Position Statement From AASCU on Higher Education Reauthorization Act Changes Pending in Congress

Dear Colleagues,

In recent weeks, there have been growing indications that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce is preparing to introduce and mark-up a comprehensive bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA). Committee staff has been meeting with association representatives, including AASCU staff, to broadly discuss their framework and hear our concerns. 

These meetings, while certainly welcome and much appreciated, have not been particularly fruitful in shaping a bill that improves on current law. As a reminder, as of 2015, the HEA no longer sunsets as it did over the decades since its inception, and its reauthorization is not legally necessary for programs authorized under current law to continue. Without the threat of program termination, a discretionary reauthorization like this one should be judged against the baseline of existing programs to see which version better delivers on the promise of access and opportunity for students and families. Based on what little is known to date, we unfortunately suspect that current law, with all of its shortcomings, may be significantly preferable to the coming House bill.

We have heard that the legislation will be introduced this Friday, December 1st, and that the Committee mark-up will take place on Thursday, December 7th. The speed with which the Committee apparently intends to modify and approve such a significant revision of the law—a mere six days from the unveiling to Committee approval—is itself a problem in that it prevents observers (and many Committee members) from understanding and analyzing the bill’s intended and unintended effects. We have been told that the exact timeline may change, but that the Committee does intend to mark-up a bill before the end of this calendar year.

The following is a “semi-official” summary of the bill’s possible provisions. The descriptions are intended to cast as positive a light on the changes the Committee may intend to make to current law, most of which won’t be fully known until the actual text of the legislation is released. Based on this very tentative summary, we are concerned that the bill could cut important benefits—SEOG, in-school student loan subsidies, caps and limitations for loan availability, redefining full-time eligibility for aid to 15 credits, and TRIO changes, to name a few. We are concerned that it will dilute what aid remains available by expanding eligibility of new providers (presumably coding boot camps and other short-term for-profit players), and eliminating critical distinctions between non-profit colleges and universities and for-profit companies. This latter change would not only diminish the value of legitimate academic credentials by comingling vastly different types of institutions, it would also potentially diminish available university funding under other titles or other federal laws by rendering for-profits eligible for programs for which they are currently ineligible. In addition, there are indications that some of the changes amorphously described as improvements may in fact introduce risk-sharing for institutions of higher education, significantly expand the federal government’s role in mandating academic policy, and alter accreditation in problematic ways.

We are sharing this information only to advise you that a House bill is imminent and may move quickly. It is important to note that the information we have is unconfirmed and that the official draft may look different from the current descriptions. In addition, little is known about changes to other titles of the HEA. We will share additional information with you as we learn more.


A Deal that Works for America’s Students


The Committee’s Higher Education Act reforms will Promote Innovation, Access, and Completion by:

  • Providing low-income students access to new providers of higher education by allowing those providers to join with traditional colleges and universities for the entirety of a student’s educational program.
  • Encouraging on-time completion by updating the definition of an academic year.
  • Repealing the antiquated and rigid definition of distance education to allow for innovative methods of instruction.
  • Encouraging competency-based education by creating a clear pathway for such programs to be eligible for federal student aid to help students attain a less costly degree based on their own learning schedule rather than time spent in a seat.
  • Expanding industry-led earn-and-learn programs that lead to high-wage, high-skill, and high-demand careers.
  • Supporting at-risk and minority students by reforming the TRIO programs to better evaluate the effectiveness of these programs and allowing all institutions to apply for funds that encourage evidence-based innovations, including pay for success initiatives, to promote postsecondary access and completion.
  • Encouraging minority-serving institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities to use grant funds for completion-focused initiatives such as pay for success, dual enrollment, and the development of career-centered programs.
  • Repealing unfair requirements that limit low-income students’ access to career-focused institutions and treating all institutions the same.

The Committee’s Higher Education Act reforms will Simplify and Improve Student Aid by:

  • Streamlining the student aid programs into one grant program, one loan program, and one work study program to ease confusion for students who are deciding the best options available to responsibly pay for their college education.
  • Providing access to a new ONE loan with reasonable loan limits and terms and conditions.
  • Reforming the work study program so that dollars go to institutions by undergraduate student need, and increasing a focus on workforce development by eliminating the arbitrary cap on students working at private-sector companies.
  • Disbursing grant and loan aid to students on a weekly or monthly basis, similar to a paycheck.
  • Paring down the maze of repayment options to one standard 10-year repayment plan and one income-based repayment plan to help borrowers better manage their debt after graduation.
  • Preventing fraud in the Pell Grant program by making sure students who have received a grant for at least three payment periods but have never completed any credit hours or credit hour equivalences do not receive additional Pell grants.
  • Making the FAFSA available on a mobile app and requiring both the app and the online form to be consumer-tested and clear and easy to use.

The Committee’s Higher Education Act reforms will Empower Students and Families to Make Informed Decisions by:

  • Improving information available to students and families with a consumer-tested College Dashboard website that would display key information about colleges and universities, including enrollment, completion, cost, and financial aid.
  • Providing aggregated information on the average debt of borrowers at graduation and the average salary of students who received federal financial aid both five and ten years after graduation for each program at an institution that participates in a student aid program under Title IV.
  • Streamlining transparency efforts at the federal level to reduce confusion for students and requiring federal agencies to coordinate more effectively, avoid duplication, and deliver reliable information to consumers in a way that is easy to understand.
  • Enhancing financial aid counseling to help all recipients of federal financial aid better understand their options to responsibly finance their higher education pursuits and the obligations they can expect after graduation.
  • Improving early awareness of federal financial aid options for students in high school.
  • Preventing the federal government from imposing a one-size-fits-all system that would arbitrarily rate our nation’s diverse colleges and universities, restrict consumer choice, confuse families, and potentially limit postsecondary options for low- and middle-income students.

The Committee’s Higher Education Act reforms will Ensure Strong Accountability and a Limited Federal Role by:

  • Strengthening the accreditation process to better focus on student achievement, allow for innovation, reduce cost and burden, and increase transparency.
  • Moving to a program level loan repayment rate that will help target federal student aid to programs where graduates have the ability to repay their student loans.
  • Reforming the return to Title IV (R2T4) process to reduce burden and increase institutional risk-sharing tied to student completion.
  • Reforming the Office of Federal Student Aid and directing the Chief Operating Officer to be more transparent about the performance of the federal student loan system.
  • Holding the Secretary of Education accountable by explicitly prohibiting her from exceeding her authority, defining any terms inconsistent with the law, or adding any requirements on institutions and states that are not explicitly authorized in the law.
  • Eliminating burdensome federal regulations that put Washington in the middle of issues that are the responsibility of institutions or states, limit student choice, and stifle innovative practices by institutions.
  • Repealing unnecessary reporting requirements that fail to provide useful information to students, families, and policymakers, and exacerbate rising college costs.
  • Improving the rulemaking process by outlining specific procedures the Secretary of Education must follow when issuing federal regulations under Title IV, including mandating minimal comment periods for stakeholders and providing a congressional notice and comment period.

 

 

Higher Education Authorization Act Changes Being Introduced For Committee Debate

All sectors of higher education needs to closely follow the US House Education and Workforce Committee as it gets presented the Republican members of the committee reauthorization bill.  

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) has issued the following update:

House GOP HEA Update

"The Republican Members of the U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee are likely to introduce, as early as tomorrow, their version of a Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization bill. A markup on this legislation could also come as early as next week. Inside Higher Ed reported summary information on the bill. Specific policy provisions that we expect to be included in this legislation are:

  • Elimination or capping of Public Service Loan Forgiveness and other HEA loan forgiveness programs for teachers and income-drive repayment plans
  • Consolidation of existing loan programs with more restrictive loan limits, especially for graduate students
  • Expedited return of unearned Title IV aid when a student drops out 
  • Significant changes to accreditation agency operations and processes
  • Authorizes new funds for apprenticeships and other work experiences
  • Expands the Pell Grant program to cover short-term courses"
  •  

Higher Education, Student Aid and State and Local Tax Deduction Debated in DC

The Congressional committee action on the so called tax reform bills is causing lots of concern and resulting lobbying in the higher education community and in the state and local government tax community.  Important to watch as this gets debated.  The tough work now starts on committee and floor amendments over the coming weeks.  

The following was written by the American Association of State Colleges and University on 11.30.17:

Senate GOP Tax Proposal

"On November 16, the Senate Finance Committee passed the Senate Republicans' version of tax cut legislation by a vote of 14—12 and released the bill's score. On Tuesday, the Senate Budget Committee reported out the tax bill, and it is currently being considered by the full Senate. As a reminder, the bill proposes to, among other things: 

  • Eliminate the ability to deduct state and local taxes for individual taxpayers, in contrast to the House's partial preservation of this tax deduction. AASCU has sent out action alerts on this issue and will continue to do so when necessary.
  • Increase the standard deduction to $24,000 from $12,700 for joint filers (and surviving spouses); to $12,000 from $6,350 for individual filers; and to $18,000 from $9,350 for heads of households. The House bill includes the same provisions. Such a change could result in less charitable giving, including giving to institutions of higher education, due to a lack of incentive to itemize deductions.
  • Unlike the House bill, the Senate proposal would not consolidate the American Opportunity Tax Credit, Hope Scholarship Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit into one education tax credit nor would it repeal the exclusion of income resulting from the discharge of student debt in cases of death or total disability, the deduction for interest paid on student loans, the deduction for tuition and related expenses, the exclusion of interest from savings bonds used to pay education expenses, the exclusion of tuition reductions or the exclusion of employer-provided education assistance.

  • FAFSA and FSA Updates

    The past two weeks have produced several newsworthy items with respect to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) Office of Federal Student Aid's (FSA) role in supporting student aid programs and servicing Federal student loans. First, FSA Chief Operating Officer (COO) Dr. Wayne Johnson announced a Next Generation Financial Services Environment blueprint for his organization. The blueprint is designed to modernize the technological and operational aspects of FSA that support Federal student aid programs. The blueprint calls for consolidating different ED-operated student aid websites, piloting the ability of students to access Pell and loan funds above tuition and fees through an ED provided financial structure (as opposed to existing debit card arrangements with colleges and universities) and improving Federal student loan servicing. As part of this announcement, ED also unveiled a new mobile FAFSA application that would be available in the spring. 

    Coupled with these Administration announcements, the Senate HELP Committee held a hearing on the need to simplify the FAFSA. As part of this hearing, HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) announced that he has been working on new legislation to simplify the FAFSA down to 15 to 25 questions. Such a proposal would be in contrast to earlier calls by Alexander to shrink the FAFSA down to 2 questions. In addition, Alexander and witnesses discussed the idea of creating an application for the Pell Grant, which would only be a few questions, separate from other types of aid."

A Governance Nudge: Board Self Evaluation

In the book "What College Trustees Need To Know", by George J. Matthews, Norman R. Smith and Bryan E. Carlson 2013, iUniverse Publisher, they write:  "In the end, the success stories will be at those institutions where Presidents and their Boards believe in each other, and symbiotically work together with the genuine desire for each other's success."  That is completely on point and accurate.  

What is crucial to the symbiotic working relationship is the annual board self evaluation.  This is not done at all institutions, however it is crucial to institution success and effective board governance. 

Each year universities and colleges normally perform an evaluation of the president.  Sometimes it is more comprehensive and sometimes it is more informal.  The campus communities are always most attentive to what the board says in these presidential evaluations--and always debating what is not said in the evaluation.  In any case the presidential evaluation is very effective and is being done and thought to be crucial to institutional success.

It is often said that everyone on a campus is evaluated by a supervisor or a constituency, except the board of trustees.  

Every board should find an effective self evaluation tool and process.  It should fit the culture of the institution and the board.  The board should seek input from the president on content of the evaluation and about how to get campus input into the board self evaluation process.  

The self evaluation needs to be about how the board works together as a group and how individual board members perform their duties and how they work with other board members.

The board self evaluation should include questions such as:

    Do we effectively communicate and work with the president and her/his team?  Are our communications methods with the president, the campus community and institutional constituents (alumni, donors, etc.) effective?  Are we micromanaging?  Do we focus on policy and not on administrative operations?  Are we at cross purposeless at any time with our institutional administration and faculty?  Are we asking challenging questions that are based on our understanding of our institutions culture, challenges and threats?   What could we do better?  What could we change?  Are all the board members individually adding value to the board and the institutions  and are we doing the same as a board, as a group.  There a many, many more questions and concepts to add to each board self evaluation.  Many will be based on the history, culture and challenges/threats facing the institution.

There should be a self evaluation process for each individual board member to complete based on their individual performance as a board members.  Board members should evaluate their performance:  Are you adding value to the board and the institution?  Have you at any time been inappropriately "disruptive" and negative in performing your board duties?  Have been effective at communicating with your fellow board members and with the President?  Have you inappropriately attempted to micromanage by communicating with administrators, academics and athletic leadership, etc., without discussing your questions and issues with the board chair and the president prior to any contact with this type of leadership?  Have you in addition to attending board meetings have you participated in alumni, athletic, academic, donor and community events and have you coordinated your participation thru the presidents office?  Are you a financial donor to your institution? There are obviously lots and lots of the questions to ask and processes to evaluate for individual board members.

Some questions on the overall evaluation process are how do you get campus and campus constituency input into the process and the outcomes of the evaluation?  Do individual board members see their colleagues self evaluations?  Do they discuss them at a board meeting (open or closed)?  Lots more here also to include and to discuss. 

What is important is to begin the process of designing and implementing a board self evaluation tool and process.  Board effectiveness and institutional success depends on you doing a board self evaluation.  Start it now.  We in higher education are facing tremendous challenges in the next several years.  Many believe that we are losing the faith and support of federal and state policy makers, institutional donors and taxpayers.  Board self evaluation can only help the institution as it works its way thru the next several challenging years. 

 

 

 

University Graduate Rates

This post is from a blog written by Lou Glazer, the head of the organization called Michigan's Future Inc..Lou Glazer and I have been colleagues over the years in state government. 

In this blog Lou writes:  

"And although a college education is the great equalizer in the American economy, too often the definition of what constitutes whether a student is “college material” is fraught with class considerations. According to Paul Tough , who has written extensively and brilliantly about student success, only one-quarter of college freshmen from the lower half of the economic scale will go on to finish a degree. That statistic for children of parents in the top economic quartile? Approximately 90 percent."

This blog is making the point that colleges and universities must get better, much better, at making sure that when they recruit a high school student to come to their institution that they are making a commitment to that student (and their families) that the institution will do everything to make sure the student graduates with a degree.  This includes not only standard retention programs for academic performance but programs that help students adjust to their new life.  This is especially true for first gen students--they need someone who they can talk to about issues that come on a campus that no one in their family can address because they never have been part of a campus community.

This a good read.

 

 

 http://www.michiganfuture.org/09/2017/boosting-graduation-rates-a-moral-imperative-for-michigan-universities/

Tuition Discounting Policy Change at University of Detroit Mercy Is Innovative Move

From Crain"s Detroit:  "Effective with the next academic year that begins in fall 2018, tuition for new students(at University of Detroit/Mercy) will be $28,000 per year, down from the current annual cost of $41,158. 

Current students' tuition will decrease to $28,840 next year, reflecting a 3 percent tuition increase upperclassmen are charged.

The current sticker price had been deterring parents and students from considering the Catholic university, President Antoine Garibaldi said.

Since joining Detroit Mercy six years ago, Garibaldi has gotten to know many of the local high school principals. They tell him students and parents think highly of Detroit Mercy but don't even consider it once they see the price of tuition. 

"Now we will really be in the ballpark with other prospective schools so that parents and students will take a serious look at us," Garibaldi said.

The University of Michigan and Michigan State University, the Detroit university's largest competitors, are charging in-state freshmen $14,826 and $14,516 for the current academic year, respectively."

This will be an interesting marketing and recruiting move to watch among the private/non profit colleges and universities.  It could make a huge difference or just be a flop like all marketing moves.

However I do believe what President Garibaldi says he was hearing from parents and students about tuition sticker shock keeping them from considering UDM. Public college and university presidents are hearing the same message about their tuition.   Private/Independents and public colleges and universities are all confronting the issue of parent/student concerns about ever increasing cost of higher education.  For middle class families I think sometimes it is difficult for them to understand why they should pay $41,000 plus at a private/independent institution when a neighboring public institution is charging $14,000 plus.  Many will say both choices are high quality institutions so why burden our child with a $100-$200,000, or even more,  student loan burden.  

UDM's move I am sure will be watched by the other private/independent colleges and universities who are doing the same tuition discounting that UDM does.  If this works they too can begin to look at their tuition discounting policies and go to the so-called "real tuition cost" right up front.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20171121/news/645541/detroit-mercy-resets-tuition-to-2008-levels-to-reflect-actual-student?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
 

Higher Education Mergers, Acquisitions and Closures

This week Marshall  Law School and University of Illinois Law School announce a merger. Valparaiso Law School announced that it was closing. Last week we read about other mergers and some closure speculations. Seems obvious now that more and more of this will happen as the higher education market place shrinks and tries to re-position itself in this "new" economy.  

Might be interesting to see what public policy "nudges" the federal and state governments can put in place to encourage more re-arrangements and re-organizations in higher education.  Seems the more we can do to make universities and colleges more financially secure, fiscally responsible and to increase degree completion percentages the better off we would all be.  

Michigan has 13 public four year universities (plus Flint and Dearborn UM campuses), 29 community colleges and many, many non profit and for profit colleges and universities.  They are all trying their best to serve the citizens of this state and to be innovative and financially responsible.  Most of Michigan's four year public universities have constitutional protections to protect their independence and limit legislative/executive branch interference.  Maybe a few "nudges" and/or incentives might encourage some innovations on how we can more effectively the cost of higher education and increase opportunity.  Might show us some ideas to increase success for students and get more students enrolled and completing a degree.  

What are some possible "nudges" that might assist in this effort?  

What changes can we make in higher education public policy without having to amend the state constitution or spend years and years in court?

What can we do to increase board member effectiveness and governance quality?

What are some of the best practices in other states that we in Michigan (and other states) might learn from that have worked in these other states?

More later on some of these questions.

NLRB "Punts" On Collegiate Football Union. #highered. #edpolicy

Now lets see where this goes:  to state legislatures or to the judiciary?

Michigan has already pass a law that prohibits collegiate athletes from joining a union.

We have not heard the last of this.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/17/national-labor-relations-board-declines-assert-role-northwestern-football-union?utm_content=bufferffc78&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=IHEbuffer

Are The University Watchdogs Watching? Accreditation Bodies and Boards of Trustees?

Who is watching the watchdogs is what policy makers should be asking?  We pay a lot of public money to these accreditation organizations and as this article below says we may not be getting much for our money.  What about elected and appointed university boards?  Are they watching?  Who holds them accountable?  At least the elected boards have to face re election but not many are ever removed from office? Who is performing evaluations, etc., on board members?  Will more transparency help?  Should we have more public involvement on who gets on these boards>  More on this later. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-watchdogs-of-college-education-rarely-bite-1434594602

Resolution Making Universities More Transparent Moves

"Resolution Opening Up U. Board Meetings Could See Vote Next Week

A resolution that would change the Constitution to require the state's university governing bodies to be subject to the Open Meetings Act could be brought up for a vote in the House Oversight and Ethics Committee next week, its chair said Thursday.

*

The resolution (HJR O) would strip the word "formal" from the section of the Constitution governing university board meetings, and would require sessions of governing bodies of higher education institutions to be open as prescribed in the Open Meetings Act.

Rep. Ed McBroom (R-Vulcan) said he hopes to report the resolution when the committee meets next week. The committee did adopt a substitute offered by Mr. McBroom that strips language from the resolution pertaining to the Freedom of Information Act.

He said he felt the wording was redundant as there is already a section in the Constitution regarding FOIA.

Because of a Supreme Court case in 1999, university governing boards are able to hold deliberations in private and only "formal" meetings in public.

Mr. McBroom said he has been meeting with universities to find out if there are "specific issues" the OMA would create for the boards.

"As I see it right now, the Open Meetings Act would be adequate. It already provides for closed sessions, and for open sessions depending on specific information," he said.

Mr. McBroom said to him the resolution is common sense. He said it fixes a lack of clarity in the Constitution that led to the 1999 decision.

"The courts have determined again and again university boards are governing boards," he said. "I think we simply need to adopt this to clarify what, in my mind, is already in the Constitution," he said. "I don't think that is a heavy lift. ... We'll see. I am always a little bit of an optimist on the desire of open and transparent government."

The committee heard more testimony on Thursday from people mostly bashing the University of Michigan.

Douglas Smith, a former professor at the U-M, told committee members the university secretly hired an attorney after a student doctor was found with child pornography so that it could cite attorney-client privilege when asked about the incident and an investigation of the university that began afterward.

Patrick Clawson, a private investigator from Flint, said he once served U-M Regent Denise Ilitch with a subpoena and she screamed at him and acted like she was above the law.

While most who testified in committee Thursday were supportive of the bill, the Presidents Council, State Universities of Michigan was opposed." (Gongwer News Service).

Back To Top >>

Feds Aid To Higher Ed Grows While State Aid Declines/Slows

This development is very important to students and parents as they try to fund their child's higher education and not leave them with a school loan the size of their parents first home mortgage.  There needs to be more transparency on how University boards of trustees/regents set tuition rates and how they monitor salary creep. http://www.routefifty.com/2015/06/pew-higher-education-funding-states/115129/?oref=rf-today-nl

"Highest Return Now Goes To...

...those who combine soft skills like communicating with technical skills."  This is a good read on importance of liberal arts degree, a degree in the humanities combined with some solid technical skills is the future of educating leaders for our new global economy.  This is from an article in the New York Times today by Nick Krisoff.  http://nyti.ms/1D6fiTW Recently, author Fareed Zakaria (In Defense of a Liberal Education) and Michael Roth (Beyond the University:  Why Liberal Education Matters) published books on this topic.  These two books are worth a read for all those concerned about preparing and educating future global leaders but also for those concerned about how universities are or are not focused enough on global trends and preparation of global leaders.

Transparency in Researcher Funding Sources in the Academy

We need more conversations about this issue.  University leaders, including facult/researcher leaders, need to drive this debate.  It should not be left to be only debated off campus and in the media.  This article is a good review of the issues and concerns involved.  

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Challenge-for-Universities-/229027/?key=TT56dF9jNCJANnFrZ20TMGwEOyc8Zh96Z3JKaXhwbl5RFQ%3D%3D==

More Global University Compeition for Students World Wide

US higher education leaders are facing another "disrupter"-  more universities globally in top 150 universities.  Much more intense competition for students globally.  

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21646987-competition-among-universities-has-become-intense-and-international-top-class?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/top_of_the_class