The House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development held a hearing today on “Lowering Costs and Increasing Value for Students, Institutions, and Taxpayers.”
Subcommittee Chair Burgess Owens (R-UT) set the tone for the discussion in his opening statement:
“For far too long, the federal government has doled out hundreds of billions of dollars to colleges without any sense of accountability. Presently, public funding and institutional profit is based on the number of seats college fills, not on the students performance or success. This profit over performance receipt has resulted recipe has resulted in many students with more debt and worse outcomes.
This antiquated financial structure needs to be realigned so that the college success is linked directly to the student success. This will involve innovation, funding based on outcomes not inputs, skin in the game for colleges whose students take out loans. That should be a financial benefit to aiding graduates educational success, building a career and repaying their loan. That also should be financial accountability with institutions that live up to their promise to graduates.
Presently the burden of the students that is almost entirely burden a sole shouldered by the taxpayer and the borrower's it's time to think of colleges as stakeholders in the student's success versus observers. With a fresh, innovative mindset and willingness for accountability, we can assure that both students and taxpayers will receive a positive return on investment for their college.”
The hearing examined a variety of ways to increase accountability in postsecondary institutions, including:
• Accreditation (H.R. 3724, the Accreditation for College Excellence Act),
• Requiring more transparency from institutions on costs and quality,
• The need to measure student outcomes, rather than inputs, to assess the performance of postsecondary institutions,
• Adjusting data on student outcomes for demographics and circumstances,
• Mandating risk sharing or skin in the game for institutions to incentivize a reduction in high student default rates, such as co-signing loans (Loan Repayment Assistance Programs),
• Return on Investment (ROI) metrics to track benefits relative to costs and apply carrots and sticks such as performance bonuses or sanctions such as losing access to federal financial aid programs,
• Alternative tuition pricing models to reduce student costs -- including competency based models, guaranteed pricing for each of four years, tuition reset to actual price, partnering with employers to pay tuition,
• Focusing on student outcomes, not inputs to measure postsecondary performance,
• The efficacy of the Department of Education’s Gainful Employment rulemaking to increase accountability, particularly with for profit institutions,
• The cohort default rate and 90-10 rule,
• The expansion of Pell Grants to help students access postsecondary education,
• State disinvestment in higher education resulting in higher student borrowing,
• Online education and Online Program Management companies (OPMs),
• H.R. 1311, The College Cost Transparency and Student Protection Act,
• H.R. 496, the PELL Act, as a more effective alternative to Gainful Employment to ensure high bar outcomes,
• Performance based funding models (such as performance-based financing used by Texas State Technical College),
• A debate about the value of liberal arts education v. market driven education in high demand sectors.
Please find a link to the archived video of this hearing, along with Chair Owens’ opening statement, as well as those of the hearing witnesses. A recap form Inside Higher Ed may be accessed here.
