Affordability, Access and Social Mobility D. Scott Looney Director of Admission & Financial Aid Cranbrook Schools Bloomfield Hills, Michigan Affordability,

Affordability, AccessAffordability, Accessand Social Mobility and Social Mobility

D. Scott LooneyD. Scott LooneyDirector of Admission & Financial AidDirector of Admission & Financial Aid

Cranbrook SchoolsCranbrook SchoolsBloomfield Hills, MichiganBloomfield Hills, Michigan

________

IntroductionIntroduction

Society & EducationSociety & Education Societal TrendsSocietal Trends Importance of EducationImportance of Education

Income DemographicsIncome Demographics Spending DemographicsSpending Demographics

Affording Independent SchoolAffording Independent School: Tuition: Demand vs. CostTuition: Demand vs. Cost Financial Aid (Methodology Changes)Financial Aid (Methodology Changes)

StrategiesStrategies

Research ResourcesResearch Resources

OutlineOutline

DemographicsDemographics

EducationEducation

Public OpinionPublic Opinion

Societal PatternsSocietal Patterns

EconomicsEconomics

Access and EnrollmentAccess and Enrollment

DemographicsDemographics

EducationEducation

Public OpinionPublic Opinion

Societal PatternsSocietal Patterns

EconomicsEconomics

Access and EnrollmentAccess and Enrollment

Cranbrook Schools Enrollment 1988 - 1998 vs.Cranbrook Schools Enrollment 1988 - 1998 vs.Gross Domestic Product in 1992 constant dollars andGross Domestic Product in 1992 constant dollars and

vs. Population of School Age Children in the U.S.vs. Population of School Age Children in the U.S.

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

Enroll Pop. G.D.P

Society & EducationSociety & Education

(It’s all about Education….)

Changes in the American FamilyChanges in the American Family One in three babies born in 1993 had a single mother. The rate

was one in five in 1980. The proportion of births occurring out of wedlock jumped from

5% in 1960 to 31% in 1993. The number of children living in married-couple families

dropped from 88% in 1960 to 69% in 1994. In 1996, 39% of adults in the U.S. had been divorced. The chance of a marriage ending in divorce has stabilized at

50%. A stepchild or adopted child will be part of one third of all U.S.

families by 2010. In 1992, only 10% of U.S. families now fit the “traditional”

model (husband sole breadwinner, full-time homemaker wifehusband sole breadwinner, full-time homemaker wife).

“Young adults in low-income populations feel that they don’t have the wherewithal to enter marriage. It’s as if marriage has become a luxury consumer item, available only to those with the means to bring it off. Living together or single-parenthood has become the budget way to start a family…(Unless the economic situation changes) the institution of marriage as we knew it in this century will in the 21st century become a practice of the privileged. Marriage could become a luxury item that most Americans cannot afford.”

Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr.

Professor of Sociology

University of Pennsylvania

From “The Future of Marriage”

Changes in the American FamilyChanges in the American Family In 1994, 55% of mothers were working outside the home

compared to 19% in 1960. 81% of all College educated women work outside of the home

(some not working at that point have done so earlier, or would later do so)

Only mothers who did not finish their high school education are

reproducing faster than the replacement rate (an NAIS study of the factors determining likelihood to enroll in private an NAIS study of the factors determining likelihood to enroll in private

schools showed that the educational attainment of the mother had the single schools showed that the educational attainment of the mother had the single highest correlation...private school students have a disproportionately higher highest correlation...private school students have a disproportionately higher percentage of well educated motherspercentage of well educated mothers).).

Birth Rates by Education Level of MotherBirth Rates by Education Level of Mother

0

1

2

3

No HighSchool

High School Some College Associates Bachelors Masters

# of Kids

Replacement

A. Bachu,"Fertility of Women", US Bureau of Census

Current Population Report Series P-20, 1993.

Chance for College by Parental Education for Chance for College by Parental Education for Dependent Family Members 18 to 24, 1987 to 1996Dependent Family Members 18 to 24, 1987 to 1996

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Percen

t En

tering

Co

llege

Percen

t En

tering

Co

llege

Percen

t En

tering

Co

llege

Percen

t En

tering

Co

llege

Bachelors Degree or MoreBachelors Degree or MoreBachelors Degree or MoreBachelors Degree or More

Some CollegeSome CollegeSome CollegeSome College

High School GraduateHigh School Graduate

Not High School GraduateNot High School GraduateNot High School GraduateNot High School Graduate

““Would you say you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?” Would you say you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?”

Very HappyVery Happy Pretty HappyPretty Happy Not Too HappyNot Too HappyNot a HS GradNot a HS Grad 27%27% 54%54% 18%18%HS GraduateHS Graduate 29%29% 59%59% 12%12%BachelorsBachelors 35%35% 55%55% 9% 9%Graduate DegreeGraduate Degree 39%39% 51%51% 9% 9%

General Social SurveyGeneral Social SurveyNational Opinion Research CenterNational Opinion Research CenterUniversity of Chicago, 1997University of Chicago, 1997

““In general, do you find life exciting, routine or dull?”In general, do you find life exciting, routine or dull?”

ExcitingExciting RoutineRoutine DullDullNot a HS GradNot a HS Grad 35%35% 52%52% 11%11%HS GraduateHS Graduate 46%46% 49%49% 4% 4%BachelorsBachelors 66%66% 33%33% 1% 1%Graduate DegreeGraduate Degree 70%70% 30%30% 0% 0%


Average Family Income byAverage Family Income by Educational Attainment of the Householder, 1997 Educational Attainment of the Householder, 1997

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Le

ss

th

an

HS

HS

dro

po

ut

HS

Gra

d

So

me

Co

lleg

e

As

so

cia

te

Ba

ch

elo

rs

Ma

ste

rs

Do

cto

rate

Pro

fes

sio

na

l

Median Family Income by Educational Median Family Income by Educational Attainment of Householder, 1973 and 1997Attainment of Householder, 1973 and 1997

(in 1997 dollars)(in 1997 dollars)

0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

100000<9

thg

rad

e

HS

Dro

po

ut

HS

Gra

d

1-3

yrs.

Co

lleg

e

Bac

hel

ors

Gra

du

ate

1973

1997

Change in Median Family Income by Educational Change in Median Family Income by Educational Attainment of Householder between 1973 and 1997Attainment of Householder between 1973 and 1997


-18.5%

-30.3%

-10.7%

-3.2%

7.2%

29.2%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Jr.High orless

1-3 HS yrs. HS Grad 1-3 yrs.College

Bachelors Some Grad.

Discretionary Income as a Proportion of Median Family Discretionary Income as a Proportion of Median Family

Income by Educational Attainment of the Head of HouseholdIncome by Educational Attainment of the Head of Household

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1993 1997

8 yrs or less

1-3 years HS

HS grad

1-3 of College

Bachelors

Some Grad.

““During the last few years, has your financial situation During the last few years, has your financial situation been getting better, worse, or has it stayed the same?”been getting better, worse, or has it stayed the same?”

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Better The Same WorseNot HS Grad HS Grad Bachelors Graduate Degree

General Social Survey, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, 1997

Income DemographicsIncome Demographics

Where the Jobs AreWhere the Jobs Are(Projected U.S. employment 1998-2010)(Projected U.S. employment 1998-2010)

Wealth and PovertyWealth and Poverty(High wealth, High poverty and High Equality by US County, 1993)(High wealth, High poverty and High Equality by US County, 1993)

The Average School FamilyThe Average School Family

Husband and Wife and Children

Size of Family 4.0 Number of Earners 2.0 Vehicles 2.7 Percent Homeowner 77% Income before Taxes $ 52,005

Source: BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1994

The Gini coefficientThe Gini coefficient

The Gini coefficient indicates the overall distribution of income.

A coefficient of 0 indicates a perfectly equal distribution of income…everyone is middle class.

A coefficient of 1 means one family has all the income and everyone else has none.

So, the higher the coefficient the less equal the income distribution.

The U.S. Gini coefficient rose from .394 in 1970 to .456 in 1994.

The Rich get Richer…The Rich get Richer…(Income quintiles by income range and percent change in income, 1998-(Income quintiles by income range and percent change in income, 1998-

94) Census Bureau Data, AD Oct. 9694) Census Bureau Data, AD Oct. 96

QuintileIncomeRanges

Average1994Income

PercentChangeIncome1984-94

Bottom 5th 0 to $13,400 $7,800 .1%

Second 5th $13,400 to $25,200 $19,200 -.05%

Third 5th $25,200 to $40,100 $33,400 1.2%

Fourth 5th $40,100 to $62,800 $50,400 4.6%

Top 5th $62,800 or more $106,000 19.6%

Top 5% $109,800 or more $183,000 36.9%

All Households $43,100 .7%

Middle Income declines,Middle Income declines, while higher incomes have grown while higher incomes have grown

(Number in millions and percent of households by income range) AD, Oct. 96(Number in millions and percent of households by income range) AD, Oct. 96

Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or More

Year Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1970 25.3 39.1% 35.0 54.1% 4.4 6.8%

1975 29.4 40.3% 38.0 52.1% 5.5 7.5%

1980 32.5 39.4% 42.1 51.1% 7.8 9.5%

1985 34.4 38.9% 43.9 49.6% 10.2 11.5%

1990 35.3 37.4% 46.5 49.3% 12.5 13.3%

1994 39.0 39.4% 46.5 47.0% 13.5 13.6%

Income in 1994 CPI-U-X1 adjusted dollars

•In 1996, 64% of Americans felt that the differences in incomes in In 1996, 64% of Americans felt that the differences in incomes in America were too large.America were too large.•In 1986, only 55% felt this way. In 1986, only 55% felt this way. General Social SurveyGeneral Social SurveyNational Opinion Research CenterNational Opinion Research CenterUniversity of Chicago, 1997University of Chicago, 1997

Stagnant WagesStagnant Wages

Between 1955 and 1970, real wages adjusted for inflation rose by an average of 2.5 percent per year.

Between 1971 and 1994, the average growth of real wages was .3 percent a year.

“Studies have shown that places with a weak middle class are more likely to experience government corruption, voter apathy and a host of social ills.” AD, May, 98

Percent of Household with Incomes of Percent of Household with Incomes of $100,000 or more, 1980-1997$100,000 or more, 1980-1997


4.8% 4.7%5.1%

5.4%6.0%

6.2%

7.2% 7.4%7.8%

8.2%7.7%

7.3% 7.2%7.8%

8.1% 8.2%8.7%

9.4%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

American Demographics, Jan. 1999

•In 1996, 67% of Americans agreed with the statement: In 1996, 67% of Americans agreed with the statement: “Both the “Both the husband and the wife should contribute to the household income.”husband and the wife should contribute to the household income.”

•In 1986, only 48% felt this way. In 1986, only 48% felt this way.


Change in Debt from 1995 to 1998,Change in Debt from 1995 to 1998, by Income group by Income group

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

Under$10 K

$10 to$25 K

$25 to$50K

$50 to$100 K

Over$100 K

All

1995

1998

Percent change in Median Net WorthPercent change in Median Net Worth from 1989 to 1998, (in 1998 constant dollars) from 1989 to 1998, (in 1998 constant dollars)

90%

9%4%

16%

-6%-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Under $10K $10 to $25 K $25 to $50 K $50 to $100 K Over $100 K

American Demographics, April 2000

Income Demographic from 1997 to 2020Income Demographic from 1997 to 2020 (in thousand of families) (in thousand of families)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

over 150

125 to 150

100 to 125

75 to 100

60 to 75

50 to 60

40 to 50

30 to 40

20 to 30

10 to 20

0-10

ISACS homepage: (www.isacs.org)

Num

ber

of F

amili

es (

in T

hous

ands

)

Income Bands as Percent of Total PopulationIncome Bands as Percent of Total Population

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Over 150

125 to 150

100 to 125

75 to 100

60 to 75

50 to 60

40 to 50

30 to 40

20 to 30

10 to 20

0-10


Per

cent

age

of F

amil

ies

When asked the question: “When asked the question: “If you were to use one of fourIf you were to use one of four names for your social class, which would you say you belongnames for your social class, which would you say you belongin: the lower class, the working class, the middle class or the in: the lower class, the working class, the middle class or the upper class?”upper class?”

Lower Class = 6%Lower Class = 6%Working Class = 45%Working Class = 45%Middle Class = 45%Middle Class = 45%Upper Class = 4%Upper Class = 4%


Income Demographic in thousand of familiesIncome Demographic in thousand of familiesfrom $75,000 to over $150,000from $75,000 to over $150,000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

over 150

125 to 150

100 to 125

75 to 100


Num

ber

of F

amili

es (

in T

hous

ands

)

Average Household Spending by Age Group Average Household Spending by Age Group Indexed to 100, 1997Indexed to 100, 1997

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Under25

25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 andover

American Demographics April 1999

Average Total

Percent Change in Average Household Percent Change in Average Household Spending by Age Group 1987 to 1997 Spending by Age Group 1987 to 1997 (in 1997 (in 1997

Dollars)Dollars)

-9.1%

2.2%

-9.1%

1.0%

-1.0%

4.1%

17.4%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Under25

25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 andover

American Demographics April 1999

Average Household SpendingAverage Household SpendingAlcohol & Tobacco

2%

Personal Care1%

Apparel6%

Other8%

Household Operations

3%

Contributions4%

Entertainment5%

Education & Reading

2%

Health Care6%

Utilities6% Insurance

11%

Food14%

Shelter16%

Transportation16%

Affording Independent SchoolAffording Independent School

Demand vs. Cost Demand vs. Cost From the 1999 NAIS public opinion poll: “If cost were not a factor, which would “If cost were not a factor, which would

you chose for your child?”you chose for your child?” Responses: 39% public39% public, 30% independent30% independent, 28% 28% parochial school parochial school (total private =58%)(total private =58%).

In a 1995 survey, “57% of parents with children in public school said they would switch to private school if they could afford to do so.” API

In 1971 62% of parents felt that the public school system was preparing their children better than they were prepared, in 1994 only 42% of parents felt that way.

Parent’s confidence in the public school system is declining quickly, and demand for private education seems to be increasing.

Enrollment Demand, Price and Revenue*Enrollment Demand, Price and Revenue*

TuitionTuition

DemandDemand

Full PayingFull PayingStudentsStudents

Pri

ceP

rice

EnrollmentEnrollment00

High TuitionHigh Tuition

Low FPLow FPEnrollmentEnrollment

High FPHigh FPEnrollmentEnrollment

Low TuitionLow Tuition

Tuition Revenue(Price X Enrollment)

Tuition Revenue

(High Tuition Low Enrollment)

Tuition Revenue(Low Tuition, High FP Enrollment)

*from "Liberal Arts Colleges:Thriving, Surviving or Endangered?":David W. BrenemanThe Brookings Institution

Tuition rate

Enrollment

Unfundedstudent aid

Tuition

D

D

0Total

Full Payers

Totalenrolled

Net tuitionrevenue

due to aid

Enrollment Demandand Net Tuition Revenue*

*from "Liberal Arts Colleges:Thriving, Surviving or Endangered?":

David W. BrenemanThe Brookings Instituition

Total on aid

Full PayingTuition Revenue

Optimal Enrollment

Tuition rate

Enrollment

Unfundedstudent aid

TuitionAll who

meet criteria

0Desired

Enrollment

Enrollment Demandat stages in admission process*

*from "Liberal Arts Colleges:Thriving, Surviving or Endangered?":

David W. BrenemanThe Brookings Institution

All who would attend

Matriculating

AB

C

D1

D2

D3

Rise in Boarding TuitionsRise in Boarding Tuitions

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998

Indexed w/ CPITuition

"Access and Affordability",NAIS

Boarding Affordability IndexBoarding Affordability Index

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89

Percent of families who

can afford tuition

Boarding"Access and Affordability",

NAIS

Rise in Day TuitionsRise in Day Tuitions

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998

Tuition

Indexed w/ CPI

"Access and Affordability",NAIS

True of independent schools as well...?

“Across the country colleges are raising their sticker prices yet they’re losing money. In relative terms, it costs students less to attend college than it did a decade ago because of increased financial aid. The long-term problem is that we have invented a form of education that’s too expensive. Collectively (liberal arts colleges) must decide how to deliver quality education we now deliver, for less money.”

Robert Zemsky

Founding Director

Institute for Research on Higher Education

University of Pennsylvania

Families by Total Income:Families by Total Income:SSS Filers for 1993-94 vs. the 1998-99 FilersSSS Filers for 1993-94 vs. the 1998-99 Filers

18%

12%

6%

29%

23%

16%

26%

23%

21%

15%

18%

20%

7%

11%

16%

5%

14%

22%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 to20,000

20,001 to40,000

40,001-60,000

60,001 to80,000

80,001 to100,000

over100,000

1993-94

1999-00

2005-06

Family IncomeFamily Income

PC as Percentage of Discretionary IncomePC as Percentage of Discretionary Income

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

PC as % of Discretionary Income

Discretionary

Income

Transportation16%

Shelter16%

Food14%

Insurance11%Utilities

6%

Health Care6%

Education & Reading

2%

Entertainment5%

Contributions4%

Household Operations

3%

Other8%

Apparel6%

Personal Care1%

Alcohol & Tobacco

2%

Eliminating the 55% BandEliminating the 55% Band

Effective for 1999-2000 Processing Will affect a minority of SSS filers. Only families above $69,500 total income are

subject to this band. They represent less than 25% of SSS applicants. Many elect not to enroll and this may improve

yields.

Impact of the New MethodologyImpact of the New Methodology

Change in PC

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

130K + 120 -129

110 -119

100 -109

90 - 99 80 - 89 70 - 79 60 - 69 50 - 59 40 - 49

Income Range (000)

Avg

PC

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

% C

hg

Old PC

New PC

% Chg from Old PC

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

$25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000 $55,000 $60,000

Discretionary Income

PC as Percent

Top Band at 47%

Current Methodology

Current vs. New PC as Percentage of Current vs. New PC as Percentage of Discretionary IncomeDiscretionary Income

Summary of Changes Summary of Changes for PY 1999-2000for PY 1999-2000

The 47% Band will be the top Assessment Band. Home Equity Value will be capped at Three Times

Total Family Income. The School Report for the 1998-99 Processing Year

will include a calculation of the Family Contribution based on these changes.

Responding to ChangeResponding to Change

Connect impact to other offices with the school

Communicate with financial aid colleagues to discover alternate approaches

Look to NAIS as a resource and as a sounding board

Plan for impact, prepare for needs, proceed with mission

Distribution of Responsibilities for Distribution of Responsibilities for Financing Higher Education, 1952 to 1997Financing Higher Education, 1952 to 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996

State and Local GovernmentState and Local GovernmentState and Local GovernmentState and Local Government

Students / ParentsStudents / ParentsStudents / ParentsStudents / Parents

Federal GovernmentFederal GovernmentFederal GovernmentFederal Government

““On the whole, do you think it should be, or should not be, the On the whole, do you think it should be, or should not be, the governments’s responsibility to give financial assistance to college governments’s responsibility to give financial assistance to college students from low-income families?”students from low-income families?”

Should be: Should be: 83%83%Should not be: Should not be: 14% 14%


Suggested StrategiesSuggested Strategies Work collaboratively with other independent schools to increase market

share. Work to make school marketable to the families of the future: more

diverse, more international and more affordable. Build deep waiting lists during the next six to eight years of demographic

prosperity to weather the next demographic or economic downturn. Increase selectivity during this current prosperity to upgrade the quality

of your student body and your school’s reputation. If school is significantly and/or constantly under capacity, use Net

Tuition Revenue Accounting (tuition discounting) to fill unused capacity and generate addition income. Consider ways to maximize efficiency…larger class size, distance learning, etc.

Make your school physically accessible to diverse families…i.e., provide transportation to suburbs for kids from the city.

Offer more “full-service” schools (food and laundry service for parents, before and after care for all grades, adult education classes at night, etc...), to accommodate the lifestyles of working parents (and this could generate additional revenue for the school).

Suggested StrategiesSuggested Strategies Change in SSS Methodology. Do not increase the school’s operating overhead even if

increased enrollment possibilities offer the chance to cover the costs (down sizing will be painful WHEN the drought comes), instead….

Work to keep school from becoming more expensive in real dollars, tying tuition rate increases to average wage increases.

Work to lower school’s level of tuition dependency. Flexible Payment Plans Build Mandatory Costs into Tuition (no surprises)

Loan Programs Institutional Bank Foundations

Don’t forget Grandma and Grandpa (extended family support)

Resources on the NetResources on the Net Type “demographics (your city name)” in any internet search engine (Yahoo,

Altavista, Netscape, Explorer, etc) and you will see a host of sites that offer limited free demographic reports. Some of the best are:

United States Census Bureau homepage (www.census.gov) (www.census.gov) the entire census is available and easy to navigate with “clickable” states and county maps.

American Demographics Webpage: (http://www.demographic.com (http://www.demographic.com) many of their great articles are available.

“The Right Site - Easy Analytic Software” homepage. (www.easidemographics.com)(www.easidemographics.com) offers up to 10 free customized reports.

USAData homepage (www.usadata.com)(www.usadata.com) offers free demographic reports on over 100 major metro areas.

Premier Insights homepage (www.premierinsights.com)(www.premierinsights.com) offers free demographic reports by fax of a 1.5 mile radius of any major road intersection.

Information Decision Systems homepage, (www.infods.com) (www.infods.com) American City Business Journal homepage,

(www.amcity.com/journals/demographics)(www.amcity.com/journals/demographics)

Average and Median Household Incomes for Cranbrook’s Top Average and Median Household Incomes for Cranbrook’s Top Ten Day Student Communities vs. Michigan and U.S. norms.Ten Day Student Communities vs. Michigan and U.S. norms.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Blo

om

. Hill

s

We

st B

loo

m

Bir

min

gh

am

Tro

y

Ro

ch

est

er

Far

min

gto

n

Fra

nkl

in

De

tro

it

Orc

ha

rd L

ak

e

Cla

rks

ton

Mic

hig

an

U.S

.

Average

Median

Average and Median Household Incomes for Cranbrook’s Top Average and Median Household Incomes for Cranbrook’s Top Ten Day Student Communities vs. Michigan and U.S. norms.Ten Day Student Communities vs. Michigan and U.S. norms.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

C. D

aup

hin

Cu

mb

er.

Val

ley

W. S

ho

re

Su

squ

eh

ann

a

Har

risb

urg

Car

lisle

L. D

aup

hin

Me

chan

icsb

urg

N. Y

ork

He

rsh

ey

E. P

en

nsb

oro

Mid

dle

tow

n

Pe

nn

sly

van

ia US

Average

Median

For Copies of this PresentationFor Copies of this PresentationHard Copies = freeHard Copies = free

Zip Disks = $20 Zip Disks = $20 (if e-mail attachment doesn’t work)(if e-mail attachment doesn’t work)

E-mail:E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Phone:Phone: 248-645-3409 248-645-3409 Fax: Fax: 248-645-3025 248-645-3025 Mail:Mail: D. Scott Looney D. Scott Looney

Director of Admission & Financial AidDirector of Admission & Financial Aid

Cranbrook Schools -Office of AdmissionCranbrook Schools -Office of Admission

1221 N. Woodward Ave. 1221 N. Woodward Ave.

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

Documents

Affordability, Access and Social Mobility D. Scott Looney Director of Admission & Financial Aid Cranbrook Schools Bloomfield Hills, Michigan Affordability,