AAUP Comments on Higher Education Bill

In late May, the AAUP, together with forty-six other higher education associations, signed a letter to Representatives John Boehner of Ohio and Howard McKeon of California commenting on the College Access and Opportunity Act. Boehner and McKeon introduced the bill as the reanthorization of the student aid programs that fall under Title IV of the Higher Education Act and the institutional aid programs under Titles III and V of the act. Although this version of the bill is unlikely to go forward this year, its introduction provides the higher education community with an opportunity to comment on specific concerns. The letter to Boehner and McKeon is excerpted below.

We are fully aware of how difficult it has been to prepare this legislation and applaud your efforts to produce a bill that will move reauthorization forward. We have already met with your staff to discuss the bill, and appreciate their interest in our views and willingness to listen to our suggestions. . . .

We look at this bill-like any other major piece of education legislation-with two basic questions in mind. First, "Will it enhance student access to higher education?" The answer to this question is yes. . . . [T]his bill will modestly improve student access. Second, "Will the bill as written alter the basic relationship between the federal government and institutions of higher education?" Unfortunately, the answer to this question is also yes. As a result, we cannot support this bill in its current form.

In particular, we are deeply concerned by the enormous regulatory and reporting burden imposed by the bill. . . . These provisions will impose a huge cost on campuses, a cost that will, ultimately, be passed on to students in the form of higher tuition.

We also wony about the impact of the bill on accreditation and transfer of academic credit. Both are absolutely central to the academic integrity of colleges and universities. But this bill conies close to making accrediting agencies administrative arms of the Department of Education and to federalizing the transfer of credit. At a minimum, such steps will move decision making and authority on academic matters from campus officials to federal bureaucrats. At worst, [the bill] will significantly alter the relationship between the government and higher education.

We are disappointed that the bill does not increase the maximum Pell Grant over the life of the reauthorization and, in Titles II, III, and V, simply redistributes existing funds across a larger number of institutions. As you know, higher education enrollments are expected to grow over the life of this reauthorization. Your decision to prepare a "budget neutral" bill while making more schools eligible for federal programs at a time when enrollment is increasing, will dilute the amount of financial aid available to individual students and institutions. . . .

We look forward to working with both of you . . . on this issvie that is absolutely vital to our nation's economic growth and social progress.