EVENTS

Date:	Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Time:	2:55 PM -- 7:00 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

March 2007

Higher Education after the Spellings Commission: An Assessment

 

In 2005, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings appointed a panel of academics, higher education administrators, and business leaders to assess the state of higher education and recommend reforms. The commission released its final report in the fall of 2006, calling for greater accountability from colleges and universities, expressing concern over the rising cost of college tuition, and advocating for greater Pell Grants and other financial resources. The report was criticized by some as being too harsh on higher education, while others felt that it did not go far enough in challenging colleges and universities to reform.

At this March 13 event, panelists discussed the overall performance of the 2005 Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education and the future of government financing of higher education. Secretary Spellings delivered the keynote address.

Keynote Address

The Honorable Margaret Spellings
U.S. Secretary of Education

Our universities have long been the envy of the world, but data shows we are in danger of losing that prominence. The problems in higher education today have tremendous social and economic costs. The under-representation of minorities is one such problem. America also loses roughly $260 billion in lost wages, taxes, and productivity over the lifetimes of those who do not have a postsecondary degree. When the commission released its report last year, it found serious problems with the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education.

The problem with accessibility begins in our high school. In addition to epidemic dropout rates, our high schools are not graduating students proficient in math and reading. The financial aid system also has problems: forty percent of high school graduates are eligible for Pell Grants, but only four percent are receiving them. Only six percent of low-income students report having been in a "rigorous course of study" at their high school, handicapping them in the college admissions process. Challenging environments that make students competitive for college do not exist, even for those who are qualified.

Affordability is another major problem in higher education. The high cost of college keeps some low-income students from even considering continuing their education after high school. Rapid tuition increases also mean high debt for middle-class and low-income students who do go to college.

The final issue the commission investigated was accountability. Americans expect information and transparency for major decisions. Unfortunately, despite huge tuition increases in recent years, Americans cannot comprehensively find out what universities are doing with that money. Colleges and universities must be more transparent in order to enable prospective students to make the best choices.

Session 1: The Spellings Commission: Did It Accomplish Anything?

Robert Zemsky
Spellings Commission, University of Pennsylvania

There is a fundamental distinction that needs to be made between the reality of the commission and the fact of the report. We need to stop talking about access and begin talking about participation. Access implies there is a gateway, when in fact there is no gateway.

The commission made three fundamental mistakes. The first mistake was framing the issue as a frontal assault on higher education. Higher education loves this because it stops dialogue and leaves the two sides blaming each other. The second mistake was viciously attacking higher education. The third mistake is that there was never any discussion on how to actually change higher education.

Manipulating federal policy will not change the system. Change requires a "dislodging event"--a radical departure from the status quo. This dislodging event will force the academy to do the very thing it has said it cannot do: create methods that allow the systems to be tested.

Judith Eaton
Council for Higher Education Accreditation

The Spellings Commission accomplished five things: dialogue, challenge, criticism, discussion of the role of government, and apprehension. The first accomplishment was establishing a national dialogue on accountability. The Department of Education has sustained the dialogue. Second, the report challenged and even enraged many in higher education due to its critiques. The report, however, has moved many institutions to take actions such as benchmarking performance indicators. The third accomplishment was its criticism of accreditation.Accreditation's discontents have been brought to the forefront and given opportunity to voice their concerns. The fourth and most important accomplishment is that questions that have been raised about the role of government in higher education. The government can use accreditation to assert its authority in accreditation, nationalize accreditation, and regulate quality. The fifth and final accomplishment is in the apprehension that higher education has about a single set of national standards. In short, the commission has mounted the largest challenge to higher education in fifteen years, and if the report's recommendations come to fruition, the role of accreditation in higher education will have been fundamentally changed.

The Honorable Eugene Hickok
Former Deputy Secretary of Education

It is too soon to tell whether the Spellings Commission has accomplished its goals, but there are some positive fruits to the labor. But there is still complacency in higher education, so we must ask, "Are we really providing a 'higher education?'"

The report highlighted some fundamental questions, such as "What is the purpose of higher education in the twenty-first century?" and "Are we providing students what is needed?" The higher education is a system that in many ways is a non-system. The high degree of diversity that makes each institution different is also one of the strengths of American higher education.

Higher education is a mature enterprise. It is risk averse, expensive, and self-satisfying. The world has undergone revolutionary change, and higher education has not done well at adapting to that change. To do that, it needs to become responsible, efficient, and effective. In the name of accountability, there is a sort of a vacuum forming regarding responsibility. Accountability provides the data, but it is something for which we do not necessarily take responsibility. Accountability will begin naturally on an institutional level when higher education takes ownership and responsibility for its actions. A dislodging event is needed, and good ideas need to be brought to the table so that a dialogue may begin. The Spellings Commission report has provided an opportunity to discuss what is needed in higher education.

Session 2: Financing Higher Education: The Future of Government Support?

Ron Ehrenberg
Cornell University

Although tuition of public higher education has risen less in the past twenty-five years than in private institutions, the percentage of the increase has been higher; the gap in tuition between public and private colleges is larger today than it was twenty-five years ago. The main reason for the rise of public higher education's tuition costs is the failure of state support. The rate of spending per student is essentially flat: when compared to private institutions, spending and faculty salaries have fallen. 

As state funding of public institutions is reduced, it will be most detrimental to the students. Students from low-income families are more likely to attend institutions that cost less. These lower-cost institutions also have a lower expenditure per student. There is also a correlation between family income of family and post-college earnings. The disparity between higher-income and lower-income students is further exacerbated by the change of financial assistance from need-based aid to merit-based aid.

Medicaid and federal Pell Grants are funded asymmetrically. When a state spends more on health benefits, it gets more assistance. When a state spends more on higher education and keeps tuition low, it gets less funding. We must provide incentives to institutions that allow access to low-income students. These incentives need to be tied to the ratio of low-income students in the student body. The public benefit higher education provides is national, and the federal government must therefore play a more direct role in ensuring that funding is at the appropriate level.

Richard Vedder
AEI, Spellings Commission

There is a sense that economic growth can be promoted by greater funding, suggesting that universities offer a public good. Is there some association between the amount of money a state spends on higher education and the economic welfare of the states involved? The statistical relationship between state spending on higher education and income growth is surprisingly negative.

State funding for public universities has begun to fall off in the past few years. Is this shortsighted, endangering our competitive edge? On the contrary, the political process is doing the right thing. They are forcing institutions to rely on tuition revenue by shifting resources away from areas with low rates of return. 

In evaluating the future of government funding for higher education, the tradeoff between equal opportunity for all and the an education system consistent with the highest standard of living must be seriously examined.

Sandy Baum
College Board

The federal government has a key responsibility for equitable and fair financial aid. The Spellings Commission recommended a complete and drastic restructuring of the federal financial aid system. The recommendations have encountered some steep opposition but have not pointed to the successes of the existing system, such as increased enrollment over the past thirty years. The recommendations do, however, highlight the need for a change in policy: how can the system be restructured so that resources can be used more effectively?

The federal government needs to help those who have insurmountable financial barriers. The financial aid system is no panacea, but it does help. The system can go further in allowing low-income students access if the federal government makes the system simpler, makes the application easier, targets aid and subsidies to families, looks at circumstances before and after college, and provides incentives to states and institutions. The goal of financial aid is to improve graduation rates, not just get people in the door.

Charles Murray
AEI

Today's mindset seems to treat everyone without a college degree as a second class citizen, and this mindset is wrong. A college education, meaningfully defined, is intellectually accessible to no more than 25 percent of the students in the United States. The worst thing that has happened to low-income and low-ability students, however, is not the lack of access, but the push for everyone to attend college. These students are told that the only way to a meaningful, satisfying life is a college degree.

Is it better to be born smart or rich? According to the data, it is better to be smart but poor. Graduation rates are higher among this group than among the group with wealthy but less intelligent students. There are indeed bright students without the opportunity to attend college, but we must stop the assuming the only reason we have a problem with socioeconomic homogeneity in elite schools is because the schools are not trying enough. The issue is more complex than that.

Session 3:
Commission's Omissions: Curriculum, Campus Culture, and Informed Trusteeship

Harry R. Lewis
Harvard University

It is fashionable to say that there is no place for general education in the university and that a core curriculum is impossible due to diversity of information and students' interest. It is hard to be enthusiastic about general education because the students and faculty enjoy freedom of choice more than the notion that they have a collective responsibility for the common good.

The idea that students have no common ground is false, and the idea that there is no body of core knowledge that all students should know is wrong. All students are going to be citizens and need to understand how American democracy works. Universities have an obligation to provide an understanding of the preciousness of freedom, self-determination, and the responsibility of citizens to act for the good of the country. It is imperative that American institutions not be propagandized, but it is equally important that the ideas be taught, so as not to lose the spiritual ideals and principles the United States was built on.

Mark Bauerlein
Emory University

A center-left ideology dominates the academy and fosters an unhealthy intellectual climate for both faculty and students. The "Intellectual Diversity" argument has been an effective pushback because it sends an affirmative message rather than a negative message. Campus leaders must be circumspect when dealing with dissenting voices rather than allowing the university to remain ideologically inhospitable.

The intellectual climate remains impoverished. Competition for the few positions available is steep, and as a result, these candidates become acutely sensitive to the etiquette and norms of the academy. These candidates only take strong opinions within their specialty. To question something such as multiculturalism even with the support of evidence is considered unprofessional. Political and ideological ideas have been institutionalized so much so that they have become disciplinary as well. The result is a culture of conformity.

Edward Cox
State University of New York

What is the role of a trustee or boards of trustees when asked to "rethink" an entire university system? The State University of New York (SUNY) system is one of the largest in the United States, but also one of the youngest, built in response to the Baby Boom. After the Baby Boom went to college, the system's infrastructure barely changed and SUNY became overregulated. The trustees restructured the system, constructing a central administration and offering a degree of autonomy to individual institutions.

The role of the trustee is basic. As fiduciaries responsible for the institutions, trustees must put oversight mechanisms in place, which include from inspector generals, maintenance, and well-planned budgets.

AEI interns Jordan Chapman and Travis Weinger prepared this summary.