The Obama administration, which has proposed rating colleges based on their value to students, continued its four-campus tour to gather public input on Wednesday, holding an open forum at George Mason University.
This being the Washington region, several of the speakers who commented on the president’s plan were, not surprisingly, lobbyists.
But the concerns they raised at the daylong event were similar to those voiced at last week’s forum at California State University-Dominguez Hills—namely, that a ratings system, done poorly, would have a host of unintended consequences and could even undermine the administration’s own goal of graduating more low-income students.
In comments offered to a panel of Education Department employees, the speakers warned that a system that failed to account for differences in institutional mission and student characteristics could discourage colleges from serving needy, high-risk students, and from offering degrees in high-need but low-paying professions like teaching and social work.
“Penalizing these schools for serving the societal goal of increasing the number and diversity of students enrolled and graduating from colleges seems patently unfair and inefficient,” said David H. Swinton, president of Benedict College, a historically black institution in South Carolina. He argued that an “improperly designed rating system” could “mislead students into selecting institutions that will not maximize their chances of success.”
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sought to reassure attendees, promising that the administration would “take into account the wonderful diversity of institutions.”
“We begin with an acute awareness of the risk of unintended consequences,” he said in remarks at the start of the event.
In an interview with reporters after his speech, Mr. Duncan said the administration wants more colleges to admit more first-generation students, and to see more students pursue public service. He acknowledged that, “if we do this poorly, we could disincentivize that.”
Mr. Duncan noted that some commenters have pressed the Obama administration to rate institutions at the program level, so that programs preparing teachers, for example, wouldn’t be compared with programs producing Wall Street traders.
Still, he said, the administration remains committed to its plan, which would ultimately link the college ratings to federal student aid. He said it was “indefensible” that the government awards billions of dollars in student aid each year based solely on “input” measures, and he argued that consumers need better information on outcomes to make good collegegoing decisions.
Data Deficit
Several speakers from community colleges and predominantly online institutions pointed to gaps in existing federal data and urged the administration to consider gauges that would paint a fuller picture of their students’ outcomes, such as the Student Achievement Measure developed by the “big six” group of college associations.
The federal graduation rate, which counts only first-time, full-time students, reflects “a student body that barely exists at our institution,” Sarah J. Dufendach, vice president for federal-government relations at the University of Maryland University College. Of her institution’s more than 23,000 students, only 187 are included in the federal calculation, she said.
Community-college leaders and lobbyists also warned against judging colleges based on the earnings of borrowers only, noting that few students at community colleges borrow for their education.
Not all the comments at Wednesday’s forum were critical, though. Among those voicing support for the president’s plan were representatives of Generation Progress, a left-leaning student group; the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a think tank; and the National College Access Network, whose members work with low-income students.
“We support the creation of a rating system to guide choices about collegegoing,” said Kim Cook, president of NCAN, likening the idea to a Consumer Reports for colleges. She urged the administration to “liberate all existing data,” including disaggregated graduation rates, while working toward more-comprehensive measures of student outcomes.
Michael B. Poliakoff, vice president for policy at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said the administration was “correct to demand metrics” of institutional success, but he urged policy makers to include measures of student learning in the ratings.
“Completion without quality is meaningless,” he argued. “That’s the missing piece.”
The Education Department will hold its third forum on Friday, at the University of Northern Iowa, in Cedar Falls. A final forum will take place next week at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge.
