Federal triangle

New England Journal of Higher Education, The, Fall 2003 by Hartle, Terry, Simmons, Chris

Congress Focuses on Access, Affordability and Accountability

TERRY HARTLE AND CHRIS SIMMONS

Part I of a special CONNECTION series on reauthorization of the federal Higher Education Act

Congress has begun to rewrite (or in the technical parlance, "reauthorize") the Higher Education Act, the federal law that authorizes student aid programs like Pell Grants, student loans, Federal Work-Study, TRIO and GEAR UP. This will mark the eighth time that the law has been formally revisited since it was enacted in 1965. It is a long and complex process that usually takes two full years to complete.

It's still early in the process and predicting what Congress will do is likely to prove foolhardy. Still, in any reauthorization cycle, there are a handful of issues with significant implications for the relationship between the federal government and higher education institutions.

At this point, it appears that three issues should be on the radar screen of every senior campus administrator and trustee in the country: access to college for low- and middle-income students, the affordability of a college degree and the accountability of colleges and universities.

Access. Equalizing college participation by low- and upper-income students has always been the primary goal of federal student aid programs. But despite the billions of dollars spent on federal aid over the last 30 years, low-income students remain seriously under-represented at America's colleges relative to middleand high-income students. While the percentage of low-income high-school graduates who attend college has grown in recent decades, so has the percentage of their more affluent peers who do. The "participation gap" between students from high and low incomes is exactly the same as it was before the federal student aid programs were created. Why?

Some analysts believe that low-income students lack information about the benefits of higher education and the availability of student aid. Others think that many low-income students didn't receive the academic preparation in high school to succeed in college. Still others focus on the absence of financial resources. But analysts do not agree about which factor is the most important barrier to college participation, and the re-emergence of a federal budget deficit makes it impossible for Congress to fund all the new initiatives that policymakers (and we) might like.

Obviously, the federal government could play a role in any of these areas. A national advertising campaign could boost student awareness about college and student aid. High-quality early intervention programs, like TRIO and GEAR UP, could increase the number of academically prepared low-income students. Improving the quality of secondary school-as the federal government's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) seeks to do-would also improve academic readiness. And substantially boosting the amount of available student aid would surely reduce financial barriers to participation.

Even more worrisome, perhaps, is the assumption by some federal officials that increases in federal student aid will just be consumed by tuition increases and would therefore not make a significant difference in student participation. Which brings us to the second concern.

Affordability. It's no secret that college prices have increased sharply in recent years, especially at public colleges and universities Many members of Congress believe these increases have made it impossible for students-especially from low-income families-to go to college. Some believe the problem could be solved if colleges were simply "more efficient." Others have begun to discuss more draconian ways to deal with the issue. For example, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-California), the influential chairman of the House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness that will write the reauthorization in the House, has proposed barring schools from the federal student aid programs if their tuition increases exceed a level set by the federal government. This amounts to federal price controls on colleges.

Congressional action on affordability is problematic. For one thing, tuition-setting at public institutions relates directly to how much campuses are supported by state governments. In recent years, many states have consciously cut operating support to colleges, knowing tuition would rise to make up the difference. It doesn't make sense to blame colleges for actions taken by state legislatures.

In addition, almost all federal student aid is given to students, in effect, as a voucher that can be used at any college the student chooses. In theory, student aid recipients who find tuition too high at one college can go to another, less expensive one. Since the federal government gives very little money directly to colleges, it has few ways to influence institutional behavior-unless it uses a heavy club.

At a minimum, Congress is likely to impose new reporting requirements on colleges related to tuition and will search for "incentives" to help minimize tuition increases. Whether Congress eventually settles on some form of price controls remains to be seen.