This article appeared in the Janurary 11, 2008 edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume LIV, Number 18.

Should Congress Demand More State Support for Higher Education?

John F. Tierney: YES

The prospect of attending and graduating from college should not be an impossible dream in America. Yet increasingly students and families are mystified and stunned by reports of rising tuitions and fees. Some end up taking on substantial debt, while others put their hopes on hold or forgo higher education completely.

Historically a financial partnership among families, higher-education institutions, states, and the federal government has developed to meet the challenge of getting more qualified students into college and through graduation to become contributing members of our society. But lately escalating tuition prices — and, in the public sector, declining and irregular public investment — have been alarmingly skewing the partnership's contributions, such that families and the federal government have been forced to assume a greater proportional share of the financial responsibility of providing access to higher education.

The latest bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor unanimously, deals with such concerns in several ways. For one, the bill's provisions would require states to maintain their appropriations to higher-education institutions and not supplant their responsibilities with federal aid or family contributions in the form of higher tuition payments. While structural problems in state budgets and economic downturns may squeeze higher education as a financial priority, it must be remembered that families and the federal partners experience their own economic challenges. I and other members of Congress hear repeatedly from state leaders, as well as businesses and families within those states, about the need for America to be competitive in a global environment and how education is a critical part of meeting that need. Each member of the higher-education partnership must, accordingly, sustain its commitment and have its actions comport with its pronouncements.

Indeed, in public higher education, the lack of stable support at the state level is one of the most significant factors determining public-college tuition and fee rates. According to College Board figures, when state and local appropriations are examined on a per-student basis using inflation-adjusted dollars (and taking into account enrollment increases of about 2 percent a year from 1995 to 2006), it is clear that public four-year institutions posted their largest increases in tuition and fees at precisely the same time state and local appropriations declined in the periods 1981-83, 1989-93, and 2002-5.

The House committee's reauthorization bill takes that trend into account by calling upon states to maintain their efforts to provide consistent and adequate support for their own public institutions in order to be eligible for certain federal grant money.

A few points on this are in order.

First, the level that must be maintained is fairly modest, tied to the average investment made by a state in higher education in the five-year period from 2002 to 2007.

Second, if they don't comply, uncooperative states will not lose fundamental student-aid monies. Instead, they will forgo Access and Persistence Grants in the Leveraging Education Assistance Partnership program, which reward states for creating cohesive partnerships with colleges, foundations, businesses, and mentorship programs to provide low-income students with the support they need to enroll in college and complete a degree. Those grants were selected because they are presumably important enough to garner the attention of the states, yet are not part of the existing base student aid — and thus a better incentive than other punitive proposals suggested.

Third, the concept of a federal maintenance-of-effort provision is well established elsewhere in law, most particularly within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

The House committee's bill also asks colleges to do their part. It calls for substantially increased transparency in colleges' reporting of costs — including increases, savings, and any plans to constrain costs — so that applicants can assess such factors in determining the affordability or desirability of an institution. Those colleges that act to keep their costs within a "higher-education price index," which considers the distinct expenses of higher-education institutions, will be rewarded with an increase in student-grant funds to be distributed to Pell Grant recipients — a clear benefit to students. Institutions that keep their promise to stay within the index for the four consecutive years of a student's attendance will get additional bonuses.

Applicants who are considering college will have their decisions aided by access to information about the relative successes of institutions in constraining costs and gaining eligibility for additional student assistance. Colleges that are unable to qualify for the incentives in any particular year will not be directly penalized, as some in Congress have proposed. Institutions that can't qualify for the incentives in a given year can, of course, communicate to applicants any unusual circumstances or attributes that might have a bearing on their performances according to the index — such as any already lower-than-average tuition and fees, or special amenities and other features. Though those simple approaches to helping families know what they might be getting into financially have been termed "price controls" by some detractors, nowhere in the legislation is there any provision that mandates a tuition price level or tells institutions what to charge their students in either tuition or fees. Rather, the idea is to make whatever those charges are readily and widely available to prospective students and families.

Finally, the House committee's bill provides that the U.S. Department of Education will assist families by researching, identifying, and sharing with institutions the best cost-saving strategies and practices from around the country. That will also give students a clearer picture of the colleges that interest them as well as help colleges improve by learning from each other.

Some states and higher-education institutions have now raised objections to having their obligations spelled out in the legislation. Arguments have raged endlessly over the "inputs" that drive costs and why varying state budgetary approaches governing tuition prices should mean a federal "hands off." Regardless, nothing in the bill prohibits state legislatures from maintaining rainy-day accounts from which they can invest in education in lean budget years, and as noted earlier, assertions of price controls have no basis in fact as evidenced by a reading of the clear language of the law: The measure contained no mandates limiting charges. The state maintenance-of-effort provision addresses legislatures' investments, and local governing boards or individual institutions may choose to use those investments as they see fit.

The clarion call from families, the unanimous voice of committee members, and the compelling need for a strong educational system indicate that these measures are fair, reasonable, and appropriate if we are to pursue a successful strategy in making colleges accessible to all qualified students. Under new leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, the 110th Congress has already approved legislation that reflects a commitment to making college more affordable by providing the largest increase in college financial aid since the 1944 GI Bill of Rights — over $20-billion over the next five years — and without raising taxes. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act builds on that bipartisan success and challenges all of us — the federal government, state governments, families, and institutions — to live up to the grandiose rhetoric about supporting education in our challenging global environment.

John F. Tierney, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is a senior member on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor.

© 2008 The Chronicle of Higher Education