Mr. Charles Miller, Chairman

Secretary's Commission on the Future of Higher Education

U.S. Department of Education, Room 5E313

400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Mr. Miller: 

As you and the other members of Secretary Spellings' Commission on the Future ofHigher Education near the completion of your report, I wish to take the opportunity to state the views of the NAICU membership, particularly as they relate to some of the draft recommendations. From our several conversations, you likely are aware of these already. 

Overview

First, I want to commend the members of the Commission, not only for your debate of the issues throughout your deliberations, and especially surrounding the various drafts of your report, but also for your consideration of public comment and outside views as the drafts evolved. Both the tone and substance of the report have improved as a result.

There are many elements in the current draft that the NAICU membership can support and even applaud. These include the Commission's emphasis on increasing access; the recognition of the vital role of higher education in contributing both to the public good and to individual enhancement; the need for accountability (although we would emphasize accountability that is "appropriate" to the many stakeholders in higher education); the importance of increasing need-based student financial aid; a heightened awareness for additional resources in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM); the call for deregulation of higher education at the federal and state level; the importance of an education which will produce globally literate graduates; and the need to address important policies aimed at international students who wish to study in the United States. 

Student Unit Record DataWhile saluting the Commission's recommendations in these areas, we find others extremely problematic. The first of these has to do with student unit record data. NAICU and its members institutions share a fundamental belief that student and family privacy must be protected. For 30 years, federal privacy laws have allowed schools to release student-specific confidential data only with the written approval of the student. We strongly support those laws. We object to the idea of student-level data on the basis of four key concerns: privacy, security, the law, and existing data. 

• PRIVACY – Put simply, we do not believe that the price of enrolling in college should be permanent entry into a federal registry, and that has been the driving force behind our opposition to a federal student unit record data system. A centralized national database tracking college students, their academic progress, financial aid information, enrollment, and performance in their careers is profoundly counter to the democratic underpinnings of higher education and American society. We recognize that some people accept the personal privacy compromises of data systems that would collect student information throughout all of one's schooling and beyond. However, our members find this idea chilling. The August 3 draft of your report calls for "non-identifiable data." This seems inconsistent with your desire to collect data on transfer students, and to track labor force outcomes. Finding effective ways to track the progress of individuals, without having their identities known in some originating database, seems highly improbable.
• SECURITY – We also fear that the existence of such a massive registry will prove irresistible to future demands for ancillary uses of the data, and for additions to the data for non-educational purposes. Assurances are given that modern technology and electronic security practices will keep this most sensitive personal information safe. Yet, with increasing frequency, there are reports of serious breaches in the data levees. No one can say that individual student information collected would be absolutely secure.      
• THE LAW – In July 2005, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce unanimously adopted an amendment to the Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization bill that would prohibit the Department of Education from using HEA funds for a student unit record data system. This language was not challenged when the full House considered the measure in March of this year. Overwhelmingly, the law reflects American public opinion. In a recent poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, and sponsored by NAICU, Americans agreed by a two to one margin that enough data are already collected at the college and university level, and that reporting individual data is a breach of privacy that could result in abuses of people's personal information.      
• EXISTING DATA – A wealth of aggregate data are available through IPEDS, and these data have helped guide any number of policy questions. In addition, there are several longitudinal studies conducted by NCES – such as NELS (The National Education Longitudinal Study) and the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study – that capture individual student information for research into student demographic characteristics, program persistence and completion, and post-baccalaureate education and employment. These studies, based on statistically valid samples of students, have been useful in addressing policy questions and do not compromise individual student data. NAICU believes that these studies are capable of providing sufficient data in response to the frequently cited public policy need for information on transfer students and graduation rates.

          Independent colleges and universities strongly support the use of data, including aggregate student measures, to make the college selection process easier for students and their families. However, a federal cradle-to-grave database is not the answer.The vast volume of institutional data that the government already collects should be effectively organized on the underutilized COOL website – which does compare institutions along an array of variables – and then aggressively marketed. This would give families the information they need, while avoiding the serious privacy and security risks posed by a student unit record database. 

Federal Student Financial Aid Programs 

Our second area of concern is the Commission's recommendation to dismantle the current array of federal student financial aid programs, and replace it with something as yet undefined. While we certainly concur with the Commission that the Pell Grant program needs to be substantially increased, those funds should not come from a dismantling of the current programs. Each program serves a vital and proven purpose, and eliminating any will only serve to diminish support for low-income students. Indeed, the Commission's recommendations would have a net negative impact on student aid for the neediest students.

Outcome Measures 

Finally, while the Commission has steered away from specific language about a single test to measure students' performance, we are concerned that the Commission's rationale for outcomes information gives the impression that it is possible to compare one institution with all others. A drive for such comparisons will inevitably lead to the attempt to adopt a single test. Much more relevant would be a system that is voluntary among peer institutions, in which these specific institutions could identify several instruments that they could evaluate as appropriate for comparison among themselves. Independent colleges and universities have been on the forefront of better student assessment with NSSE and CLA, and active in these areas for many years. The rich variety of American institutions of higher education cannot be captured by a single measure. 

I hope that these comments are useful as you develop your final recommendations. I will be attending the Commission meeting on August 10, and will look forward to the Commission's discussion of the third draft of its report. 

Sincerely,

David L. Warren

President