AEI recently had the privilege to hear from a key contributor to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act rewrite – Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee – about his next project, higher education reform.
Alexander asserted that while “it is never easy to pay for college, it’s just easier than most people think.” Still, he said, “I don’t pretend that our system is not in need of reforms.” Alexander therefore listed four goals for a bipartisan Higher Education Act (HEA) rewrite, which he hopes will make high-quality, affordable postsecondary education more accessible for everyone.
1. Reduce the burden of regulation. Two years ago, in an effort to reduce the cost of complying with federal regulations, Alexander and a bipartisan group of senators surveyed higher education institutions for recommendations, many of which they hope to include in the upcoming HEA rewrite. The study also found that overregulation also hurts students. According to one of the surveyed community college presidents, the unnecessarily-complicated Free Application for Federal Student Aid keeps many out of college.
2. End the federal collection and dissemination of useless data. The federal government’s demands for information are often unreasonable and wasteful, said Alexander. For instance, he pointed out that college consumer disclosures comprise as many as 900 pages of mandatory-to-publicize material. Despite government attempts to effectively disseminate this information, students rarely make use of it.
3. Improve the accreditation system. Alexander criticized accreditation for its encroachment upon institutional autonomy and for its lack of attention to quality. He recommended a “lighter touch” for high-performing institutions and closer scrutiny for at-risk schools. He also urged accreditors to evaluate student success instead of overanalyzing schools’ finances and safety codes.
4. Implement institutional risk-sharing. Alexander pointed out that according to the Department of Education, 17% of students with outstanding debt are in default. One way to address this problem, said Alexander, would be “to ensure that colleges have some responsibility to, or vested interest in, encouraging students to borrow wisely.” Colleges would take action, he said, if made to share financial risk with students and taxpayers.
Following Alexander’s presentation, a panel of higher education experts discussed several remaining questions, including the caveats of risk-sharing and the trouble with accreditation.
For instance, some claim that risk-sharing will limit low-income students’ access to education. In response, Ben Miller of the Center for American Progress asserted that mere “access” to higher education is not the goal. In fact, it would be best for institutions that consistently fail low-income students to stop admitting them. Panelist Kevin James of AEI agreed, and asserted that risk-sharing policies should reward schools where low-income students succeed.
While discussing accreditation, the panel addressed interplay between self-improvement and quality control. Under the current accreditation model, institutions determine whether their peers merit access to federal financial aid. Critics claim that accreditors favor fellow institutions and ignore serious infractions. James suggested that accreditation imitate charter school authorization, where private organizations authorize in tiers based on demonstrated success.
Miller, James, and Anne Neal of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni agreed that all-or-nothing accreditation creates problems. Loss of accreditation – and therefore of federal funding – can destroy a school, so accreditors’ leniency is understandable, said Miller. Instead, Neal asserted, the ideal accreditation system would mimic architecture’s LEED certification, which is independent, private, and denotes quality in levels.
Natalie Runkle is an AEIdeas intern.
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1D2M9jv
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment