Secretary Spellings’ Commission on the Future of Higher Education held its second public hearing in Boston on March 20. The commission was established to develop a “comprehensive national strategy” on higher education. Only five out of the 20 total commissioners were present to hear the testimony of seven college presidents, who came from public and private, four-year and two-year institutions. The presidents’ messages, one after another, sounded a drumbeat: State funding for higher education is down, and access may be threatened if we don’t increase federal financial aid.

The problem in higher education is that competition raises costs and prices; the tremendous decline in federal aid no longer covers costs, as the president of Tufts said to the commission. Also, he pointed out that the growth in merit-based aid does not increase access because it benefits students who would be attending college in any event. Federal aid policy needs to refocus attention on the neediest students, he said.

During other testimony, the president of the University of Massachusetts stated that decreases in state funding and cuts to financial aid only transfer costs to students. When asked why we should not then move to a 0 percent funding and give money directly to the student, the president said the resulting destabilization of the system would lead to a disaster.

The timing of the secretary’s commission comes when the accessibility and affordability of higher education is a nationwide concern. Although not mentioned at the hearing, state and local support per student hit a 25-year low in the 2004-05 fiscal year, according to a new report by the State Higher Education Executive Officers. The analysis found that despite a 3.5 percent increase in spending on higher education over the last year, when you consider the growth in inflation and college enrollment, per-student support actually decreased by 1.9 percent. During this same time, tuition increased by 7.7 percent per student.

The presidents testifying also addressed other topics. They outlined the need to foster innovation in the curriculum and research and in teaching and learning. They questioned current discussions about mandatory testing and a standardized curriculum, noting that it would only hamper research and innovation.

Also, they uniformly rejected the use of graduation rates as a measurement for multiple reasons. The second half of the meeting was reserved for public testimonies and general comments to the commission from the audience.

The commission is required to submit its final report to Secretary Spellings by Aug. 1. [Lindsay Albert]

March 28, 2006