1 / 27

Higher Education in a Changing Political and Economic Environment

Higher Education in a Changing Political and Economic Environment. MSCHE Annual Conference December 13, 2011 Mary Ellen Petrisko, Vice President. Or…. Fewer dollars…. …more concern. Who are these people?. What are these numbers?. 236% $175,000,000,000 12%/26%/46%. Senate HELP Committee.

alton
Download Presentation

Higher Education in a Changing Political and Economic Environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Higher Education in a Changing Political and Economic Environment MSCHE Annual Conference December 13, 2011 Mary Ellen Petrisko, Vice President

  2. Or….

  3. Fewer dollars…

  4. …more concern

  5. Who are these people?

  6. What are these numbers? • 236% • $175,000,000,000 • 12%/26%/46%

  7. Senate HELP Committee March 10, 2011 Hearing: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.: A Case Study… June 7, 2011: Hearing: Drowning in Debt: Financial Outcomes for Students at For-Profit Colleges July 21, 2011 Roundtable Discussion: Improving For-Profit Higher Education

  8. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. • Purchased Mt. St. Clare College in 2005, now Ashford University • Enrollment growth: 300 to 78,000 students • From $3M to $600M in federal funds annually • From $81M in profits 2009 to $216M 2010 • By 2010, 63% withdrawal at BA level, 84% at AA level of students enrolled 2008, 2009

  9. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. • 30% of income to profit; 30% to recruitment; 40% to all else, including $36.7M to top five executives, with $20.5M to CEO (2009) • 1703 enrollment advisors; one job placement advisor

  10. Senate HELP Committee on for-profit education • 236% growth in enrollments at for-profit institutions 1998-2008 • More than 25% of minority and low-income students attend for-profit institutions • Median debt: $31K, four times that of publics, with 20% graduation rate Statistics from Education Trust • 12% of enrollment; 26% of federal funds, 46% of defaults on student loans Statistics from U.S. Dept of Education

  11. Are accreditors fulfilling their responsibilities in this new regime? Or…

  12. How are accreditors ensuring quality and protecting the public interest?

  13. U.S. Department of Education • Mission: The U.S. Department of Education seeks to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

  14. U.S. Department of Education President Obama's vision is that by 2020, America will again have the best-educated, most competitive workforce in the world with the highest proportion of college graduates of any country. http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/goals.html

  15. National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity • Established 1992, NACIQI provides recommendations to Secretary on: • The establishment and enforcement of criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under the HEA. • The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations or a specific State approval agency. • The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) state licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.

  16. Recent charge to NACIQI • Secretary Duncan in December 2010 charge to NACIQI: • How well does the U.S.’ $150 billion [now $175B] investment in higher education serve us? • How well does accreditation protect the interests of the taxpayers who underwrite this investment? • What is the relationship between quality assurance, continuous improvement, and compliance? • Should there be common standards for learning outcomes?

  17. NACIQI oversight • “At the request of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a subcommittee of the department’s advisory board on accreditation will develop a set of legislative recommendations for the 2013 renewal of the HEA…[T]he subcommittee ...plans to consider how to alter the country’s decentralized system of accreditation, which has been under fire in recent years amid cries for more accountability….”

  18. NACIQI Discussion Draft 10/18/11 • Linkage of accreditation and eligibility for Title IV funds • Option A: Retention of accreditation in the process • Option B: Separation of accreditation from the process • Option C: Modification of the linkage between accreditation and eligibility

  19. If eligibility remains linked… • Clarify responsibilities of the Triad • Federal interest in finance AND quality assurance • Address inconsistency of state regulation • Review role and scope of accreditors • Collect only useful data • Make data available to the public and consumers • Ensure usefulness of NACIQI as advisory body

  20. Concerns among accreditors • “Federalization of accreditation” • HEOA of 2008 and subsequent regulations give the federal government authority over • Credit hours • Transfer of credit • Distance education (identity tracking; state authorization) • Enrollment growth • Monitoring of Gainful Employment

  21. Criticisms of accreditation • Commission on the Future of Higher Education (Spellings Commission) • Education Sector • Center for College Affordability and Productivity • American Council of Trustees and Alumni • Inside Higher Ed discussions

  22. Spellings Commission • Strengthen public-private governance of accreditors • Develop national accreditation framework • Set expectations and build capacity to measure student learning outcomes • Promote greater transparency

  23. Education Sector • Have minimum standards • Have aspirational standards • Set the turnaround clock to something less than forever • Adopt a targeted approach to defining learning outcomes • Have a separate accrediting body for for-profits

  24. Center for College Productivity and Affordability • Focus on quality control, public disclosure of SLOs • Eliminate “yes/no” system of accreditation • Eliminate conflict of interest: accreditors are also the accredited • Replace rather than reform current system • Minimize role of single regulatory authority

  25. American Council of Trustees and Alumni Sever the connection between eligibility for government student aid and accreditation Trustees should become more active in the accreditation process Bring needed competition to the field of accreditation by having states require that their colleges and universities solicit bids for accrediting services Accreditation associations should act more like business consultants than monopolies.

  26. Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities • Keep accreditation as a collaborative self-improvement process • Make Department of Education accountable for making decisions on default rates as part of eligibility decisions • Change law to make eligibility decisions with more appropriate criteria and proportional penalties

  27. “Mend it; don’t end it”Doug Lederman, Inside Higher Ed

More Related