Ever since Ronald Reagan
tried and failed to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, conservatives
have found themselves in a quandary when it comes to reforming public higher education.
Some continue to insist, rightly, that the Tenth Amendment places the power over
education solely in the hands of the individual states. A different group,
however, embraces efforts to improve higher education within the existing
framework of federal entanglement. They reason that since taxpayers fund the
federal government's massive spending on higher education, we should use
federal power to enhance affordability, quality, and access.
Former Secretary of
Education Margaret Spellings certainly fits in the latter category. In 2006,
her Spellings Commission called for a larger federal presence to enhance affordability
and access through increasing accountability and transparency. Spellings
envisioned boosting the importance of student outcomes in the accreditation
process, reconfiguring federal student aid to encourage lower tuitions, and implementing
federal tracking of individual student performance.
To that end, it is
unsurprising that Spellings has commended President Obama's proposal
to tie federal aid to a new ratings system. She argues that Obama is taking on
"the right issue at the right time," and she couldn't be more correct. Higher
education is in dire need of accountability. In
the past quarter-century, average tuitions have increased over 400 percent, far
outpacing inflation and even healthcare-cost increases. Subsequently, students
have amassed unprecedented debt. Adding insult to injury, around 36 percent of
students show little to no increase in fundamental academic skills are four years of college.
is unclear, however, that the President's proposal would actually increase
accountability. The President's rating system would consider graduation rates,
the percentage of low-income students enrolled, tuition prices, student-loan
debt, and the earnings of graduates, but not the most crucial variable: student-learning
outcomes. A better rankings system might factor in results from the Collegiate
Learning Assessment (CLA), which measures students' academic gains throughout
their college experience. Including the CLA in the federal unit
record system might alert students, parents, taxpayers, and policymakers to how
much, or rather, how little so many college students get out of their four-year
(-plus) investments. This rude awakening may spur another look at Charles Murray's argument that too many students go to
than what's missing from the President's ratings system is what it may one day include.
Given the administration's track record, it's possible that federal funding might become tied
to the administration-endorsed national curriculum for collegiate civic
Crucible Moment," which proposes transforming civic education into progressive
activism. Additionally, the federal government might choose to tie aid to
whether universities uphold its "breathtakingly
bold" and almost certainly unconstitutional
sexual harassment mandates.
Doubtless, none of these consequences
would be acceptable to Spellings. However, the ratings system's deficiencies
and possible consequences illustrates that conservatives should question the
value of working within the federal framework to fix higher education.