taber .2003. Estimation of educational borrowing constraints using returns to schooling. Working Paper.
6.
Creech, J.D., and J.S. Davis.1999. Merit-based versus need-based aid: The continual issues for policymakers. In Financing a college education: How it works, how it’s changing ed. J. E. King, 120-36. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
7.
De Fraja, Gianni.2002. The design of optimal education policies. The Review of Economic Studies69:437-66.
8.
Doyle, William.2006. Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis28:259-85.
9.
Duffourc, D.2006. State-funded college scholarships: General definitions and characteristics. Review of Policy Research23:235-48.
10.
Dynarski, Susan.2004. The new merit aid. In College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it, ed. Caroline M. Hoxby, 63-100. National Bureau of Economic Research, University of Chicago Press.
11.
Fernandez, Raquel, and Richard Rogerson .1995. On the political economy of education subsidies. The Review of Economic Studies62:249-62.
12.
Garcia-Penalosa, Cecilia, and Klaus Walde.2000. Efficiency and equity effects of subsidies to higher education. Oxford Economic Papers52:702-22.
13.
Goldrick-Rab, Sara, and Douglas Harris.2007. The Wisconsin Covenant: Toward a truly merit-based system of higher education. WISCAPE Policy Brief . University of Wisconsin, May 9th.
14.
Hansen, W. Lee, and Burton Weisbrod .1969. Benefits, costs and finance of higher education. Chicago: Markham .
15.
Harnisch, Thomas.2009. State early commitment programs: A contract for college success?A Higher Education Policy Brief. American Association of State Colleges and Universities, May.
16.
Heller, D.E., & C.J. Rasmussen .2001. Merit scholarships and college access: Evidence from two states. State merit aid programs: College access and equity. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
17.
Jackson, Gregory, and George Weathersby .1975. Individual demand for higher education: A review and analysis of recent empirical studies. The Journal of Higher Education46:623-52.
18.
Long, Bridget Terry.2004. How do financial aid policies affect colleges? The institutional impact of the Georgia HOPE scholarship. The Journal of Human Resources39:1045-66.
19.
Office of Policy Analysis and Research.Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Accessed October 2007 and June 2009, from http://www.uwsa.edu/opar/ .
20.
Peltzman, Sam.1973. The effect of Government subsidies-in-kind on private expenditures: The case of higher education. The Journal of Political Economy81:1-27.
21.
Psacharopoulos, G.1986. Financing education in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.
22.
Radner, R., and L.S. Miller.1970. Demand and supply in U.S. Higher education: A progress report. The American Economic Review 60. Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-second Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 326-34.
23.
Rizzo, Michael.2004. State preferences for higher education spending: A panel data analysis, 1977-2001 . Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Conference Presentation.
24.
Stransky, Beth, and Annalee Good.2009. Addressing opportunity in Wisconsin’s four-year universities: A comparative analysis of State College access programs. WISCAPE Policy Brief. University of Wisconsin, January 21.
25.
Su, Xuejuan.2004. The allocation of public funds in a hierarchical educational system. Journal of’Economic Dynamics & Control28: 2485-510.
26.
Terenzini, P.T., and Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.).1995. First-generation college students characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development [microform]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.
27.
United States Congress.Senate. Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions. 2008. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.: For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.
28.
Winston, Gordon.1999. Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives13:13-36.
29.
Wisconsin Covenant Office. Accessed October 2007 and June 2009, from http://www.wisconsincovenant.wi.gov/ .
30.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Accessed October 2007 and June 2009, from http://dpi.wi.gov/.
31.
Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools.Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Accessed October 2007 and June 2009, from http://dpi.wi.gov/sig/index.html.
