At California University of Pennsylvania, administrators see up close and personally the effects that financial aid and state grant policies and procedures have on our 6,600 students. We know that these issues are not unique to Cal U, because we share the same sentiments as our 13 sister institutions within Pennsylvania's State System of Higher Education. Collectively, we educate 104,000 students in Pennsylvania.

		Angelo Armenti Jr. is president of California University of Pennsylvania.

We are convinced that institutions of higher education across the country are coming to the same conclusion: The number of students who might like to attend universities but cannot solely for financial reasons is both large and growing.

I have read three reports that describe, in stark terms, the financial aid crisis in America today, and I would encourage students and families who are dependent on financial aid to read them as well. They are: "Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Affordability of American Higher Education," published by The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education in 2002; "Access Denied: Restoring the Nation's Commitment to Equal Educational Opportunity" and "Empty Promises: The Myth of College Access in America," both published by the Advisory Committee to Congress on Student Financial Assistance in 2001 and 2002, respectively.

As all three report titles suggest, student financial aid policies and practices in America are not working as they should. The details in these reports, however, are much more damning -- the current policies and practices are failing to honor basic commitments to equal educational opportunity.

Families at low- to moderate-income levels experience the hypocrisy firsthand:

Increases in tuition have made colleges and universities less affordable for most American families. For example, tuition at four-year public colleges and universities represented 13 percent of family income in 1980; by 2000, it represented 25 percent.

More students and families at all income levels are borrowing more than ever before to pay for college. For example, in 1981, loans accounted for 45 percent and grants for 52 percent of federal student financial aid. In 2000, the corresponding figures were 58 percent loans and 41 percent grants.

The steepest increases in public college tuition have been imposed during times of greatest economic hardship! For example, increases in public university tuition are strongly correlated with decreases in median family income, and vice versa. Both changes are tied to the economy so that, during a recession, tax collections and median family incomes both decline.

State financial support of public higher education has increased, but tuition has increased more. For example, between 1980 and 1998, total revenues to public colleges and universities increased by 41 percent. At the same time, tuition and fees increased by 107 percent, state support increased by 13 percent, federal support increased by 53 percent, private gifts and grants increased by 159 percent.

Families of low-income, college-qualified high school graduates face an annual unmet need of $3,800 -- college expenses not covered by student aid, including work-study and student loans. As a result, low-income families must commit one-third of family income, either through work or family borrowing.

These financial barriers prevent 48 percent of college-qualified, low-income high school graduates from attending a four-year college, and 22 percent from attending any college at all. These are the most shocking conclusions of all!

As a nation, 400,000 college-qualified high school graduates yearly will be unable to attend a four-year college and 170,000 will attend no college at all. By the end of this decade, these figures will total 4.4 million and 2 million respectively. What will become of them? Where does the responsibility lie for dealing with the financial aid crisis in America? That responsibility should be shared at four levels: federal, state, university and student/family.

Most of our students come from families in the low- and moderate-income ranges. Were it not for PHEAA grants, many of our students would encounter serious delays -- above and beyond the current financially induced delays -- in completing a four-year degree, and some of our students would be denied any opportunity whatsoever for a four-year degree. At California University we are cognizant of and grateful for all that PHEAA does and has done for our students.

To cover the thousands of college-qualified Pennsylvania students currently denied the opportunity for a four-year college education or any college education at all, I would ask PHEAA to consider a reallocation of its current resources.

Specifically, I request that PHEAA eliminate the university's cost of attendance from the grant formula, and base the grant solely on family income, adjusted for family size and assets.

Currently, larger PHEAA grants go to students who choose to attend the more expensive private and state-related institutions. While such "choice" may be desirable, it is clearly a luxury since those extra funds could be used to provide further access to thousands of Pennsylvania students.

If the welfare of students is to be placed first, it is clear what needs to be done. The two proposed changes will go a long way in dispelling the myth of college access in America and establishing the fact of college access in Pennsylvania.