A NATIONAL DIALOGUE:

The Secretary of Education’s Commission

UMMARY on the Future of Higher Education

SUMMARY OF M E E T I N G
May 18, 2006, Washington, D.C.
The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education met in Washington, D.C.
on May 18 and 19 to begin building consensus around major issues facing higher education: accessibility,
affordability, accountability, workforce development, institutional efficiency and effectiveness, and
innovation. A summary of testimony from national meetings and public hearings, reports, studies, and
letters were distributed to Commissioners and prioritized for discussion prior to the meeting. During the
meeting, Commissioners were encouraged to identify key issues and discuss possible recommendations
for each area with a consistent level of thought and language for a final report now due to Secretary
Spellings in mid-September.
Remarks by U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
“Elevate the public debate and discourse . . .”

Secretary Margaret Spellings commended the panel for its efforts “to elevate the public debate and
discourse around issues in higher education.” She noted that the Commissioners “have hit a nerve” and
urged them to “be as concrete and as bold” as they possibly could in their recommendations. “I don’t
want you to be shy or mealy mouthed . . . be as specific as you possibly can,” she said, “not only with
respect to what the country ought to do or the Congress ought to do, but for what we at the Department
of Education can do and what state policy makers can do. Think broadly about the various actors.’’
Emphasizing the federal government’s considerable financial investment in higher education, the
Secretary noted, “We need to make sure that we are maximizing and investing those resources as
wisely as possible on behalf of students and our country.” Finally, she asked for the Commissioners’
leadership and guidance in developing recommendations that will address these important issues. “I am
very open-minded about what you might recommend,” she said.

Universal Access and Preparation

Preparing a Nation of Learners

Commissioners noted that ensuring individual prosperity and securing a healthy, vibrant national
economy for the future require expanded access to higher education opportunities for all Americans,
particularly for low income and minority students. Others also emphasized the importance of adequate
K-12 preparation to encourage progression through higher education, which the Commissioners more
broadly defined to include certificate and workforce development programs beyond high school in
addition to traditional two- and four-year degrees.

A number of issues related to access and preparation were identified, including the spiraling cost of
education and rising tuition rates; a complex financial aid system that is too focused on merit rather than
need; the decreased availability of higher education opportunities in rural America; high school curricula
that are not rigorous nor aligned with higher education and workforce needs; and roadblocks that
prevent students from transferring credits from two-year to four-year institutions.
2 ■ SUMMARY REPORT May 18, 2006

Some commissioners asked additional questions for investment in higher education. However, basic questions
thought: Can we really afford to provide a four-year liberal on the return on that investment remain unanswered. How
arts education to everyone who wants it? Is access the does higher education measure student learning and
biggest problem in higher education or is it progression educational effectiveness? How valuable is an education at
through the system? a particular institution? What do students and taxpayers get
for their money?
The Commissioners discussed the following potential
solutions: putting more resources into higher education to Colleges and universities must more accurately measure
encourage access, progression, and degree completion, their outputs and make that information available to the
particularly for low income, minority, and nontraditional public in a user-friendly manner, according to some
students; simplifying financial aid systems and increasing Commissioners. Increased accountability to the public
aid to low-income students on the federal, state, institutional would lead to increased efficiency and improve the quality
and even corporate levels; and recognizing the role of of students’ educational experience.
community colleges as the vehicle for universal access. To
address concerns about preparation, some commissioners Currently there are several instruments officials can use to
discussed the merits of using the National Assessment of provide information on student learning such as the
Educational Progress (NAEP) exam administered in the National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE), the
12th grade in order to obtain state-by-state analysis of Community College Survey of Student Engagement
college and workforce readiness. (CSSE), and the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA).
Commission members debated the methodology of the
Affordability instruments, and noted that measuring outputs and having
Making Higher Education More Affordable student outcome data is critical to maximizing public
investment in higher education and helping colleges and
Postsecondary education is becoming less affordable for universities become more effective and efficient.
greater numbers of Americans, including low income and
minority students, and is a major cause of early college Accountability: Accreditation
withdrawal. In the past decade, tuition has increased at twice Assuring High Education Quality
the rate of personal income. Commissioners discussed the
increased financial pressure that higher education institu- Accreditation, the complex self-regulatory system that
tions are placing on students, many of whom are accruing assures higher education quality, must become more
significant amounts of debt to pay for college. transparent and move institutions from minimal compliance
to world-class quality, according to some Commissioners.
Another topic related to affordability is the complexity of federal Although other Commissioners believe that accreditation is
financial aid programs. The seventeen federal financial aid a permanent part of the higher education mosaic and
programs that exist may be inefficient and confusing for already provides a useful vehicle for self-improvement,
students and families. Many Commissioners discussed the greater gains can be made in producing measurable
need to streamline these programs and emphasize need-based outcomes and spurring institutional innovation. Other
rather than merit-based aid. Commissioners pointed to the often-disjointed array of
accreditation agencies and identified it as a barrier to the
In developing potential solutions, Commissioners discussed transferability of credits between institutions. Commissioners
producing the right incentives to encourage higher education also challenged accreditors to open the process and
institutions to control cost, operate more efficiently, and harness engage external stakeholders such as business leaders to
innovative educational delivery methods. Commissioners also ensure that institutional improvements are meeting
called for a simplification of the federal financial aid processes. workforce standards and needs.

Accountability: Assessment and Potential solutions identified by the Commissioners include

Consumer Information a national accreditation framework that emphasizes
Maximizing Our Investment in Higher Education measures of student learning, encourages innovation in
practice that focuses on demonstrated outcomes rather
Commissioners asked, What do we value and what do we than prescribed inputs, is transparent, and builds on the
reward in higher education? The need for increased Baldrige approach of continuous improvement.
accountability is paramount, given the public’s significant
3 ■ SUMMARY REPORT May 19, 2006

S UMMARY OF MEETING Increasing Supply Address Capacity

May 19, 2006, Washington, D.C. Improving Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency

Workforce Development and Meeting Commissioner discussions on improving effectiveness

and efficiency in higher education were couched in the
Labor Market Needs call for greater accountability and responsiveness to the
Meeting Workforce and Labor Market Needs needs of the nation. Areas debated included college
student attrition, advocacy for national retention goals,
Commissioners reviewed statistics on changing demograph- and a call for improved data to measure significant
ics in higher education, focusing on gender, age, and changes in student achievement.
income level. The data showed an overall increase in higher
education participation from 1970-2004 but also indicated a Commissioners noted the potential causes of student
mix of positive and negative trends. While the percentage of attrition, which include inadequate advising on college
nontraditional students in higher education has increased campuses and an institutional culture that rewards research
relative to other age levels, major gaps exist between males but not teaching. Some Commissioners also observed that
and females in obtaining postsecondary degrees (7.4 million the higher education system often filters human talent,
and 9.9 million, respectively in 2004). Additionally, participa- increasing selectivity in admissions to increase institutional
tion in postsecondary education is still more likely among rank instead of expanding capacity and developing student
persons with higher incomes. potential. In response, some Commissioners noted the
important and growing role of community colleges.
Commissioners observed that the emerging global
workforce and economic conditions would require changes The preparation of students again caused a debate among
in America’s higher education system. Especially because Commissioners as some blamed inadequacies in the K-12
some postsecondary work is increasingly becoming the system while others placed the responsibility on the higher
minimum standard of achievement for success in the education community. Commissioners also pondered if the
modern workplace, Commissioners noted the importance of federal government should attempt to improve institutional
increasing accessibility to all segments of the population and efficiency and effectiveness through incentives. Some
providing flexibility for both degree-based and career suggested requiring undergraduate focus as part of the
advancement education. While the focus of comments was research funding process.
on increased alignment between higher education and
industry, particularly through programs such as internships,
apprenticeships, and other forms of direct workplace Innovation
experience, several Commissioners reminded the group of Responding to the Needs of the 21st Century
the importance of a broad, liberal arts foundation in addition
to technical competency. The core competency of the American economy is its
capacity to innovate and the Nation needs to nurture and
The Commissioners also discussed creating a national cultivate continued innovation. American innovation is
strategy for lifelong learning, which some termed a “continu- being stifled by obsolete curricula, an aversion to taking
ous investment in human capital.” A related issue for many risks, costly tuition, inadequate numbers dedicated to the
students, especially adult learners, is the difficulty in STEM disciplines—science, technology, engineering,
transferring credits between institutions, which increase cost math, and an education system unresponsive to the
and time to degree. Commissioners also spoke of “the needs of the 21st century. Lawmakers, higher education
missing American worker” as a metaphor for the participa- officials, and the public must address these issues. Many
tion gaps based on economic, racial, gender, and Commissioners suggested that the key actors who will
geographic factors. Several Commissioners questioned if drive institutional innovation are faculty members. Others
there would be a dearth of jobs in the future workforce advocated for a strong liberal arts base and recognized
because of the focus on increasing the supply of higher that general knowledge in math and science may be
education participants, especially high skilled students. inadequate against the demands of a knowledge-based,
services-driven global economy.
4 ■ SUMMARY REPORT May 19, 2006

Identification of Gaps / New Areas Commission Discussion and Wrap-Up

Determining Additional Issues Pertinent to Higher Education Identifying Next Steps

In a free-flowing session, Commissioners created a list of Commissioners reviewed challenges identified in each topic
issues not discussed during this meeting that may be area and were encouraged to consider which recommenda-
considered for inclusion in the final report. They included: tions would produce realistic changes. The goal, Commis-
the role of philanthropy in higher education; immigration and sioners agreed, is to use accurate data to develop bold
visa policies; creating a charge to faculty; the overregulation recommendations that will serve the Secretary’s charge.
of higher education; transferability of credits; the rising cost
of extracurricular activities; augmenting research on
learning; grade inflation; and university governance.