After a year of study and debate, the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, led by U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, described the American higher education system as slipping into “unwarranted complacency.” Spellings expressed her concerns in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 26, arguing that when only half of the nation’s college students graduate on time, then stay buried in so much debt that they cannot buy a home or start a family, reform is long overdue.
“In our changing and ever-flattening world, has higher education kept pace?” Spellings asked her audience, and posed more questions the commission sought to answer. “Is it accessible to students of all backgrounds, including minorities, low-income students and adults? Is it affordable? And accountable to the students, parents and taxpayers who foot the bill?”
The commission’s recommendations would greatly benefit a higher education system in dire need of reform. Spellings outlined five actions that would bring about immediate changes, or help pinpoint shortcomings that need Congressional attention.
The first suggestion is a streamlined financial aid application process, which would cut application time in half and notify students of their eligibility much sooner than the current system. The plan would alleviate much of the anxiety that comes with applying to college, and would offer students and their families informative and realistic financial aid information in a timely matter, improving their ability to plan financially.
Spellings also called for an increase in need-based aid by increasing Pell Grant amounts over five years to cover 26 percent more of the average in-state tuition at public four-year colleges. For the fifth straight year, the maximum Pell Grant award has been only $4,050 — and though President George W. Bush pledged in his 2000 campaign to raise the maximum to $5,100, no change has been made. Increasing this maximum — while maintaining or increasing the number of grants given — would help cover needy students for a longer time, reducing the amount of debt with which students would graduate.
The commission also outlined plans for a national database that would gauge how much students are learning and how successful they are after college, two crucial questions that currently remain unanswered. The database would collect information about each student, such as name, race, gender, high school and college GPA, graduation date, job offers and wages after graduation. Such a database would give potential students a solid rubric with which to measure schools, far better than today’s somewhat arbitrary measures, like the rankings published annually in U.S. News and World Report.
A comprehensive database measuring student performance over time would also greatly aid legislators in gauging the effectiveness of various higher education programs, such as financial aid projects and field-specific subsidies. By keeping tabs on student performance, federal lawmakers can identify areas of concern — and tactics that work.
Unfortunately, Spellings faces an uphill battle with Congress. Critics of the database plan argue that the data could be misleading to potential students and lawmakers — for instance, some have criticized the federal data on graduation rates for its failure to account for transfer students and adult learners. There are also concerns about student privacy, which is typically a sensitive area for universities.
But current measures of academic progress are clearly inadequate. With no real requirements for data reporting, potential students must make serious decisions about which university to attend based on whatever information a university chooses to present.
Furthermore, Spellings’ planned database would use identification numbers to track students instead of Social Security numbers, providing the same kind of privacy-protected data used for K-12 students. While protection of student privacy must be considered, the potential benefits to higher education are well worth the costs.
Federal cost estimates for the commission’s recommendations range from $10 million to over $100 million, according to the American Council on Education. The money would be used primarily to provide more financial aid, create and maintain the database, provide funds to participating universities and develop programs that improve the higher education system.
The high cost may cause some to balk at the committee’s proposals, but it’s a small price to pay for an effective and responsive higher education system.
“While our universities are known as the best in the world, 90 percent of the fastest-growing jobs require post-secondary education, and only one-third of Americans have a degree,” Spellings told her audience. “Over the years, we’ve invested tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money and just hoped for the best — we deserve better.”
