# **Learning Without Limits**

# **An Agenda for the Office of Postsecondary Education**

# **U.S. Department of Education**

***November 2000***

###### Based on a national dialogue with the postsecondary education community 

To All Citizens Interested in Postsecondary Education:

For many years I have described our postsecondary education system as
the jewel of our education system---and the envy of the world. At the
U.S. Department of Education and its Office of Postsecondary Education
(OPE), we are continually working to help improve and expand that great
system to provide access to all Americans.

The economic benefits of a college education to the individual are well
documented. The benefits of an educated citizenry to our democratic
society are even more important. Participants at an international
meeting on education recently stated that higher education has a role
\"as a beacon for society\" to help move civilization forward. With this
*Agenda Report: Learning Without Limits,* we are working to move
postsecondary education forward.

Already, this report has been useful for the Department in developing
new ways of better serving our stakeholders. We hope it will be helpful
to all in the postsecondary education community in creating an agenda
for the years ahead, particularly in the debates leading to the next
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We hope it starts a
discussion and sparks change as to how we can best meet the needs of
students, institutions, the business and nonprofit communities, and the
entire nation in the changing environment of the 21st century. We look
forward to hearing your reactions to this report.

This report represents months of effort and much hard work by the
department's Office of Postsecondary Education, and by all those in the
postsecondary education community who participated in the *Agenda
Project* process. My thanks to all involved.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Riley

U.S. Secretary of Education

To All Citizens Interested in Postsecondary Education:

In the 20^th^ anniversary year of the U.S. Department of Education, the
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) created the *Agenda Project* to
look to the future and develop a blueprint for the federal role in
postsecondary education.

From January to June 2000, OPE met with over 75 groups representing our
various constituencies, held four public meetings in different regions
across the country, and established an *Agenda Project* Web site to
solicit written comments. We asked for ideas and advice from college and
university presidents, administrators, trustees, and faculty, trade and
proprietary school executives, students, parents, community members,
Congressional staff, financial aid officers, business and technology
leaders, teachers, and others interested in education.

We asked three basic questions: 1) What are the most significant
opportunities and challenges facing American postsecondary education in
the next five years? 2) What are the appropriate roles for the U.S.
Department of Education in postsecondary education? 3) How can the U.S.
Department of Education best maintain a continuing dialogue with all
those who have a stake in postsecondary education?

In every discussion, these questions generated a remarkable range of
thoughtful comments from the participants. They were eager to talk about
the significant changes of the past 20 years. They were frank about the
challenges facing the postsecondary education community, concerned about
the future, yet optimistic about the opportunities. We heard much about
an enhanced federal role, particularly in promoting access, expanding
financial support, disseminating best practices, and using the "bully
pulpit" in support of higher education. Our heartfelt thanks to all who
participated.

The many issues and opportunities participants identified are discussed
under five general themes: Ensuring All Students Are Prepared to Go to
College and Succeed; Examining the Roles and Responsibilities in Paying
for College; Improving Teacher Quality; Integrating Technology and
Distance Education into the Curriculum; and Revitalizing International
Education. These themes reflect the thinking of stakeholders as to what
a national agenda for postsecondary education should be. Responding to
what we heard, we have identified twelve strategies to improve how OPE
serves its stakeholders, and more than thirty steps OPE should take. We
believe we had a successful national dialogue on these questions. The
goal of this report is to make sure the dialogue continues and changes
are made.

Without the hard work, long hours, and insightful input of the dedicated
staff at OPE, this report never would have happened. For their efforts,
they all have my thanks and gratitude.

Sincerely,

A. Lee Fritschler

**Contents**

Summary

Introduction: A Turning Point for Postsecondary Education

Theme 1: Access: Ensuring All Students Are Prepared to Go to College and
Succeed

Theme 2: Access: Examining the Roles and Responsibilities in Paying for
College

Theme 3: Improving Teacher Quality

Theme 4: Integrating Technology and Distance Education into the
Curriculum

Theme 5: Revitalizing International Education

Conclusion and Summary: Core Values at the Turning Point

Twelve OPE Strategies for the New Environment

Thirty-eight OPE Actions

Appendices

*Agenda Project* Meetings

Programs of the Office of Postsecondary Education

Endnotes

**Introduction: A Turning Point for Postsecondary Education**

We must respond to the rapidly evolving needs of numerous and diverse
stakeholders, question existing premises and arrangements, and eliminate
unnecessary processes and administrative structures.

> James J. Duderstadt, president emeritus, University of Michigan, in
> his recent book, *A University for the 21^st^ Century*

At the start of the 21^st^ century scientists mapped the human genome;
the economy set a record for sustained growth; unemployment dropped to
its lowest level in 30 years; electronic commerce hit the \$5.3 billion
mark; the World Wide Web grew to 2.1 billion pages and counting. The
population of the U.S., more than 275 million, continued to grow as it
simultaneously became more diverse. The various advances have created
opportunities and benefits for the vast majority of Americans.

Education is the keystone to continuing the success for both individuals
and society at large. Increasingly, in the information age,
postsecondary education is a necessity. Yet, the value of a
postsecondary education goes beyond mere economics. As the problems and
questions society faces become more complicated and complex,
postsecondary education prepares citizens to be thoughtful participants
in the decisions and debates; postsecondary education passes on the best
of our heritage and helps every new American discover what it means to
be a citizen in this country. It has always done this. If it is to
continue to do so, it must adapt to the rapid pace of change facing all
segments of society.

Competition is a hallmark of this changing landscape. Arthur Levine,
President of the Teachers' College at Columbia University, made this
clear in a recent speech. As he pointed out, "**For the first time in
U.S. history, the profit-making sector sees education as an investment
opportunity.** Increasingly viewed as poorly run, low in productivity,
very high in cost, and yet \[unable\] to effectively make use of
technology, the 250 billion dollar annual higher education industry is
being seen by the now cash-rich, for-profit sector as the next health
care industry---another business ripe for takeover, remaking, and of
course, producing big fat profits."

In addition to competition, America's universities, two- and four-year
colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and other postsecondary
institutions face numerous other challenges in adjusting to the changing
environment. Increased enrollment, assessment and outcome questions,
financial and access issues, technological advances, and international
developments are all changing the education landscape---rapidly. It is
not an exaggeration to say that we are at a turning point; it is almost
a cliché.

The postsecondary education community knows the urgency of the
situation. The nation's governors know; over the next few years, the
National Governors' Association intends to closely study the
postsecondary education system to determine how best to prepare citizens
for our knowledge-based economy. The Congress knows this. The U.S.
Department of Education and its Office of Postsecondary Education know
this too. They all know that if the education community doesn't respond
to the challenges, the for-profit sector will. We need to figure out how
to best use the strengths of both sectors, separately and in conjunction
with each other.

#### The Federal Effort and the Office of Postsecondary Education's Role 

In examining the federal role over the past 50 years, it is clear that
the federal government has provided leadership, resources, and support
to states, institutions, and students in order to help address
challenges that are national rather than local in scope. Some of OPE's
oldest programs, for example, were established in 1958 under the
National Defense Education Act to provide foreign language and cultural
expertise that were critical to national security in the Cold War era.

In the 1960s and 1970s, as the nation came to terms with the fact that
broader access to higher education was becoming increasingly critical to
individual opportunity and national economic prosperity, Congress
authorized new programs to help get first-generation college students to
and through postsecondary education (the TRIO programs); to help
families finance postsecondary study (the Pell Grant, Supplemental
Educational Opportunity Grant, College Work-Study, and Title IV loan
programs); and to strengthen institutional capacity to serve larger
numbers of underserved students (the Strengthening Institutions
programs).

#### Recent Reform Efforts 

Over the past eight years, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, the
U.S. Department of Education, and the Congress have worked hard to
provide access to postsecondary education to all Americans. For example,
they more than doubled the investment in student aid through more
grants, more affordable student loans, and new paths to college. The new
Hope Scholarship tax credit provides up to \$1,500 in tax relief for
each of the first two years of college. The Lifetime Learning Credit
(LLC) provides up to \$1,000 (increasing to \$2,000 in 2003) for
juniors, seniors, and graduate students, as well as those taking classes
part-time to upgrade job skills. The LLC, which is also available for
the first and second years of college if a student doesn't use the Hope
Scholarship, can be used any number of times during an individual's
lifetime. The new Direct Student Loan program has resulted in all
students' obtaining loans more quickly, simply, and cheaply.

Realizing that college sights and strong academic preparation have to be
set early, the new GEAR UP initiative raises expectations. GEAR UP is
estimated to help more than 700,000 disadvantaged middle-school students
in 2001[^1] get---and stay---on track for college success through
partnerships between high-poverty middle schools, colleges,
universities, and communities. The federal support for TRIO programs to
help low-income students succeed in college has increased by two-thirds
since 1993 to \$645 million.[^2]

Federally supported government financial aid to students, including Pell
Grants, student loans, the new Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning
Credits, has increased from about \$30 billion in 1993[^3] to a
projected \$60 billion in 2001.[^4] Since 1993, the maximum Pell Grant
for America\'s neediest students has gone from \$2,300 to
\$3,300[^5]---a 43.5 percent increase. Since 1990, the U.S. Department
of Education's direct aid to postsecondary institutions has grown from
\$841 million to over \$1.7 billion.[^6]

In 1998, Congress authorized a range of new programs to address new
challenges facing postsecondary education. These programs build
partnerships to increase the number of low-income students who
successfully go on to college; to improve teacher quality and teacher
preparation; and to use technology to enhance quality distance
education. In a landmark change, Congress created a separate Performance
Based Organization office to administer the Department of Education's
mammoth financial aid programs---freeing up the Office of Postsecondary
Education to focus more on broader issues and ways to meet students'
needs.

All these changes have been necessary for multiple reasons, but the
primary reason is the numbers are multiplying.

**The Students Are Coming! The Students Are Coming!**

You don't need to be Paul Revere to realize that more Americans are
going to college than ever before. Sixty-six percent of 1998 high school
graduates enrolled in college the following fall.[^7] In the fall of
2000, approximately 15.1 million students enrolled at postsecondary
institutions. More than 40 percent of these students are enrolled
part-time, and a similar proportion are older than 24 years of age. This
fall enrollment figure, which is substantially less than year-round
enrollment, is projected to reach 17.5 million by 2010. Additionally,
more Americans are taking adult courses and certificate programs---in
1998, 50 percent of adults participated in formal learning.[^8]

Yet, more remains to be done.

Unfortunately, about one-third of students who enter college or trade
school drop out before they earn a certificate or degree.[^9] This
number is unacceptable. The problem is acute among minorities: 29 to 31
percent of African Americans and Hispanics drop out of college in their
first year, compared to 18 percent of whites.[^10] These numbers, too,
are unacceptable. All Americans deserve access to postsecondary
education, and the message must be clear that the expectation is that
everyone will finish. Today, there is no excuse for leaving anyone out.

So, in the 20^th^ anniversary year of the U.S. Department of Education,
in the wake of the 1998 Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization and
the creation of a separate performance-based organization for
administering student financial assistance programs and new initiatives
moving OPE in different directions, with a new HEA reauthorization due
in three years, with all the technological, scientific, demographic,
political, and cultural changes taking place in our country and around
the globe, OPE thought it appropriate to start a national discussion on
key issues facing the postsecondary education community. This is one of
the very few times a federal agency has launched such a systematic
discussion.

#### The Changing Postsecondary Education Universe

A few decades ago, a high school diploma was regarded as adequate for
most Americans and postsecondary education was reserved for a social and
economic elite. Those days are over. In today's economy, lifetime
learning is necessary, a constant retooling of skills and knowledge.
**As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said in a speech
before the American Council on Education, "The heyday when a high school
or college education would serve a graduate for a lifetime is gone."**

Today, we are moving toward a universal system...and the public is
embracing the trend. A recent survey succinctly stated this change:
"Today, you don't even question whether you are going to college." From
solely an economic standpoint, it is easy to see why. On average, a
college graduate earns \$600,000 more over a lifetime than a high school
graduate.[^11]

In 1972, 49 percent of high school graduates enrolled in a postsecondary
institution within one year after graduating.[^12] Today, more than 66
percent of students enter college the fall after they graduate.[^13] In
1960, about 4 million students were enrolled in postsecondary
institutions; today, approximately 15 million Americans are
enrolled.[^14] This growth will continue, and perhaps even accelerate,
over the next 10 years. The need for postsecondary education is becoming
universally recognized as a part of the American psyche. The school age
population is growing. For example, California expects to see its
postsecondary enrollment grow by 714,000 students---35 percent---over
the next decade.[^15] What do the numbers mean? How does the system
respond to such growth---beyond just adding bricks and mortar?

California will respond, in part, by paying the tuition of low-income
students with good grades. The measure, signed into law by Governor Gray
Davis in September 2000, could cost the state more than \$1 billion
annually.

Other related forces also are having a powerful impact on postsecondary
education today. Electronic distance education, new classroom
applications, and other information technologies are transforming
postsecondary institutions. The number of distance courses offered by
U.S. postsecondary institutions and the number of enrollments nearly
doubled between 1994-95 and 1997-98.[^16] How will federal education
policy respond to the challenges of ensuring quality, delivering
financial aid, and building technological capacity in this changed
environment?

The new technology is raising an age-old question: What is the best way
to measure outcomes? Now it is done by the seat of the pants, literally,
not figuratively. Some Education Department rules are based on
attendance---seat time---not mastery of a subject. The "digerati" charge
that the academics don't get it, that the old rule is measuring the
wrong end of the student. Yet if postsecondary institutions measure
outcomes only, do they just become sophisticated testing services?
What's the value of the campus experience, and should it be measured?
The case for social and civic education gained from personal interaction
with faculty and friends is strong. But how strong in the digital age?
Is it valuable even if it can't be accurately measured? As distance
learning grows, these measurement questions will have to be addressed.

Globalization is also imposing new demands on postsecondary
institutions. More than ever before, America's students must be prepared
to work in an international environment. Yet only a small number of U.S.
students study abroad,[^17] and we do not have in place adequate
international studies curricula for students who cannot go overseas.
Language study continues to languish. At the same time, we are facing
increased competition from other countries in our efforts to attract
foreign students to study at our postsecondary institutions.

Because of all these changes, the future will be very different.

#### The Future Is Now

Traditional delivery systems based on semesters and school years will be
augmented by many alternative delivery modes. Students will be in and
out of higher education institutions throughout their lifetimes.
Whatever we thought of as "traditional" students will be a smaller part
of the total. Certification or degree granting could well take on new
meaning. Industry and other non-traditional institutions could do much
of the certification conducted by postsecondary institutions today. The
financial investment in postsecondary education will grow dramatically,
raising serious questions about control, accountability, assessment, and
regulation. In short, learning is becoming less restricted by barriers
of time and place; stage of life; and other historic obstacles to
postsecondary education. To cite one example, many public and private
institutions are offering MBA degrees---online.

Postsecondary education is well on its way to becoming one of the
largest enterprises in the United States. We want to make sure it
becomes an even more efficient, effective, and equitable enterprise. The
first step in changing is to ask the tough questions, including the very
basic one: How can the federal government help institutions, students,
educators, and all those with a stake in postsecondary education meet
the challenges of *Learning Without Limits*? OPE's leaders conceived the
*Agenda Project* as a way of finding answers to this and other
questions.

**What became clear through the process is that many factors point to a
bigger role for OPE---not in terms of money or control, but primarily in
terms of leadership and advocacy.** *Agenda Project* participants
described a changing, growing postsecondary education system, one
difficult to fathom, let alone navigate. At a minimum, **OPE can serve
its stakeholders as a doorway to new ideas, partnerships, and
practices.**

What also became clear is that K-16 should really be considered
K-Lifetime, and for the student the path should be seamless. The
challenges should come in the classroom, not the finance office. The
issues are intertwined and vertically integrated. We can't live in
isolation or ivory towers anymore. Kindergarten and college are closer
than we thought.

**As U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley said** in his seventh
annual state of American education address**,** "...I continue to
encourage America\'s higher education community to enter into a
sustained dialogue with education reformers at the middle and secondary
school levels. **The old paradigm of two distinct systems of education
going their own way does not fit our modern times."**

This fall, a record 53 million students are enrolled in grades
K-12.[^18] They all must get the message early and often that they can
go as far as they want to go with their education. Dennis Smith, the
president of the University of Nebraska, recently sent a very clear
message. He sent a letter to the parents of every eighth-grader in
Nebraska outlining what courses their children need to take to get ready
for college. All students should also get philosopher **John Dewey's
message**, **"Education is not preparation for life, education is life
itself."**

###### The *Agenda Project* Process 

In 1999, OPE leaders developed a new mission statement for the office:
"To mobilize national resources to promote opportunity and success for
all Americans, in a global environment, through quality postsecondary
education."

To further this mission, OPE is committed to:

-   Developing and Strengthening Student Financial Aid Policies and
    Programs

-   Helping All Americans Reach Postsecondary Education

-   Improving Teaching at All Levels

-   Supporting Undergraduate Postsecondary Students

-   Supporting Graduate Postsecondary Students

-   Promoting Innovation and Technology in Education

-   Strengthening International Education

-   Promoting Access Through Institutional Development and Support

For more information about OPE and its programs, please visit the OPE
Web site at
[**www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/**](http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/) or see
Appendix B to this report.

In the course of refining its mission, OPE resolved to become a better
gateway to the federal government for America's postsecondary education
community. As part of this effort, OPE has published on the Web a
Directory of Federal Programs for Postsecondary Education. The Directory
is a comprehensive, single source of information on all federal programs
on or relating to postsecondary education offered by all federal
departments and agencies. The Directory includes more than 400 federal
programs managed by more than a dozen departments and agencies,
including the Department of Education.

Armed with its new mission, during the fall of 1999, the Office of
Postsecondary Education began to reexamine the appropriate roles for the
U.S. Department of Education and OPE in postsecondary education today
and tomorrow.

First, we acknowledged that postsecondary education historically has
been and must continue to be primarily the responsibility of states and
the independent sector. We conceived the *Agenda Project* as a process
for developing an agenda for the *federal role* in postsecondary
education that respects the traditional responsibilities and authority
of state and local government and of the independent and private
sectors.

Then we began a process of actively seeking advice from a broad range of
people and organizations with a stake in postsecondary
education---college and university presidents and faculty, trade and
proprietary school executives, students, parents, community members,
business and technology leaders, and others interested in education.

From January to June 2000, OPE's leaders conducted "dialogue sessions"
with over 75 groups representing these various constituencies, held four
public meetings in different regions across the country, and established
an *Agenda Project* Web site to solicit written comments. We asked three
broad questions:

1)  What are the most significant opportunities and challenges facing
    American postsecondary education in the next five years?

2)  What are the appropriate roles for the U.S. Department of Education
    in postsecondary education?

3)  How can the U.S. Department of Education best maintain a continuing
    dialogue with all those who have a stake in postsecondary education?

In every discussion, these questions generated a remarkable range of
insightful thoughts and comments from the dialogue session participants.
The ideas gathered through this process from people, organizations and
communities across our nation are contained in this report.

We were impressed with the interest in the Agenda Project and the large
number of eager participants in it. We heard much about an expanded
federal role, particularly in promoting access, financial support, and
dissemination of best practices, and in using the "bully pulpit" in
support of higher education. We heard nothing about changing the
historical, fundamental roles and shared responsibilities of
governments, individuals, and the private sector in education.

Through this report, OPE continues to support a focused federal role in
postsecondary education. We reaffirm our faith in the ability of
postsecondary institutions and the organizations that represent them;
businesses; markets; communities; and others in the independent,
private, and state and local government sectors to identify and address
the challenges they face. At the same time, we believe that the federal
government can and should support students and institutions as they
strive to meet these challenges and help build partnerships among the
many groups that play a role in postsecondary education.

**Above all, this report is designed to continue the dialogue and
promote change that builds on the past eight years of innovation and
growing opportunity in postsecondary education.** Based on what we have
learned so far, we have offered twelve strategies to seize the
opportunities before us, and more than thirty OPE actions. To seize the
opportunities, **we must all squarely face the tough questions of
access, financing, accountability, regulatory reform, technology,
teacher quality, and globalization.** It is clear our universe is
changing rapidly. It is equally clear we have the resources to adapt to
the change. Working together, we can make a quality postsecondary
education a reality for all Americans.

To make sure this dialogue continues, we will schedule several public
hearings next year to hear reactions to this report.

*Theme 1*

**ACCESS: ENSURING ALL STUDENTS ARE PREPARED TO GO TO COLLEGE AND
SUCCEED**

The Information Age is truly the Education Age. That\'s why President
Clinton and I have worked so hard to expand access to college for our
young people and for adults who want to go back to school.

> Vice President Gore, February 1998

Ever since the colonists established the first formal schools in the
1630s, one basic question has remained: who gets to go? Boys only?
Whites only? Rich only? Fit only? Over the decades, the federal
government has stepped in many times in the struggle to ensure that
every American has access to an excellent education. A turning point for
higher education came in 1862, when Congressman Justin Morrill of
Vermont sponsored the First Morrill Act[^19] to give each state land to
support a college. Today, when postsecondary education is a universal
expectation, there is no excuse for holding anyone back.

Educational attainment is one of the strongest predictors of financial
and professional success, as well as civic involvement. For
institutions, increased access makes possible a diversity of cultural,
social, and economic backgrounds among the student body. This enhances
the academic experience for everyone. Ensuring access to postsecondary
education for all Americans continues to be one of the most important
issues facing American society today. That is why it is a key mission of
the U.S. Department of Education.

The Department and its Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) employ
three strategies to promote access to postsecondary education:

1.  supporting an extensive and flexible student financial aid program
    (discussed in the next section of this report);

2.  providing all students with the support they need to reach and
    succeed in higher education; and

3.  ensuring that our country has strong, high-quality postsecondary
    schools to accommodate them.

**Low-income and Minority Students**

Students who do not attend college or who drop out quickly are
predominantly persons from low-income families, living in underdeveloped
areas within major cities or in sparsely populated rural areas, and who
have attended ineffective elementary and secondary schools. Those who
make it to college generally attend institutions that are
undercapitalized, and they graduate at a rate that is significantly
lower than their more advantaged counterparts.[^20]

**Inadequate academic preparation is the key factor in lack of college
success.** Members of low-income families are much less prepared for
college than their higher income counterparts. For example, among high
school graduates in 1992, only 21 percent of those with family incomes
of less than \$25,000 were highly qualified for admission at a four-year
institution, and 20 percent were minimally qualified. For students with
family incomes above \$75,000, 56 percent were highly qualified and 12
percent minimally qualified.[^21]

Students who are not prepared are also much less likely to succeed in
college. For example, only 34 percent of students needing remedial
reading completed a degree compared with 56 percent for students who did
not take any remedial courses.[^22]

It is quite clear that improving access and success in college requires
a continued push to improve the education students receive in their
elementary and secondary schooling. This emphasizes quite clearly how
closely linked K-12 and postsecondary education are. The Clinton-Gore
Administration's efforts over the past eight years to raise K-12
standards nationwide, strengthen teaching, help every child read well
and independently by the third grade, boost math and science learning,
and reform schools have established a strong foundation for preparing
students to succeed in college, and we must continue to strengthen and
build upon this foundation. Efforts to focus on a K-16 approach, such as
GEAR UP, are essential.

Currently, there are more than 5.5 million students enrolled in
educational programs at over 1,600 degree-granting community colleges
across the country.[^23] Although close to 80 percent intended at the
time of admission to pursue a baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate
degree, only 40 percent of them actually do transfer. Those who do
transfer graduate at approximately the same rate (70 percent) as
students who began at a four-year institution.[^24]

Because America's racial and ethnic minorities are the fastest-growing
sectors in the country and they make up a disproportionately large
segment of the economically poor population, tending to their
educational needs is in everyone's interest. The level of their
educational achievements will dramatically affect the future of our
nation. At present, African Americans and Hispanic Americans make up 22
percent of the general population, 19 percent of undergraduate
enrollment, and 14 percent of undergraduate degrees.[^25]

On the graduate level, these groups make up less than 12 percent of
graduate enrollment, and 8 percent of graduate degrees.[^26] At the U.S.
Department of Education, we are deeply concerned at these low minority
rates of participation in graduate education. Increasing demands from
the new economy have tremendously enhanced the importance of graduate
degrees for success in the 21^st^ century---success for the individual
and success for our country. We need to work to ensure that access to
graduate education is available to all Americans. And our graduate
schools must come to reflect the face of America, with the diverse
racial and ethnic makeup that is one of our country's outstanding
features.

We cannot expect to resolve access issues sequentially. Preparation for
college; access to college; persistence and success in college;
graduation; and graduate and professional education---these issues
should be addressed comprehensively and simultaneously. Real access
comprises admission, persistence, and success. This was affirmed again
and again by participants in our *Agenda Project* dialogue sessions.

**Students with Disabilities**

Since the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the higher
education community has made dramatic changes to provide access for
students with disabilities on America's campuses. Millions of dollars
have been spent to remove physical and programmatic barriers for
students with disabilities by providing such aids or services as
assistive technology, elevators, and student support centers. This,
coupled with special education legislation that has helped many students
succeed at the elementary and secondary school level, has resulted in
unprecedented numbers of students with disabilities---892,000 in
1995-96---entering higher education settings.[^27]

While much has been done, challenges remain. Students with disabilities,
especially students with learning disabilities, leave secondary school
with dim prospects.

They tend to be under-educated and under-employed. Yet, if students with
disabilities graduate from a four-year college and get a job, their
income level is as competitive as that of their non-disabled peers.
However, students with disabilities are less likely to enroll in
postsecondary education than high school graduates without disabilities.
Despite being qualified, they are less likely to enroll in a four-year
college program. The majority of students who enroll in a two-year
program with the intention of transferring to a four-year program do
not, and students with disabilities are less likely to persist in
earning a postsecondary degree or credential than their peers without
disabilities.[^28]

Respondents told us that students need to be prepared for college
through discrete teaching. As one *Agenda Project* participant said,
"These kids really need something like a halfway house to get them ready
for college." Another added, "Students walk around campus for weeks and
keep repeating...it is just so different, and they don't know how to
cope. Secondary schools are not getting them ready."

The Clinton-Gore Administration, Congress, and the U.S. Department of
Education have been working to improve academic preparation, so that all
students are ready for postsecondary education.

#### Improving Academic Preparation 

Over the past eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has
established a broad range of programs aimed at improving K-16 education.
One recent U.S. Department of Education initiative, GEAR UP, helps
high-poverty middle schools, universities, and community-based
organizations work together in new partnerships to encourage young
people to have high expectations, stay in school, study hard, and take
the right courses to go to college. The GEAR UP initiative will help
more than 700,000 disadvantaged middle-school students in 2001 get---and
stay---on track for college success.[^29]

Our TRIO programs (originally a group of three programs that has been
expanded over the years to eight) provide grants to schools and
organizations that help students build the skills they need to get into
and succeed in college, and even move on to graduate school. For
instance, the TRIO Upward Bound program provides eligible students with
fundamental support---from instruction, to tutoring and counseling, to
help with applications for financial aid and admission---aimed at
helping them prepare for and reach postsecondary education. Like all of
the TRIO programs, Upward Bound is targeted at a group of students who
face particular challenges in obtaining access to postsecondary
education---low-income students and those whose parents have not
graduated from college.

Another group of programs addresses the second access concern---building
capacity for quality postsecondary education. The Department's
Institutional Development programs support improvements in educational
quality, management, and financial stability at qualifying postsecondary
institutions. Funding is focused on minority-serving institutions and
others that enroll large proportions of financially disadvantaged
students and have low per-student expenditures. The programs provide
financial assistance that helps institutions solve problems that
threaten their survival, improves their management and fiscal
operations, and builds endowments.

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) is an
OPE program that encourages educators at all institutions to propose new
ways of ensuring postsecondary access, retention, and completion.
Improvements in rates of retention and program completion are vitally
important, especially for low-income and minority students, whose
success rates continue to lag behind those of other groups.[^30]

All these OPE programs, and others, form the basis for a successful
undergraduate education experience. If our economy is to remain
competitive in a global economy, if our democracy is to thrive in a
changing world, we need to prepare our students for a challenging
future.

To help parents and students find the appropriate institution of higher
learning, the National Center on Education Statistics (NCES) operates
the new College Opportunities On-Line (COOL) Web site. There, students
can find information on more than 5,500 postsecondary
institutions---from small technical colleges to the nation's largest and
most prestigious universities. For each college, the Web site provides
tuition and financial aid statistics, a list of the degrees offered,
available fields of study, and more.

The American dream offers opportunity to all Americans who are willing
to work hard and to play by the rules. That is a cornerstone of American
culture and America's strength. Access to quality education from
kindergarten through graduate school and beyond is the key to
opportunity for all Americans. If the American dream remains out of the
reach of the poor or students with disabilities, it is largely because
many of them don't have access to quality education. We're working to
change that, and part of the effort involves listening to our
stakeholders.

## WHAT WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS 

Respondents said that American students entering postsecondary education
often are inadequately prepared to benefit fully from the experience.
**As one participant said, "Postsecondary education issues are
intimately connected with K-12 education issues." Another added, "Most
people have trouble thinking about them in isolation from one
another."** In other words, participants clearly indicated that
postsecondary education and K-12 are inextricably linked. What happens
in the early years is vitally important in determining future
opportunities and choices in postsecondary education.

Respondents said there is still much to do to resolve longstanding
inequities in opportunity for many groups of Americans---Native
Americans, Hispanics, African Americans, and economically disadvantaged
citizens. Respondents felt that too many students have low expectations
because they are unaware of available opportunities. Adequately
publicizing these opportunities---so that every American knows that if
she or he works hard, postsecondary education is possible---has proven
to be difficult, but absolutely necessary.

Through the *Agenda Project*, we also heard much about the challenges
students with disabilities face in postsecondary education, including
problems of preparation, perception, technology, and capacity and
resources.

## NATIONAL AGENDA OPPORTUNITIES 

Participants in our dialogue sessions identified a number of
problems---and policy responses. They said that:

1.  As the "Baby Boom Echo" matures and lifelong learning becomes
    increasingly common, we can expect a massive influx of students into
    postsecondary education. Increasing access for a rapidly growing and
    increasingly diverse population will tax the capacity of our
    education system. Not increasing access would have even more serious
    social and economic consequences.

2.  Too many students reach college ill-prepared to succeed there.
    Opening up access to quality postsecondary education for all
    Americans requires a continued and intensified emphasis on
    preparation for college and stronger relationships between colleges
    and universities and K-12 schools.

3.  Access to graduate and professional education is now the new
    frontier in American higher education. Although many graduate
    students are supported by federal research funding, the U.S.
    Department of Education's present investment in graduate education
    is only 5 percent of its total investment in postsecondary
    education: \$100 million in program dollars out of a \$17 billion
    budget for postsecondary education and \$2.5 billion in graduate
    student loans out of a total loan volume of over \$40 billion.

4.  The digital divide, the gap in technology access along economic and
    ethnic lines, is a reality not only in American homes but also in
    American postsecondary institutions. The Administration's work to
    address the disparity at the elementary and secondary level through
    initiatives like the E-rate needs to be extended to the
    postsecondary level.

5.  Increased opportunities for students with disabilities means they
    are participating in postsecondary education in rapidly increasing
    numbers. But too many faculty lack the knowledge, understanding, and
    instructional strategies, and institutions lack the resources, to
    serve these students effectively.

6.  Campuses still lag far behind in the use of technology that meets
    the requirements of universal design, and we know too little about
    effective software for students with disabilities, especially
    students with learning disabilities.

######### OPE ACTIONS

In partnership with the postsecondary education community, the U.S.
Department of Education can support excellence in postsecondary
education for low-income, minority, and students with disabilities by
considering the following steps:

1.  OPE should continue to increase its emphasis on K-16 programs (such
    as GEAR UP and TRIO) that encourage students to think early about
    college, take the right classes, and begin financial planning.
    Through partnerships at the local level and partnerships with
    foundations and businesses, we can leverage federal dollars even
    more effectively. The more these partnerships focus on systemic
    change, the greater the effect.

2.  OPE should consider activities that expand on initiatives like the
    E-rate to bring technology more quickly and pervasively to
    postsecondary institutions that serve underserved populations,
    perhaps through our Institutional Development programs.

3.  OPE should expand its focus to pay far more attention to graduate
    education and international education than it has in the past.

4.  OPE should advocate for research on the value of software and
    technology based learning for postsecondary students with
    disabilities, in particular for students with learning disabilities.

5.  OPE should work with accreditation bodies and federal entities with
    governance authority regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act
    and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

6.  OPE should convene meetings with leaders in postsecondary schools
    who are knowledgeable about students with disabilities and can make
    recommendations regarding a seamless K-16 system for all students.

*Theme 2*

**ACCESS: EXAMINING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN PAYING FOR COLLEGE**

*Research has shown that student aid is one of the best social
investments we can make. It makes a tremendous difference in the lives
of individuals. It also gives society a great return on capital in
increased tax revenues alone, not to mention increased economic
productivity.*

OPE *Agenda Project* Dialogue Session Participant

**Rising Expectations**

During the 19^th^ century the "common school movement" pushed for an
elementary school education for white children. Reformers argued that
school was necessary for economic prosperity and the civic health of the
nation. This led to the establishment of state boards of education and
public financing for education. It was expected that children go to
elementary school. By the turn of the century, the push was on for high
school attendance. From 1890 to 1930, the percent of teenagers aged
fourteen to seventeen enrolled in high school rose from 4 percent to 47
percent. In time, this expectation became mandatory. Now, all states
have some sort of law mandating school attendance to a certain age, and
the schooling is paid for by the state.

Today, in the information age, postsecondary education is not yet
mandatory, but it certainly is viewed as more and more of a necessity by
American families. They see noticeably higher earnings and much lower
unemployment rates for individuals who have gone on to college. In fact,
on average, a bachelor's degree is worth an estimated \$600,000 more
over a lifetime than a high school diploma.[^31] Americans want the
opportunities provided by college for their children and themselves.

College-going rates are at an all-time high; unfortunately, while all
groups have shown increased college attendance, significant gaps still
exist between the haves and have-nots. Low-income individuals and
minorities are still much less likely to go on to college than their
higher income counterparts. If they do enroll, they are less likely to
succeed. In 1997, 67 percent of high school graduates entered college
immediately after high school---57 percent of low-income high school
graduates compared to 82 percent of high-income high school
graduates.[^32] Inadequate academic preparation and a complex system of
financing postsecondary education contribute to this college opportunity
gap.

#### 

#### The Financial Burden for Families

Paying for college looms over families, especially at-risk families who
may have had little or no experience with college. They see tuitions
rising faster than inflation and family income. And they are worried
about whether college will be affordable for them. People generally see
college prices as just too high.

Postsecondary opportunities are wide and varied in this country. More
than 7,000 institutions exist, ranging from local community colleges to
vocational training institutions to four-year public and private
colleges to major research universities. Increasingly, distance-learning
opportunities are available at traditional institutions as well as newly
created virtual institutions.

**The prices charged by institutions---referred to as sticker
prices---also vary: in 1999-2000 the average annual tuition and fees
charged at two-year public institutions were \$1,627; at public
four-year institutions the average was \$3,356 for in-state students and
\$15,380 for private four-year colleges and universities.** The average
price (including tuition, fees, room, and board) for four-year public
institutions represents 61 percent of family income for low-income
families; 17 percent for middle-income families; and 5 percent for the
high-income group. The average price for four-year private institutions
represents 162 percent of family income for low-income families; 44
percent for middle-income families; and 14 percent for the high-income
group.[^33]

Many students apply for and receive financial aid---grants, loans,
work-study jobs, and new tax breaks---that helps to reduce the amount
that families and students must pay out of pocket. This net price
actually paid by students and families is often significantly below the
sticker price. Due to significant increases in aid under the
Clinton-Gore Administration, net price has risen more slowly than
sticker price in recent years.[^34] Even so, both measures of price have
risen faster than family incomes, meaning that families are now paying a
larger share of their income for college. (Unfortunately, detailed
up-to-date data on net price by family income are not available.)

**Polls show that many Americans do not have an accurate picture of what
college actually costs.** They consistently overestimate the sticker
price of college and underestimate the financial resources available to
them to pay for college because they do not know what is available to
them through different forms of aid.

So much attention is paid each fall to the prices charged by the most
expensive private institutions that many Americans have skewed views of
the cost of college. Private institutions account, however, for only 2
out of every 10 undergraduate students enrolled in the 3,500 colleges
and universities.[^35] Most students attend public institutions, whose
tuition and fees are much lower. In 1999-2000 more than 50 percent of
all undergraduates attended institutions that charged tuition and fees
of \$4,000 or less per year and only 7 percent attended institutions
charging tuition and fees of \$20,000 or higher.[^36]

Although the Department of Education has made significant strides in
simplifying the financial aid application process---cutting the
instructions in half---obtaining student aid has long been a complicated
process of determining what a family should be able to pay for their
family members' education and their eligibility for different types of
aid. As a result of a trend established in the 1980s, more than half of
all student financial aid now provided to students and their families
comes in the form of loans, which must be repaid after leaving school.
Paying it back can take some time, although several recent initiatives
have lowered borrowing costs for students and their families. A recent
U.S. Department of Education study indicates that four years after
graduating, only 16 percent of those students who had borrowed money
were debt free. Of those participating in the federal survey, 51 percent
had debt from a variety of sources averaging \$10,000.[^37] Despite
increases in student borrowing, the Clinton-Gore Administration has
lowered default rates on federal loans from 22.4 percent in fiscal year
1990 to 6.9 percent in fiscal year 1998.[^38]

**A Complex Financing System**

Paying for college is based on a decades-old model of shared
responsibility---students, parents, the federal government, states, and
private organizations all have a role to play. This contrasts with the
universal availability of free public education at the K-12 level
regardless of income**.**

In postsecondary education, states pay a significant share of the costs
of public colleges and universities so that the tuition and fees charged
students are well below the actual costs, and far below the fees at
private institutions. **The federal government helps to provide equal
access across income groups through the provision of grants, low-cost
loans, work-study jobs, and, more recently, tax credits.** Students and
their families pay a portion of the costs depending on their family
income and the kind of institutions they attend. Private organizations,
including colleges and universities, also provide financial assistance
to students.

Although shared responsibility remains the general approach of our
current system, it has evolved in such a way that it is not clear who
has what responsibility or how the pieces match up with each other. The
entire system of college financing is based on incremental changes over
several decades, without a comprehensive reexamination. Even though we
have many part-time students and more adults going back to college over
their lifetimes, our systems have not been examined carefully to make
adjustments for the changing learners.

If postsecondary education is becoming the norm, who should pay for it
and through what mechanisms -- grants, loans, tax credits or tax
deductions? What prices should students and parents pay? How much should
states and the federal government pay? California recently announced a
plan to pay the fees of low-income students with good grades, at a cost
to the state that could exceed \$1 billion a year. California is the
first state, but may not be the last, to make such a comprehensive
guarantee.

Over the past 40 years, federal policy parameters have been changed
without enough thought about how they interact with the policy
parameters of the states, which finance large elements of the system,
and vice versa. Changes, expansions, and improvements are made piecemeal
and tacked onto the existing system, generating an increasingly complex
system of public/private financing that is difficult to understand and
navigate. The resulting confusion means that students and parents often
do not know what their real options are, especially at-risk groups who
have had limited exposure to postsecondary education.

**Expanded Federal Investment**

At the federal level, student financial aid has grown dramatically
during the past seven years. Overall, the Clinton-Gore commitment to
opening the doors of college is the largest federal investment in higher
education since the G.I. Bill. The Clinton-Gore Administration has more
than doubled student aid to more than \$50 billion in aid for students
today. Three-quarters of the aid is in loans, with the rest
predominantly in grants. The new tax credits for postsecondary
education---HOPE and Lifetime Learning---provided nearly 5 million
taxpayers with \$3.5 million in tax relief in 1998, the first year that
these new benefits were available. When fully phased in, this program
will provide \$6 billion a year to help America's families pay for
college. More than one-half of full-time, full-year undergraduate
students now receive some form of financial aid.[^39] Seventy percent of
all student financial aid comes from the federal government. The new
Lifetime Learning tax credit is a big step in providing more access for
part-time students at any point in their lifetime and as many times as
they wish to use it.

The new 1994 Direct Student Loan program delivers loans to students more
quickly, simply, and cheaply. Together, students and taxpayers have
already saved \$18 billion through student loan reforms, in both the
Direct Student Loan program and the Guaranteed Loan program (FFEL).[^40]
Pell Grants, the foundation of assistance for low-income students, were
initially tied to providing a certain portion of costs for families
below certain levels; these ties have been lost over time. Since the
early 1980s, loans have grown significantly, in part, because they are
cheaper to provide and, in part, because they are entitlements. This has
resulted in what many have termed the "loan-grant" imbalance.

The need analysis system---the system of determining what families and
students can be expected to pay---has also evolved over time with little
careful reexamination of the underlying goals and principles to take
into account new students, including lifelong learners, and new modes of
educational delivery, including distance learners. The current system is
still based on the initial 1954 model, even though it has become more
and more complex as Congress writes more detail and specificity into the
law each time a reauthorization occurs. Because of the way the system is
structured, students cannot apply early for aid, thereby adding to their
uncertainty of aid eligibility. The earliest students can now apply for
fall semester aid is January, when they have their tax returns
completed. They typically need to wait until the spring to find out what
financial aid they will receive.

This web of complexity is difficult to navigate; every applicant must
fill out a long detailed form. It is not at all clear that the added
complexity gains much---if anything---in more accurately reflecting
financial need. But it certainly does contribute to the misconceptions
of many Americans about what aid they are eligible to receive. Thus, the
need analysis system and the form are impediments to full access.

We are taking steps to improve the system. In July 2000, the U.S.
Department of Education signed a unique incentive-based information
technology contract with a private contractor. The contract is to
modernize the Student Financial Assistance Office's loan systems, which
handle more than \$52 billion in loans per year. The contractor will be
paid a percentage of the savings, not a fee upfront. The contract is the
first of its kind. The central data system\'s 12 functions will be
reduced to seven and incorporated into the other systems. It is expected
these changes to the system will save \$40 million to \$50 million over
the next four years

#### Re-creating Regulatory Reform 

Student aid requirements have mired institutions and the Department
itself in a Web of complexity that threatens our capacity to administer
effectively. The Higher Education Act, when enacted in 1965, consisted
of 52 pages. Today, it comes in at 497. The growth in the amount and
extent of implementing regulations has kept pace with the growth of the
Act itself.

New student aid and other programs that are important to providing
access and opportunities for innovation in higher education are one
cause in the growth of the Act, a very positive one. However, these are
balanced by more and more requirements governing the administration of
student aid, many of which were deemed necessary to correct lapses in
program integrity by often a small number of institutions. New
approaches to regulation, such as negotiated rulemaking that involves
representatives from the various groups of Title IV stakeholders, have
helped to craft regulations that are somewhat more workable. However,
these approaches have continued to focus on the details of administering
Title IV aid and not the overall structure of the requirements.

Examining this body of requirements to determine how they might be
refocused to simplify the administration of student aid is a forbidding
task with an uncertain result. The task itself---to relieve the
administrative burden and at the same time to provide the protections
needed to assure the integrity of the programs---would be difficult in
and of itself. In addition, it would be difficult to reach any broad
consensus on the direction of change among the higher education
community, and equally difficult to gain the support necessary to amend
the Higher Education Act to effect the change. It would also be a long
task; the first phase would lead up to the next authorization of the
Higher Education Act. However, if there is not the will among the
stakeholders to begin this task now, the only alternative will be to add
to the growing complexity as new issues arise in the student aid
programs.

Responding to these challenges must be a shared responsibility. The
public and the private sectors, non-profit and for-profit institutions,
corporate and entrepreneurial entities, all must work individually and
in partnership to make lifetime learning a reality for all Americans.

**WHAT WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS**

Participants in the Agenda Project dialogue sessions raised concerns
about paying for college in many sessions and in many different ways.
They recognized and fully supported the increasing need for all
Americans to have real postsecondary opportunities, opportunities
available to the lowest-income groups as well as higher-income groups.
But they worried whether the situation was improving or worsening.
Underlying the concerns raised by participants were basic questions of
who should pay for college. How should the responsibility be shared?
Should the K-12 model of free public education be extended to
postsecondary education? Or should individuals pay a significant share,
since the economic benefit primarily accrues to them?

**NATIONAL AGENDA OPPORTUNITIES**

The primary issues raised by Agenda Project dialogue sessions include:

1.  How individuals and families pay for college is a major concern for
    most Americans, especially as more Americans view a college
    education as a necessity for their children and themselves. Rising
    college prices heighten concerns that college will be unaffordable
    in the future.

2.  Families and students are borrowing more to pay for college at the
    same time that funding for Pell Grants has also grown. While the
    reliance on loans has increased, many recent initiatives have
    reduced the costs of student loans for borrowers and their families.
    Even with reduced costs of borrowing, however, this shift towards
    loans---often called the "loan-grant" imbalance---raises concerns
    about too much borrowing. Many participants expressed concern about
    the effects of indebtedness on students' abilities to attend college
    and their career choices after leaving school, especially their
    ability to choose lower-paying professions, such as teaching or
    community service. Increased support for grants as well as more
    generous income-contingent repayment mechanisms and forgiveness were
    raised in many sessions.

3.  College enrollment is at its highest level ever and will continue to
    grow significantly in future years due to demographic changes and
    increased demand. Unfortunately, however, the gap between low-income
    and high-income groups and between minority and majority students is
    still too wide. Increased demand coupled with more students from
    disadvantaged backgrounds will put pressure on the entire
    postsecondary education system. If government budgets and the
    willingness of taxpayers---at local, state, and federal levels---to
    provide additional funds do not match future needs, we could end up
    with reduced rather than expanded access.

4.  Lifelong learning is essential to help Americans adjust to the
    changing demands of the job market throughout their lives. Flexible
    educational arrangements---including part-time, anytime, anywhere
    opportunities---are essential. The need to help students pay for
    lifelong learning was raised as an important concern. The new
    Lifetime Learning tax credit provides important relief; other
    opportunities should also be explored.

5.  Many Americans do not have the accurate information they need to
    plan for college, from information about the courses they should
    take to accurate information about availability of financial aid.

6.  The process of determining student eligibility is so complex and
    highly detailed that it is difficult for students and families to
    have an accurate picture of the availability of financial aid,
    especially in a timely fashion. Even the simplified Free Application
    for Student Financial Aid remains daunting to many.

7.  Student aid requirements---whether regulatory or
    statutorily-based---continue to be of concern, especially as they
    relate to the system's flexibility to adapt to changes in new
    student demands for more flexible learning arrangements and the use
    of new technologies to deliver aid. Many participants in the
    sessions were very appreciative of the progress the Department has
    made in reducing regulatory burdens but would like to see even more
    changes.

#### OPE ACTIONS 

It is time to reexamine our overall postsecondary education student
financing system. Postsecondary education ought to be a leader in
helping to shape the future, not a follower. We must do everything
possible to eliminate disparities in college attendance rates across
groups. Therefore, the following options, some of which build upon
recent initiatives of the Administration, should be carefully
considered.

1.  The U.S. Department of Education should lead a dialogue on how
    postsecondary education should be financed. College presidents,
    leaders in national and state governments, students, economists, and
    business and community leaders should discuss how all the partners
    could share in helping to make college accessible for Americans from
    all groups. This examination and analysis should provide a road map
    for change in the next decade.

> Questions to be addressed should include: Should there be options for
> free public postsecondary education? If not, what should students and
> parents pay? How much should states and the federal government pay?
> What are the likely financial resources to be available to states and
> the federal government? How does this interact with expected demand,
> including increased demand from groups who are likely to be less well
> prepared? What is the role for private sources? What is the mix of
> aid---how do institutional subsidies, grants to students, loans, and
> tax policy interact? What is the appropriate balance among different
> sources of aid? How do all these questions and answers vary for
> different groups of students? What are the intergenerational
> issues---how do different options affect different generations? Are
> these the appropriate ways to transfer benefits across generations?

2.  OPE should create a study group to examine the student aid system
    and the need analysis system. Its charge would be to design a
    simplified, easy-to-understand system that reflects the realities of
    today's education and students and is flexible to meet tomorrow's
    needs.

> This group would look at more detailed and more technical issues than
> the first group. Simplification would be the overriding goal: easier
> and earlier determination of need and aid eligibility. A simplified
> need analysis system---fewer variables, less open to gaming and
> unintended consequences, easier to understand and file, earlier
> application dates so students would know their eligibility earlier,
> adjustments for new modes of educational delivery and new types of
> students, and new sources of aid, such as tax credits---would be the
> goal here.
>
> The system for delivering aid should also be examined, particularly
> the design and delivery of loans. The existence of two major loan
> programs since 1993---Direct Student Loans and FFEL---has benefited
> students by providing students better benefits and service and reduced
> federal costs. We are at a crossroads, however, where a careful
> examination and analysis is needed on the future delivery of student
> loans. Income-contingent repayment (ICR) and the specific formula
> being used also need reexamination.

3.  Building on its Think College Early campaign, the Department of
    Education should mount a major public information campaign with its
    partners to ensure that all Americans know what college
    opportunities are available, how much they cost, and what aid is
    available to meet the costs.

> Despite the fact that much information is already available to
> students and families, many Americans are quite uninformed or have
> misconceptions about the true opportunities. The need for more public
> awareness to ensure that families know the real facts about college
> prices and student financial aid was raised many times in *Agenda
> Project* sessions. This information needs to be broadly available,
> especially to more at-risk students in the middle school years when
> they are making key choices about what classes to take, decisions that
> will affect their chances of college success in future years.

4.  OPE should examine the role of student loans in helping families to
    pay for college and the effects of debt burden on students'
    decisions about whether and where to go on to postsecondary
    education, and on their choices after leaving school regarding
    careers and graduate education. This effort should examine the
    effectiveness of different repayment options, including
    income-contingent repayment, and other alternatives, such as loan
    forgiveness. Possible options for changes in the next
    reauthorization of the Higher Education Act should be considered.

5.  OPE should undertake a major effort to encourage lifelong learning,
    including an examination of what is occurring now and what the
    barriers are to more lifelong learning. This effort should look at
    administrative, regulatory, and statutory barriers.

6.  OPE, together with its partners in postsecondary education and
    industry, should mount a major effort to examine the complex
    requirements now surrounding the student aid programs. The effort
    should examine ways to reduce requirements and increase flexibility
    to deal with new student demands and technologies while continuing
    to ensure accountability for taxpayer dollars. This effort should
    look at administrative, regulatory, and statutory barriers,
    including recommendations for the next reauthorization.

*Theme 3*

IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY

*Every community should have a talented and dedicated teacher in every
classroom. We have an enormous opportunity for ensuring teacher quality
well into the 21^st^ century, if we recruit promising people into
teaching and give them the highest quality preparation and training.*

> President Clinton\'s Call to Action for American Education in the
> 21^st^ Century

For decades, the public and private sectors have explored methods to
improve teacher quality. Thinks tanks, commissions, and agencies across
the country have probed the problem, from the seminal 1983 report *A
Nation at Risk*, to the 1991 Department of Labor SCANS report, the Hunt
Commission Report of 1996 to today's CEO Forum and the Web-based
Education Commission, and many more. All recognize the critical
importance of the teacher in today's society and call for improvements
in teacher training. The need is especially critical today since the
classroom has changed so radically in recent years.

**Harold O. Levy, chancellor of New York City public schools**, is
particularly blunt about the problem and the urgency. He wrote in a *New
York Times* (9-9-2000) opinion column, "The quality of teachers has been
declining for decades, and no one wants to talk about it." He lists many
of the problems, particularly lack of adequate pay and respect, and
concludes with a warning, **"This may be our last opportunity to avoid
locking in mediocrity for a generation."**

In the last eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has not only
been talking about the problem, but also begun doing something about it.
A consensus is now emerging that the issue is one not only for state and
local governments, but also for the federal government.

Contemporary classrooms and social conditions confront teachers with a
range of complex challenges. These include meeting the needs of students
who have difficulty adapting to the school environment and may be at
risk of violent behavior. New education goals and tougher standards,
more rigorous assessments, greater interest in parental involvement, and
expanded use of technology increase the knowledge and skills that
teaching demands. These challenges are great, and neither teacher
training programs nor state licensing requirements are effective in
helping teachers to work in this environment.

The Clinton-Gore Administration has recognized that, as a society, we
need to make dramatic changes in the ways we recruit, prepare, license,
and provide ongoing support for teachers. It has been nearly thirty
years since the Federal government last made a major investment in
teacher recruitment and preparation. The three Teacher Quality
Enhancement Grant Programs created in 1998 in Title II of the Higher
Education Act, the teacher accountability system also enacted in Title
II, and the new Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology program
all give us another historic chance to improve the quality of teaching
in America's classrooms.

# **The Current State of Teacher Preparation** 

There is a good deal of diversity among the approximately 1,200
institutions that prepare teachers in the United States.[^41] They vary
significantly in size; the number of teachers they produce each year can
range from one to nearly 2,000. They also vary in structure and quality.
**Unlike other professions that require national accreditation of
professional schools, less than one-half of teacher education
institutions---only about 500 institutions---are currently accredited by
a national accrediting body.**[^42]

Teacher preparation programs are often underfunded and too focused on
theory at the expense of classroom practice. They frequently are
disconnected from the arts and sciences and from elementary and
secondary schools. The National Commission on Teaching and America\'s
Future (NCTAF) report found \"long-standing problems with traditional
teacher education programs,\" including superficial curriculum and the
teaching of theory separately from its applications. In addition, many
of those preparing our nation's teachers have not taught at the K-12
level in many years and thus have no experience with the range and depth
of the problems that new teachers face in the classroom. More than 50
percent of teacher educators report that it has been more than 15 years
since they were K-12 teachers.[^43]

### Standards for Teachers

Standards for entry into the teaching profession are generally low.
While forty-four states require candidates for licenses to pass a
standardized test, the examinations required, for the most part, are not
rigorous, and pass scores tend to be low.[^44] In addition, the demand
for teachers is such that states routinely waive their standards and
allow districts to hire individuals who don't meet licensure
requirements. About 30 percent of newly hired teachers enter the
profession without having fully met state standards for licensure.[^45]

Even when teachers are fully qualified, they are too often required to
teach subjects for which they have little or no academic preparation.
Thirteen percent of public school teachers of core academic subjects in
grades 7-12 are teaching \"out of field\" in their main teaching
assignment.[^46] **In high-poverty schools (those with more than 50
percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch), teachers are
twice as likely to be out of field than in low-poverty schools (22
percent vs. 11 percent).**[^47]

### Inadequate Support for Teachers

Teachers recognize the need for change. Most teachers do not feel
adequately prepared for the realities of today\'s
classrooms---addressing the needs of diverse students and those with
special needs, integrating technology into instruction, and teaching to
challenging standards.

The results reported in a 1999 National Center for Education Statistics
report, *Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications
of Public School Teachers*, are not surprising. The study asked teachers
with three or fewer years of experience whether they were prepared to
integrate technology; meet the needs of diverse students and those with
limited English proficiency; address the needs of special education
students; and implement curriculum and performance standards. In each
case, fewer than 30 percent of the new teachers reported feeling \"very
well prepared.\"[^48]

In addition to inadequate preparation, many new teachers do not receive
the support they need in order to succeed. Too often, they are left to
\"sink or swim.\" Although more than 50 percent of first-year public
school teachers participate in some type of induction program, the
quality and scope of the programs range from comprehensive to cursory.
Too often, new teachers are given the toughest assignments---the classes
that no one else wants to teach and the extracurricular activities that
other teachers do not want to supervise.[^49] No wonder **approximately
22 percent of new public school teachers leave the profession in the
first three years.**[^50]

### Lack of Professional Development for Experienced Teachers 

Experienced teachers have too few opportunities to improve their
knowledge and skills, and their professional development opportunities
are second rate. Professional development remains largely short-term,
non-collaborative, and unrelated to their needs and the achievement
challenges faced by their students. Teachers continue to be offered
professional development opportunities that last fewer than 8 hours,
despite the fact that teachers report that professional development with
a longer duration is more effective.

U.S. teachers devote more time (57.8 hours in a two-week period) to
direct teacher-student academic instruction than do teachers in Japan
(44 hours) and Germany (38.5 hours).[^51] **Our nation\'s schools
typically spend only 1 percent to 3 percent of their resources on
teacher development, compared to significantly higher expenditures by
both American corporations and schools in other countries.**[^52]

**Federal Efforts**

Over the past eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has promoted
rigorous standards, supported high-quality professional development,
increased accountability, and helped states and districts recruit,
prepare, and induct new teachers. Because other changes in school
organization may have little impact on student achievement if teaching
methods are not systematically adapted and improved, the Administration
has made improving teacher quality a top priority.

**For the first time in almost 30 years, the Federal government is**
**investing in the recruitment, preparation, mentoring, and support of
new teachers**. Among the investments that directly affect teachers are
the new Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant program and the Preparing
Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology program. These initiatives support
systemic efforts to improve the quality of teacher preparation and
training and, in turn, the quality of instruction and student
achievement. The Department is also implementing a new teacher
accountability system that requires institutions and states to report on
the outcomes of their teacher preparation programs.

In 1999, the Teacher Quality program awarded 28 teacher recruitment
grants to help high-need school districts recruit and prepare 3,000 new
teachers; 25 partnership grants to improve the preparation of over
17,000 new teachers; and 24 state grants to support systematic efforts
to improve the quality of teaching.[^53] The Preparing Tomorrow's
Teachers program awarded 225 consortium grants to support implementation
and infusion of technology into the preparation and field experiences of
400,000 future teachers.[^54] Title II grants awarded in FY 2000 support
seven new states and eight more partnerships.[^55]

To support greater communication and cooperation among the many parties
involved in recruiting, preparing, and inducting teachers to ensure that
they are prepared to teach in the 21^st^ century, the Department has
organized a series of first-ever nationwide conferences. The President's
Summit in 1999 convened college and university presidents from across
the country to discuss their role in elevating the importance and
improving the quality of teacher preparation on their campuses. Building
on the Summit, the National Conference on Teacher Quality in January
2000 assembled more than 1,000 higher education leaders with K-12 and
community leaders to develop action plans for improving teacher
education. Four regional summer institutes focused on implementation of
these plans.

**Teacher Academies and Other Strategies**

**One idea rapidly catching on here and abroad is the teacher academy.**
Often described as an exemplary approach to mentoring and induction for
new teachers, teacher academies also provide high-quality professional
development for currently practicing teachers. And, at a number of
locations across the nation, the teacher academy concept has come to
include programs to encourage high school students to prepare themselves
for teaching careers.

Successful teacher academies include partnerships between schools and
higher education institutions, a strong program framework that includes
content knowledge and teaching skills, established times for LEA and IHE
teachers and administrators for program planning and implementation, and
regular evaluation of program outcomes.

For new teachers, teacher academies offer workshops to induct them into
the school system and to promote their professional growth and provide
support from experienced teacher mentors. For veteran teachers, an
academy might provide training in how to use technology effectively in
the classroom or forums that assist teachers in working with the
particular challenges posed in teaching in urban schools or in preparing
for leadership positions. Academies are also helping to redesign teacher
education training programs by working with partner school districts and
charter schools to develop new course models, especially for reading and
writing, math, and science. Title II grants the Department has made to
the Teacher Academy of South Texas, the Milwaukee Partnership Academy
for Teacher Quality, and Saginaw Valley State University are supporting
development of such programs. Another Title II grant to Miami-Dade
public schools and partner institutions is designed to help address the
problem of the teacher shortage by providing high school students
training and experience in teaching.

Many programs are experimenting with new ideas. Some have been doing it
for years. Several schools have long provided Master of Arts in Teaching
programs. These allow college graduates with strong backgrounds in
academic disciplines to learn teaching skills and pedagogical theory in
one year. To encourage pursuit of teaching careers, one school takes 82
undergraduates per year and puts them on track to graduate in 4.5 years
with a teaching certificate---and \$20,000 in cash, half to be spent at
the school where the graduate teaches, half to be spent as the teacher
sees fit.

Across the Atlantic, the Open University of the United Kingdom has an
innovative program that enables working adults to train for new careers
in teaching. The principles underpinning the program include: supported
open learning; partnership with schools and the University; tight
integration of academic study and school placements; strong focus on
professional competencies as standards; assessment and training
positioned in schools; emphasis on the use of the Web for delivery; and
a close match between directed units of study for trainees based on an
individual needs assessment. This model taps a new market for
teachers---working adults---which is too seldom tapped in the U.S. If a
clerk from Liverpool can stay in her hometown, keep her day job, study
at night via distance learning, student-teach in a local school and be
placed in one when she is licensed, why can't we do that here in the
U.S.?

In sum, there are approaches that offer innovative strategies to improve
teacher skills, build school-college partnerships and attract more
people into the teaching profession. It would also help if the
well-known colleges and universities across this country that have
dropped teacher certification programs in the last decade would reverse
their decisions. This would be a very practical step, as well as a
symbolic one that would signal the value of teaching to prospective
candidates.

But more needs to be done.

# **WHAT WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS** 

Nearly every *Agenda Project* focus group raised one or more teacher
quality issues. In some cases, participants touched on the impact the
preparation of teachers has in other areas such as workforce
preparation, student readiness for college, general awareness of
international issues, or K-12 school success. Many participants noted
the disconnect that now exists across the country between the
demographic diversity of the classroom and that of the current teaching
force. As one participant said, "Postsecondary education issues are
intimately connected with K-12 education issues." Another added, "Most
people have trouble thinking about them in isolation from one another."

In every session, ideas were offered for addressing these problems. A
common theme was to enhance the role played by the U.S. Department of
Education and OPE in several broad areas. One is funding support for
teacher preparation program improvements. Others include financial aid
incentives to attract students into teaching; funds to encourage K-16
partnerships focused on teacher preparation and improved K-12 student
achievement; and using OPE resources and leadership to disseminate
promising practices in teacher preparation reform. Another theme cited
in many focus group sessions was the importance of U.S. Department of
Education encouragement of college and university leaders to assume
responsibility for successful high-quality preparation of new teachers.
High-quality teacher preparation must be a university-wide mission that
includes leadership from the presidents, trustees, and academic officers
in the institution.

#### NATIONAL AGENDA OPPORTUNITIES

The national dialogue on teacher quality and the future of postsecondary
education in the United States targeted these issues and challenges:

1.  Over the next decade, America's schools will need to hire 2.2
    million teachers, over half of whom will be first-time teachers.
    Many schools already face shortages of qualified teachers,
    especially in high-poverty communities and in subjects such as math
    and science. Postsecondary institutions that train educators must
    work in partnership with schools, states, and communities to recruit
    teachers, build the capacity to train them, support them as new
    teachers in the classroom, and ensure that they meet high standards
    of professionalism.

2.  America's teacher education programs do not adequately prepare
    teachers to meet the needs of all students---including those with
    disabilities and students from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic
    backgrounds.

3.  Too many students are taught by uncertified teachers, those teaching
    out of field, and teachers with weak training in the disciplines
    they teach.

4.  Too many teachers lack proficiency with incorporating technology and
    international issues into their teaching. Teachers need better
    pre-service and in-service training in these areas, and even
    university educators need professional development on using
    technology.

5.  Teachers remain underpaid, teach under very poor working conditions,
    and receive inadequate support---especially new teachers entering
    the classroom. These factors make both recruitment and retention of
    teachers difficult.

6.  Too few educators and administrators across the country are aware of
    promising practices or programs that work, and there is too little
    awareness of the impact of good teaching on student learning.

# **OPE ACTIONS** 

Teachers want help in bringing high standards into their classrooms. OPE
should take additional actions.

1.  OPE should support partnerships among K-12 schools and postsecondary
    institutions to create comprehensive change in education.

2.  OPE should work with states to find ways for mid-career
    professionals to prepare for and enter teaching more easily, while
    maintaining and raising certification standards.

3.  OPE should encourage higher education leaders to get involved in
    teacher preparation reform: the data on subject matter competence of
    new teachers and student performance on tests with rigorous
    standards show that the entire university must be behind quality
    teacher training.

4.  OPE should work with national organizations and other institutions
    to facilitate closer integration of teacher colleges with the entire
    university.

5.  OPE should gather and disseminate up-to-date information about
    innovative teacher preparation practices; many institutions have
    tackled aspects of the quality-teaching puzzle and their work should
    be identified and publicized widely.

6.  OPE should convene forums on teacher quality issues at state and
    regional levels: higher visibility for the core issues of teacher
    quality will draw state and other leaders into the reform process.

7.  OPE should promote GEAR UP as part of a broad strategy to attract
    students into teaching, especially minority students: these students
    often have strong ties to their community and want to practice their
    professions in the places where they grew up.

8.  OPE should provide effective outreach about funding opportunities in
    OPE, and technical assistance for institutions with limited
    grant-seeking experience.

9.  OPE should involve foundations, businesses, states, universities,
    and other partners in carefully designed efforts to fund
    comprehensive approaches to teacher quality improvement: federal
    leadership can bring other important partners to the table and
    accelerate the pace of change.

10. OPE should promote the effective integration of technology into
    curriculum and instructional practices on the university campus and
    in the school classroom.

11. OPE should consider a grant competition to encourage states, or
    regional partnerships, to build on some of the creative ideas that
    are being tried to improve teacher training. Whatever the final
    form, one goal of the program would be to break down the current
    barriers that separate the main postsecondary institution from the
    college of education.

**As Secretary of Education Richard Riley has said many times, "We know
that the single most important factor in a child\'s education is a
well-qualified teacher."**

*Theme 4*

**INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY AND DISTANCE EDUCATION INTO THE CURRICULUM**

*Managing the impact of technology on higher education is bigger than
any of us. There is a real need for national leadership in this area.*

> OPE *Agenda Project* Dialogue Participant

Persons of a certain age can remember the time when the thought of
visiting 5,500 postsecondary institutions would have been considered
laughable. Not anymore. Today, the new College Opportunities On-Line
(COOL) Web site (**www.ed.gov**) at the U.S. Department of Education
displays information on 5,500 institutions---from small technical
colleges to the nation's largest and most prestigious universities. A
student can search by size, type, specialty, or location. It is a small
yet significant example of how technology is changing education.

Postsecondary educators have been quick to adopt the increasingly
sophisticated technology tools. In its various forms, technology has
enriched classroom instruction and stimulated the development of new
models for delivering education.

**According to a recent National Center for Education Statistics study,
the number of distance courses offered by U.S. institutions and the
number of enrollments nearly doubled between 1994-95 and 1997-98.**[^56]
At the same time, technology has expanded the boundaries of research and
brought important efficiencies to the management of institutions.

It is only recently, however, that technology has presented the
potential for transforming not just the classroom but institutions
themselves. The Internet extends the reach of institutions to undertake
initiatives most educators would not have dreamed possible even five
years ago. The Internet is also stimulating competition among a broad
range of postsecondary providers, creating an emerging market-based
higher education economy that will orient more closely postsecondary
education to consumer needs and interests.

The Internet is the vehicle for change; the market is an American public
that will demand continuing education that will provide the new
knowledge our rapidly changing world of work requires. As a U.S.
Department of Labor study recently pointed out**, "Of the 54 jobs
expected to experience the most significant growth between now and 2005,
only eight do not require technological fluency.\"**

This new market for postsecondary education will include the students
whom institutions have traditionally served. However, it is adult
students who will be the real drivers of change---demanding more
flexible, even customized, self-paced learning opportunities. Distance
or distributed education will be the primary response to this growing
demand.

While the Internet provides perhaps the richest transforming educational
resource since the invention of the printing press, the challenges in
realizing the power of the Internet are substantial. One of the most
significant challenges is the need for capital to invest in development,
which is fostering new relationships between for-profit entities and
non-profit and public institutions. Some institutions have founded their
own for-profit entities to provide the capital required; others are
looking to outside investors and partnerships.

###### Assuring Quality, Access, and Financing

Although these new relationships are important in enabling development,
they are raising significant questions. How will these partnerships
alter traditional assumptions about the nature of and values inherent in
higher education? For example, the partnerships could increase the
digital divide between the institutions that can afford sophisticated
applications of technology in instruction and those that cannot.

OPE is determined to see that doesn't happen. The OPE programs to aid
developing institutions \[Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act
(HEA)\] support institutions that enroll many of our minority and
disadvantaged students. OPE is working with grantees to help them use
their funds to build the infrastructure for access to the Internet. The
cost of technology is high, but students at all our institutions need
access to essential computing resources.

In addition to the digital divide issue, all these changes raise new
challenges concerning the two long-standing and primary concerns of the
federal government: quality and access.

Quality assurance in American higher education has been predominantly
the province of regional and national accrediting agencies, membership
organizations that rely on self-examination and peer review to determine
whether institutions meet minimum standards of quality and to encourage
improvement. OPE's role is predicated on its authority to determine
which postsecondary institutions are eligible for HEA Title IV student
aid. The institutions eligible to offer federal student aid and to
receive other federal funds must meet acceptable levels of quality. OPE
recognizes accrediting agencies that have rigorous procedures for
determining which institutions meet their standards and thereby become
eligible for Title IV student aid.

Regional and national accrediting agencies are faced with the challenge
of accurately evaluating postsecondary education over the Internet. OPE
supports their efforts. For our part, we need to ensure that the
criteria for recognizing accrediting agencies do not present obstacles
to the changes accrediting agencies are making in their standards and
processes.

###### Cyber University vs. Site-Based University

When distance education has been delivered by site-based institutions,
OPE has not generally been concerned about the quality of their programs
until the distance education courses top the 50 percent mark. These
institutions have faculty to oversee the curriculum, and long-standing
traditions for dealing with matters of institutional integrity. The
Higher Education Act recognizes this by allowing considerable latitude
to institutions in designing non-traditional programs, including
distance education programs. But what happens now that Cyber University
has entered the scene?

Cyber U is an institution without a campus and without a standing
faculty. Suppose this institution is delivering a self-paced,
competency-based degree program in which students have little or no
face-to-face interaction with other students or instructors. These
circumstances challenge most traditional notions about a quality
postsecondary education. In what sense is Cyber U offering what we
consider a college education? Is it really necessary to have a faculty?
If so, should that faculty be full-time or part-time, in residence or
dispersed throughout the world? Who develops the curriculum? Who defines
the competencies and assesses student learning? Or, if we are really
judging the quality of programs by the learning outcomes of students,
should other factors such as whether Cyber U has a campus, or how
instruction is provided, matter? All these questions demand that all in
the postsecondary education community rethink some of our basic, older
assumptions.

Moreover, since the Internet recognizes no national or even
international boundaries, and educational delivery therefore will not be
limited to state or even regional boundaries, consumer protection is
likely to emerge as a new federal issue.

In the past, accreditation relied primarily on institutional inputs
(such as faculty credentials and library holdings) and processes (such
as on-going institutional planning) to evaluate quality. Recently,
accrediting agencies have begun to include student outcomes (such as
graduation rates) as a measure of the quality of the education the
institution offers. In the digital age and with the increasing number of
non-traditional and for-profit institutions, evaluating student
outcomes, particularly learning outcomes, must become more central to
the accrediting process. Learning, after all, is where our focus should
be, yet few institutions have any comprehensive program in place to
examine their effectiveness in terms of what students actually learn.
But how do we evaluate the worth of being on a campus, in a classroom,
in face-to-face encounters with faculty and peers? We shouldn't discount
the value of these experiences simply because we cannot measure them
with accuracy.

Meeting the challenge of reorienting how we evaluate quality from proxy
measures such as inputs and processes to student learning outcomes must
be a shared responsibility of all sectors of higher education, the
public and the private, the non-profit and the for-profit, the corporate
and entrepreneurial. And, of course, accrediting agencies must play a
principal role. Many accrediting agencies have been seriously examining
their standards and processes to make sure they will meet the challenges
the emerging postsecondary education market poses to evaluating quality.
OPE applauds these efforts, and at the same time raises the question of
whether or not the changes they are making will actually place student
learning outcomes at the center of the evaluation process.

We embrace technology for the opportunities it provides to enrich higher
education and extend its reach into areas we have yet to envision. Along
with the opportunities, we must also meet the challenges that it poses
to access, to accountability, and to quality assurance.

Responding to these challenges must be a shared responsibility. The
public and the private sectors, non-profit and for-profit institutions,
corporate and entrepreneurial entities, all must work individually and
in partnership to make lifetime learning a reality for all Americans.

###### New Initiatives 

Under the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, new
initiatives have been developed to connect the nation's elementary and
secondary classrooms to the Internet, to increase access to modern
computers for teachers and students, and to help teachers integrate the
use of these new tools in their classrooms. These new programs are
unprecedented in scope and level of funding. In postsecondary education,
too, the Clinton-Gore administration has demonstrated strong leadership
in its educational technology initiatives.

The cost of postsecondary education is, of course, an important access
issue for students. In this context, an important new student financial
aid initiative is the Distance Education Demonstration Program,
authorized by the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Currently, the
law and regulations governing Title IV student aid limit the amount of
distance education an institution of higher education may offer while
still retaining its eligibility to participate in the Title IV programs.
Student aid requirements relating to educational program length can also
be difficult to apply in programs that are self-paced or offered in time
units that differ from standard semesters or quarters.

The Distance Education Demonstration Program allows the U.S. Secretary
of Education to waive certain Title IV requirements. This allows
distance education providers to experiment with potential alternatives
to statutory and regulatory financial aid requirements that are too
restrictive. The goal is to minimize any negative impact existing
regulations might have on the development of distance learning, and at
the same time maintain the integrity of student aid programs.

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), well
known for the innovative technology projects supported in its
Comprehensive Program, is now administering another of the Department's
new initiatives, the Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships (LAAP). The
LAAP program provides grants to partnerships among colleges and
universities, technology companies, employers, professional
associations, and other organizations to develop asynchronous, online
distance education programs---including those that are delivered in
self-paced, competency-based formats.

LAAP partnerships seek to promote cooperation and resource sharing
instead of unnecessary competition. They seek to create economies of
scale to offset the tremendous capital investments necessary for the
development of quality multimedia instructional materials. They seek to
address students' needs for online support services and new interactive
pedagogies. They also address the needs of under-served groups. The LAAP
program is a prime example of how the Department seeks to stimulate
lifetime learning by fostering new partnerships.

This is a time of transition, and most of the territory we are looking
at in distance education is uncharted. In large part, that is why OPE
sought input from our stakeholders.

## 

## WHAT WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS---NATIONAL AGENDA OPPORTUNITIES

The listening sessions we conducted around the country provided ample
evidence of the importance of technology and its uses both for on-campus
and distance education courses, but also documented challenges. These
included:

1.  Technological change raises a wide range of policy issues and
    challenges that face policymakers, educators, and administrators at
    all levels. Policymakers at the federal and state levels of
    government must work actively with institutions, other postsecondary
    education providers, and accrediting agencies to address these
    challenges.

2.  Distance education especially raises new challenges in the area of
    quality assurance. Both regulators and consumers need new ways to
    judge the quality of distance education offerings.

3.  OPE should continue to encourage accreditors to develop outcome
    assessment techniques for learning in the classroom as well as out
    of it.

4.  Title IV Student Financial Assistance Program requirements limit
    financial aid to distance education students. These rules need to be
    revised in order to expand access to distance education while still
    protecting the taxpayer investment in financial aid.

5.  Technology offers new opportunities to use distance education and
    exchanges to improve international education and research.

6.  Many institutions lack the resources to develop their technical
    capability and fully exploit the potential of new technology.
    Colleges and universities that serve minorities, low-income
    students, and first-generation college students need financial
    resources to develop technological infrastructure and expertise.

7.  Technology has the potential to promote access, meet new needs for
    education and training, and improve quality. Promising technological
    approaches to these issues need more national support.

## OPE ACTIONS

Clearly, the impetus for technology development in higher education and
the expansion of distance education are present in both the higher
education community and other entities interested in using technology to
develop new kinds of institutions and services. It is very important for
OPE to track trends in these areas and, where appropriate, to
participate in discussions about these developments, particularly those
relating to the quality and integrity of such efforts.

The U.S. Department of Education has a leadership role in policy matters
with respect to the growth of distance education and technology. As a
participant in one of the listening sessions phrased it, "The Department
of Education has an important role in determining the parameters that
will govern the directions distance education will take in the United
States." Just as technology poses challenges to the higher education
community to adopt new approaches to quality assurance, it challenges us
to provide policy leadership that will result in more enlightened
regulation of student aid that recognizes the legitimacy of the growing
diversity in types of institutions and methods of delivering education.

In that context, OPE should consider the following steps:

1.  OPE should develop proposals for changes to those Title IV Student
    Financial Assistance Program requirements that now limit student
    financial assistance to distance education students.

2.  OPE should convene discussions of policy matters at the federal and
    state levels of government with institutions, other postsecondary
    education providers, and accrediting agencies.

3.  OPE should initiate discussions related to expanding opportunities
    for distance education and exchanges using technology
    internationally.

4.  OPE should encourage approaches to quality assurance in distance
    education that include a strong focus on outcomes and competencies
    as measures of quality.

5.  OPE should provide information that will assist consumers in
    locating providers that offer distance education courses and
    programs that meet standards of acceptable quality.

6.  OPE should use program resources to assist institutions in
    developing technical capability.

7.  OPE should support experimentation with promising new models of
    educational practice that promote access, meet new needs for
    education and training, and improve quality.

8.  OPE should collect and disseminate best practices utilizing a
    variety of methods. These should include written materials, but
    should expand to include networks that allow practitioners to engage
    in discussions online, and at meetings and conferences.

*Theme 5*

**REVITALIZING INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION**

America is both the most global and the least global nation in the
world. We have a problem that no one else has: we can pretend the rest
of the world doesn\'t exist.

OPE *Agenda Project* Dialogue Session Participant

In almost every sector of American life, business, politics,
entertainment, sports, and the arts, it is clear we operate in a global
context. As IBM CEO Lou Gerstner said at Finance Conference 2000, "We
have an exceptionally clear line of sight to a shift that has moved
large portions of our economy from a physical to a digital basis, and
given rise to the first truly global marketplace of goods, services and
ideas." It is less clear as to whether our postsecondary education
community is responding fully to the challenges of the new global
marketplace.

It shouldn't take another Sputnik launch and a Cold War to galvanize our
nation into action on international education. The launch of the
Internet and global competition should be enough. In prior years, it was
possible to avoid, for example, language studies with impunity. No
longer. The Clinton-Gore administration knows this.

President Clinton, in his April 19, 2000, international education
executive memorandum
([**http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/04-2000/wh-000419.html**](http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/04-2000/wh-000419.html)),
identified the challenges our country and our education community face:
**"To continue to compete successfully in the global economy and to
maintain our role as a world leader, the United States needs to ensure
that its citizens develop a broad understanding of the world,
proficiency in other languages, and knowledge of other cultures."**

Some institutions are working at developing such broad understanding of
the world. But it does take some work. Many students who have just
adjusted to life on campus are often reluctant to take on the challenge
of living abroad. Nonetheless, Michigan State University sends
approximately 20 percent of its students abroad to study. Most other
schools that size send barely 1 percent. The California State University
System now sends 2,000 students abroad each year with plans to increase
that number to 6,000. Yet, it may be less costly for an American student
to study abroad than in the United States.

In American postsecondary education, universal quality education
requires intensive attention to international cultures, languages,
economies, and political systems. International education for
postsecondary students occurs not only through study abroad and
exchanges but also through on-campus curricular components,
non-curricular activities, and the campus presence of students from
diverse countries and cultures.

More than 129,000 American postsecondary students received credit for
study abroad last year. Recent trends have been encouraging. The
strength of the American economy and the globalization of economies and
employment are leading greater numbers of U.S. students to complete a
portion of their academic programs overseas. Moreover, **over 500,000
international students reside in the United States each year. They have
not only an important cultural impact on U.S. campuses and surrounding
communities, but also an important financial impact, contributing over
\$12 billion to the U.S. economy annually.**[^57] But we are losing our
share of these students to other nations that also see value in
welcoming students from abroad.

The Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) has played a significant
role in the internationalization of American college and university
campuses and in the stimulation of international exchanges. OPE\'s
International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) domestic
programs, funded through Title VI of the Higher Education Act (HEA),
have been critically important for the development of the U.S. higher
education infrastructure. This infrastructure produces our nation\'s
international expertise, the dissemination of international knowledge to
policymakers and citizens, and the training of students for informed and
responsible work, life, and citizenship in global economies.

The American postsecondary institutions with Title VI-supported National
Resource Centers constitute less than three percent of all colleges and
universities offering language instruction in the United States. Yet
they account for 21 percent of undergraduate and 55 percent of graduate
student enrollments in the less commonly taught languages (e.g.,
Swahili, Korean, Indonesian, Serbo-Croatian, Turkish).[^58]

Moreover, Title VI funding for the 28 Centers for International Business
Education in FY 1999 (\$8 million) leveraged institutional and private
sector funding more than three times the level of the federal
investment. These centers have helped to internationalize American
business schools and their curricula, as CEOs have long espoused, by
enhancing the international components of disciplined-based courses,
supporting foreign study and research for students and faculty,
providing seminars for business executives and other postsecondary
institutions, and facilitating U.S. visits by foreign education and
business leaders.

The Fulbright-Hays overseas programs administered by OPE complement the
Title VI programs by providing K-12 teachers, college students, doctoral
degree candidates, and college faculty overseas opportunities for
curriculum development, research, and academic training. These programs
support the development of American international expertise in world
areas and foreign languages important both for our nation and other
nations. In addition, the Institute for International Public Policy
(IIPP) supports consortia of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Tribally
Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs), other minority-serving
institutions, and institutions that train foreign service professionals.
This work increases the number of minorities in private international
voluntary organizations, the U.S. Foreign Service, and related
international positions.

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), another
OPE program, jointly funds multi-institution, multi-country
postsecondary education curriculum development and exchange consortia
with the European Community, with Canada and Mexico, and with Brazil.
External evaluations of these programs show that they have
internationalized academic programs both in the U.S. and abroad through
the production and dissemination of curricula in professional fields
that successfully cross national, disciplinary, and language boundaries,
including business and management, engineering, environmental sciences,
and health sciences.

To cite one example, FIPSE's Program for North American Mobility in
Higher Education is currently funding various programs involving
institutions and students from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. **One
project is examining sustainable water resource management, another is
focusing on legal issues in the wake of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), and others are preparing students for high demand
technical jobs.**

In spite of these successful efforts and those of numerous other
postsecondary education institutions, many American citizens and
postsecondary institutions have drawn a sharp line between
\"international\" education and \"regular\" programs of study. Many
citizens and institutions continue to regard study abroad, on-campus
international courses, inter-institutional postsecondary consortia, and
similar efforts to be \"frills\" and \"add-ons.\"

This view has produced American postsecondary education students and
graduates who lack an appreciation for (and often even an interest in)
foreign cultures, languages, perspectives, and problems. As one OPE
*Agenda Project* dialogue participant remarked, \"America is both the
most global and the least global nation in the world. We have a problem
that no one else has: we can pretend the rest of the world doesn\'t
exist.\"

Indeed, a closer look indicates that American postsecondary education
today is not as well positioned with respect to international education
as suggested above. For example, **the number of international students
studying each year in the United States is approximately five times the
number of American students studying abroad, and less than one percent
of U.S. students enrolled in postsecondary education each year study
abroad.** Moreover, less than 10 percent of the American students
studying abroad do so for longer than a semester.[^59]

Part of the problem may be that institutions and students overestimate
the cost of studying abroad. But some institutions have found that
sending students abroad for a year actually costs less than teaching
them at their home campuses here in the United States. The Institute for
International Education recently commissioned Arthur Anderson to study
whether U.S. colleges and universities are keeping their books in a way
that accurately reflects the costs of educating a student on campus as
compared to overseas. If the study reveals what the Institute expects it
to---that sending students abroad is a relative bargain---it should
support efforts to strengthen international education.

At the same time, the flow of international students to American
postsecondary institutions is increasingly threatened as other countries
mount vigorous recruitment campaigns to compete for international
students. Also, certain Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
visa issuance regulations decrease the number of international students
studying in the U.S. Improved training for consular officers regarding
U.S. educational practices could help address this problem.

As a result of these developments, since 1982, the U.S. share of
international students studying outside their own countries has shrunk
from 40 percent to 30 percent.[^60] Similar problems face our nation in
terms of building international expertise: **American postsecondary
institutions are not graduating sufficient numbers of students with
foreign language and culture expertise to meet the needs of business,
government, and universities.**

# **WHAT WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS** 

Participants in the *Agenda Project* dialogue sessions articulated often
and persuasively the many serious international education challenges
that American postsecondary education faces. They recognize that an
excellent foundation for the internationalization of postsecondary
education institutions, curricula, faculty, and students exists. Yet
they acknowledge that international education has received inadequate
attention and resources in our nation\'s colleges and universities, our
K-12 schools, our state governments, our federal government, and our
businesses. They also recognize that we are only one part of a larger
world and that the increasingly universal American postsecondary
education system, with its diversity of learners, providers, locations,
outcomes, credentials, and funders, is integrally interconnected with
this world.

# **NATIONAL AGENDA OPPORTUNITIES** 

The primary challenges that the *Agenda Project* dialogue participants
identified include:

1.  In American postsecondary education, international education
    generally is separated from other disciplines, from teacher
    education and other graduate and professional programs, and from the
    core elements of the undergraduate arts and sciences curricula. In
    today's global environment, international education must be more
    thoroughly integrated throughout the postsecondary curricula.

2.  The lack of systematic attention to international education in many
    postsecondary institutions and the scarcity of effective K-16
    partnerships have fostered a similar lack of attention to
    international education in grades K-12. Students must begin
    preparing for the global economy at the earliest levels.

3.  Support by government, postsecondary institutions, and the private
    sector for the production and dissemination of international
    expertise and research is limited and piecemeal. At the state and
    national levels, there is a general lack of effective international
    education and policy advocacy by, and collaboration among, the many
    institutions and organizations that have a stake in postsecondary
    education.

4.  Many factors discourage U.S. undergraduate and graduate student
    education and research abroad. These factors include state
    government postsecondary education program and funding policies,
    postsecondary institutions\' curricula and degree requirements,
    faculty expectations for timely student progression, and uncertain
    employment and career benefits from international study.

5.  The United States is faced with increasing competition in educating
    students from other countries. They are mounting vigorous
    recruitment campaigns to compete for international students. The
    visa issue might be contributing to this problem and requires
    further study.

6.  U.S. and foreign student opportunities for study abroad often fail
    to meet the needs of diverse student learners (for example,
    part-time students, racial and ethnic minorities, disabled students)
    and to recognize the benefits of participation by a more diverse
    group of institutions (for example, U.S. community colleges,
    for-profit institutions).

7.  Unnecessary government regulatory and procedural barriers discourage
    international students from studying in the United States, U.S.
    students from studying abroad, and institutions worldwide from
    providing quality education opportunities for American students both
    in the U.S. and abroad.

8.  There is a lack of knowledge about OPE international education
    \"lessons learned\" and \"best practices\" in other OPE programs, in
    other U.S. Department of Education offices, in other Executive
    Branch departments, in states, and among postsecondary education
    institutions.

These challenges require that OPE articulate and implement, working
collaboratively with the postsecondary education community, a strategic
vision. That vision should encompass critically important international
education goals for American postsecondary education, including: to
produce and use U.S. international experts and research to meet national
strategic needs; to increase and strengthen postsecondary education
linkages with K-12 education systems, business, media, state and local
governments, and other sectors; and to educate foreign nationals in
diverse U.S. postsecondary education institutions to foster these
individuals\' better understanding of American systems and institutions.

# **OPE ACTIONS** 

OPE, in partnership with postsecondary education institutions and
associations, federal and state government departments and agencies, and
business and other nongovernmental organizations, has opportunities to
achieve these international education goals. The following OPE
strategies for achieving these goals address the ten core areas outlined
in President Clinton\'s April 19, 2000, executive memorandum on
international education policy
([**http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/04-2000/wh-000419.html**](http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/04-2000/wh-000419.html)).
These core areas also are being addressed by the Departments of State
and Education in their collaborative strategy for the implementation of
the executive memorandum. See
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/discussion_paper.html.

1.  OPE should support the increased internationalization of U.S.
    campuses and undergraduate programs.

2.  OPE should support the development of models of curriculum
    integration, language learning, and student mobility that foster
    cross-national institutional consortia and partnerships as well as
    the dissemination of materials and practices they develop.

3.  OPE should support international education programs and studies that
    increase (even double) the number and diversity of students who
    study and intern abroad; encourage students and institutions to
    explore non-traditional study abroad opportunities; remove barriers
    for studying abroad relating to the recognition, transfer, and
    portability of academic credit and qualifications; and expand
    awareness that study abroad need not be any more costly than study
    at U.S. institutions.

4.  OPE should support strengthened foreign language learning at all
    education levels, including the achievement of literacy in at least
    two languages and teacher preparation and professional development.

5.  OPE should support partnerships with K-12 schools, businesses,
    governments, and other organizations as well as clearinghouses and
    Web sites for identifying available expertise and national needs.

6.  OPE should support increased postsecondary education study in
    the U. S. by qualified students from overseas by improving the
    availability of information and advice about such opportunities and
    removing policy and procedural barriers that limit the international
    flow of students, especially the granting of INS visas to
    international students.

7.  OPE should support enhanced coordination of international education
    programs within OPE; across the U.S. Department of Education; and
    among executive branch departments and agencies, international
    organizations, and education ministries of other nations, in
    collaboration with the U.S. Department of State.

**CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY**

###### Core Values at the Turning Point 

This is a time of awe-inspiring change in postsecondary education, just
as it is for the rest of the world. But core values don't change; the
means to achieve them might, but the values themselves do not. As a
nation, we value education and have since colonial times. Since those
times, we have made great progress toward enabling all of our citizens
to achieve the American Dream. Education has been the key. Yet, there's
more to be done.

All Americans deserve a chance at the economic opportunity, cultural
enrichment, and civic engagement that result from higher education. By
building upon our investment in education, we can ensure the future
prosperity of our nation**. Robert Hutchins, the great educator and
former president of the University of Chicago, once wrote, \"The object
of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout
their lives.\"** In the information age, that is true now more than
ever.

Each generation faces its own challenges. In the Education Era the
challenge is to educate a broader mix of people to be our next
generation of leaders and to prepare all Americans to succeed in the
competitive global economy of the 21^st^ century. More importantly**,**
we must educate the next generation of students to be capable,
responsible citizens who give something back to their community, the
country, and the world.

To succeed at this daunting challenge, we must constantly measure our
progress, especially in this digital age of rapid change. It is not a
simple task, but it begins with a simple step. We asked. We went across
the country and asked our stakeholders, "How are we doing?" We asked,
"What should we be doing differently?" We received many thoughtful
answers; they're detailed in this report.

Based on what we heard, we have set out twelve strategies, and
thirty-eight specific action items for OPE. In total, they outline a new
path for OPE. The principles that guide us along that path are solid and
set in stone. We seek to establish access to a quality education for all
Americans. We are determined to accurately assess the money spent to
achieve that goal. Yet the means to achieve the goals are not set in
stone. More likely they are written on a personal digital assistant,
because today and in the future we must be responsive to the changing
needs of lifetime learners. We must be flexible. A rigid bureaucracy
serves no one.

At OPE we will remain flexible. We will keep asking questions and we
will keep listening. The primary goal of this report is to make sure the
dialogue continues and changes are made. We must all squarely face the
tough questions of access, financing, accountability, technology,
teacher quality, and globalization. It is clear our universe is changing
rapidly. It is equally clear we have the assets to adapt to the change.
Working together, we can make a quality, cost-effective, postsecondary
education a reality for all Americans.

## TWELVE OPE STRATEGIES FOR THE NEW ENVIRONMENT

**1. Providing Leadership at the Turning Point**

What became clear through the *Agenda Project* process is that many
factors point to an enhanced role for OPE---not in terms of money or
control, but mainly in terms of leadership and advocacy. *Agenda
Project* participants described a changing, growing postsecondary
education system, one difficult to fathom, let alone navigate. OPE
should serve its stakeholders as a doorway to new ideas, partnerships,
and practices. OPE should expand its work as a think tank for good
ideas, analysis, and research in postsecondary education, especially in
the access and financing areas. For example, through in-house analysis,
contracted research, competitive grants, staffing to commissions and
study groups, and development of policy papers and legislation, OPE
should play a major role in revamping our financial aid system.

**2. Building Financial Power for Institutions and Students**

The U.S. Department of Education uses two tools to expand opportunity
and enhance quality in postsecondary education: grants to postsecondary
institutions and financial aid to students. Many of our grant programs
have proven highly successful at helping students; improving teaching;
promoting innovation and technology in education; strengthening
international education; and promoting access through institutional
development and support. We need to strengthen these existing programs

**3. Examining the Roles and Responsibilities in Paying for College**

The Department of Education should lead a dialogue on how to pay for
college. College presidents, leaders in national and state governments,
students, economists, and business and community leaders should discuss
how all the partners should share in helping to make college accessible
for Americans from all groups. This should be a big picture look ahead
to provide a road map for change in the next decade.

Questions to be addressed should include: How much should postsecondary
education cost? What prices should students and parents pay? Should
there be free public education? How much should states and the federal
government pay? What is the role for private sources? What is the mix of
aid---how do institutional subsidies, grants to students, loans, and tax
policy interact? What is the appropriate balance among different sources
of aid? How do all these questions and answers vary for different groups
of students?

**4. Becoming a Gateway to the Federal Government**

Federal government agencies---from the National Institutes of Health, to
the Department of Energy, to the Department of Defense---operate many
programs that support higher education. Identifying these programs,
though, can be a problem for those they are designed to benefit. OPE
must become a better gateway to the federal government for America's
postsecondary education community. As part of this effort, OPE has
published on the Web a Directory of Federal Programs for Postsecondary
Education. The Directory is a comprehensive, single source of
information on all federal programs on or relating to postsecondary
education offered by all federal departments and agencies. The Directory
includes all federal programs of benefit to colleges and universities
managed by a variety of departments and agencies, including the
Department of Education. It can be accessed at
**[http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/programs.html]{.underline}**.

**5. Expanding Resources for All Institutions**

The Department plays a critical role in helping institutions expand
resources. Several of OPE's established programs address this issue; our
Strengthening Institutions, Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions
(HSIs), and Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs) programs have been indispensable in building up institutions
that serve low-income and minority students. We should expand such
programs.

**6. Dancing to the Same Tune**

OPE administers over 40 grant programs that address challenges facing
postsecondary education today. Ensuring that these programs run
effectively and efficiently is a critical step to help institutions meet
these challenges. Many participants in our *Agenda Project* dialogue
sessions pointed out ways that OPE can improve service to its
customers---from standardizing application procedures, to reengineering
grant processes, to using more meaningful statistical measures in our
programs. We should also improve collaboration among OPE programs to
take advantage of potential synergies, and avoid duplication of work. We
should move to the point where all are grant applications are on the
Web.

**7. Watching Public Dollars and Measuring Outcomes**

Across the country, taxpayers and their representatives rightfully
demand accountability for public dollars spent. In the digital age of
rapid change, the process is more difficult but no less important. Funds
must be accounted for and outcomes measured. With respect to those
principles, OPE will remain stubbornly old-fashioned---but the means by
which we measure outcomes may have to change. We regulate distribution
of billions of dollars in Title IV funds and rely on measurements that
have been called into question in the information age. It is up to the
entire postsecondary education community to reassess this situation and
devise outcome assessments more suited to today's education environment.

**8. Recreating Regulatory Reform**

The first multipurpose computer, ENIAC, developed at the University of
Pennsylvania in 1946, was a breakthrough idea at the time. But no one
would think of using it today. Yet, that is almost what we are doing
when it comes to regulatory reform in postsecondary education. The
system, its facts, beliefs, and attitudes, were developed in the 1950s.
New distance learning providers are espousing new standards based on
outcomes. There have been some change and progress, but not enough to
deal with the changing technology and number of students the system must
deal with today. How do we measure outcomes in the digital age? OPE
should lead the way in reforming the system to bring it up to date.

**9. Building New Partnerships**

One of the clearest messages we received in our *Agenda Project*
dialogue sessions was that postsecondary institutions and the Office of
Postsecondary Education cannot meet the challenges we face today alone.
Many of these challenges relate not only to our education system but
also to our entire society; businesses, community organizations, local
governments, and, in fact, every institution in society need to work in
partnership to address them. The Department of Education has an
important role in bringing these diverse constituencies together to
build these partnerships.

**10. Creating a New Best Practices and Research Web Site**

What is working, and what isn't, in postsecondary education? What is the
economic value of postsecondary education? What kinds of skills do
employers value in potential hires? What will America's student body
look like in 5 years? 15 years? What will postsecondary institutions
need to do to accommodate this changing student body?

Answers to many of these questions are available---in universities,
think tanks, government agencies, and particularly in the Department of
Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Yet many
educators don't know where to go to find such research and "best
practices." In our dialogue sessions we discovered that many look to OPE
to provide them. A new Web site would be very helpful.

**11. Launching a Web Site Regarding Quality Distance Learning**

As Secretary Riley testified before the Web Based Education Commission
on 2 February 2000, "Here is, in my mind, one of the thorniest problems
of the Web---ensuring that the quality of what is retrieved is
high---or, at the very least, ensuring that users have the intellectual
capacity to discern when it is not. No one expects that a medium as free
and unchecked as the Web can be completely monitored or, for that
matter, be of completely high quality. But we can work to ensure that
students and others will know how to make well-grounded intellectual
choices when they use the Internet for education."

To do that we should provide information that will assist consumers in
locating providers that offer distance education courses and programs
that meet standards of acceptable quality.

**12. Sponsoring a Competition to Create 21^st^ Century Teaching
Academies**

OPE, with appropriate public and private sector partners, should
consider sponsoring a grant competition to encourage states, or regional
partnerships, to build upon some of the creative ideas that are being
tried to improve teacher training, for example, the teacher training
program created by the Open University in the United Kingdom, and the
Cornell University Master of Arts in Teaching program, and other ideas.

**THIRTY-EIGHT OPE ACTIONS**

#### Access: Ensuring All Students Are Prepared to Go to College and Succeed 

1.  OPE should increase its emphasis on K-16 programs (such as GEAR UP
    and TRIO) that encourage students to think early about college, take
    the right classes, and begin financial planning. Through
    partnerships at the local level and partnerships with foundations
    and businesses we can leverage federal dollars much more
    effectively. The more these partnerships focus on systemic change,
    the greater the effect.

2.  OPE should consider initiatives that bring technology more quickly
    and pervasively to postsecondary institutions that serve underserved
    populations, perhaps through our Institutional Development programs.

3.  OPE should pay far more attention to graduate education and
    international education than it has in the past.

4.  OPE should advocate for research on the value of software and
    technology based learning for postsecondary students with
    disabilities, in particular for students with learning disabilities.

5.  OPE should work with accreditation bodies and federal entities with
    governance authority regarding the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973.

6.  OPE should convene meetings with leaders in postsecondary schools
    who are knowledgeable about students with disabilities and can make
    recommendations regarding a seamless K-16 system for students.

#### Access: Examining the Roles and Responsibilities in Paying for College

> *(see also Twelve Strategies for the New Environment)*

7.  The U.S. Department of Education should lead a dialogue on how to
    pay for college. College presidents, leaders in national and state
    governments, students, economists, and business and community
    leaders should discuss how all the partners could share in helping
    to make college accessible for Americans from all groups. This
    examination and analysis should provide a road map for change in the
    next decade.

> Questions to be addressed should include: Should there be options for
> free public postsecondary education? If not, what should students and
> parents pay? How much should states and the federal government pay?
> What are the likely financial resources to be available to states and
> the federal government? How does this interact with expected demand,
> including increased demand from groups who are likely to be less well
> prepared? What is the role for private sources? What is the mix of
> aid---how do institutional subsidies, grants to students, loans, and
> tax policy interact? What is the appropriate balance among different
> sources of aid? How do all these questions and answers vary for
> different groups of students? What are the intergenerational
> issues---how do different options affect different generations? Are
> these the appropriate ways to transfer benefits across generations?

8.  OPE should create a study group to examine the student aid system
    and the need analysis system. Its charge would be to design a
    simplified, easy-to-understand system that reflects the realities of
    today's education and students and is flexible to meet tomorrow's
    needs.

> This group would look at more detailed and more technical issues than
> the first group. Simplification would be the overriding goal: easier
> and earlier determination of need and aid eligibility. A simplified
> need analysis system---fewer variables, less open to gaming and
> unintended consequences, easier to understand and file, earlier
> application dates so students would know their eligibility earlier,
> adjustments for new modes of educational delivery and new types of
> students, and new sources of aid, such as tax credits---would be the
> goal here.
>
> The system for delivering aid should also be examined, particularly
> the design and delivery of loans. The existence of two major loan
> programs since 1993---Direct Student loans and FFEL---has benefited
> students by providing them better benefits and service and reduced
> federal costs. We are at a crossroads, however, where a careful
> examination and analysis is needed on the future delivery of student
> loans. Income-contingent repayment (ICR) and the specific formula
> being used also need reexamination.

9.  The Department of Education should mount a major public information
    campaign with its partners to ensure that all Americans know what
    college opportunities are available, how much they cost, and what
    aid is available to meet the costs.

> Despite the fact that much information is already available to
> students and families, many Americans are quite uninformed or have
> misconceptions about the true opportunities. The need for more public
> awareness to ensure that families know the real facts about college
> prices and student financial aid was raised many times in *Agenda
> Project* sessions. This information needs to be broadly available,
> especially to more at-risk students in the middle school years when
> they are making key choices about what classes to take, decisions that
> will affect their chances of college success in future years.

10. OPE should examine the role of student loans in helping families to
    pay for college and the effects of debt burden on students'
    decisions about whether and where to go on to postsecondary
    education, and on their choices after leaving school regarding
    careers and graduate education. This effort should examine the
    effectiveness of different repayment options, including
    income-contingent repayment, and other alternatives, such as loan
    forgiveness. Possible options for changes in the next
    reauthorization of the Higher Education Act should be considered.

11. OPE should undertake a major effort to encourage lifelong learning,
    including an examination of what is occurring now and what the
    barriers are to more lifelong learning. This effort should look at
    administrative, regulatory, and statutory barriers.

12. OPE, together with its partners in postsecondary education and
    industry, should mount a major effort to examine the complex
    requirements now surrounding the student aid programs. The effort
    should examine ways to reduce requirements and increase flexibility
    to deal with new student demands and technologies while continuing
    to ensure accountability for taxpayer dollars. This effort should
    look at administrative, regulatory, and statutory barriers,
    including recommendations for the next reauthorization.

#### Improving Teacher Quality 

*(see also Twelve Strategies for the New Environment)*

13. OPE should support partnerships among K-12 schools and postsecondary
    institutions to create comprehensive change in education.

14. OPE should work with states to find ways for mid-career
    professionals to prepare for and enter teaching more easily, while
    maintaining and raising certification standards.

15. OPE should encourage higher education leaders to get involved in
    teacher preparation reform: the data on subject matter competence of
    new teachers and student performance on tests with rigorous
    standards show that the entire university must be behind quality
    teacher training.

16. OPE should work with national organizations and other institutions
    to facilitate closer integration of teacher colleges with the entire
    university.

17. OPE should gather and disseminate up-to-date information about
    innovative teacher preparation practices; many institutions have
    tackled aspects of the quality-teaching puzzle and their work should
    be identified and publicized widely.

18. OPE should convene forums on teacher quality issues at state and
    regional levels: higher visibility for the core issues of teacher
    quality will draw state and other leaders into the reform process.

19. OPE should develop a broad strategy to attract students into
    teaching, especially minority students: these students often have
    strong ties to their community and want to practice their
    professions in the places where they grew up.

20. OPE should provide effective outreach about funding opportunities in
    OPE, and technical assistance for institutions with limited
    grant-seeking experience.

21. OPE should involve foundations, businesses, states, universities,
    and other partners in carefully designed efforts to fund
    comprehensive approaches to teacher quality improvement: federal
    leadership can bring other important partners to the table and
    accelerate the pace of change.

22. OPE should promote the effective integration of technology into
    curriculum and instructional practices on the university campus and
    in the school classroom.

23. OPE should consider a grant competition to encourage states, or
    regional partnerships, to build on some of the creative ideas that
    are being tried to improve teacher training. Whatever the final
    form, one goal of the program would be to break down the current
    barriers that separate the main postsecondary institution from the
    college of education.

> **Integrating Technology and Distance Education into the Curriculum**

*(see also Twelve Strategies for the New Environment)*

24. OPE should discuss with the community proposals for changes to those
    Title IV Student Financial Assistance Program requirements that now
    limit student financial assistance to distance education students.

25. OPE should convene discussions of policy matters at the federal and
    state levels of government with institutions, other postsecondary
    education providers, and accrediting agencies.

26. OPE should initiate discussions related to expanding opportunities
    for distance education and exchanges using technology
    internationally.

27. OPE should encourage approaches to quality assurance in distance
    education that include a strong focus on outcomes and competencies.

28. OPE should provide information that will assist consumers in
    locating providers that offer distance education courses and
    programs that meet standards of acceptable quality.

29. OPE should use program resources to assist institutions in
    developing technical capability.

30. OPE should support experimentation with promising new models of
    educational practice that promote access, meet new needs for
    education and training, and improve quality.

31. OPE should collect and disseminate best practices utilizing a
    variety of methods. These should include written materials, but
    should expand to include networks that allow practitioners to engage
    in discussions online, and at meetings and conferences.

> **Revitalizing International Education**

32. OPE should support the increased internationalization of U.S.
    campuses and undergraduate programs.

33. OPE should support the development of models of curriculum
    integration, language learning, and student mobility that foster
    cross-national institutional consortia and partnerships; and the
    dissemination of materials and practices they develop.

34. OPE should support improved access to international education
    programs that increase the number and diversity of students who
    study and intern abroad; encourage students and institutions to
    explore non-traditional study abroad opportunities; and remove
    barriers for studying abroad relating to the recognition, transfer,
    and portability of academic credit and qualifications.

35. OPE should support strengthened foreign language learning at all
    education levels, including the achievement of literacy in at least
    two languages; and teacher preparation and professional development.

36. OPE should support partnerships with K-12 schools, businesses,
    governments, and other organizations; and clearinghouses and Web
    sites for identifying available expertise and national needs.

37. OPE should support increased postsecondary study in the U.S. by
    qualified students from overseas by improving the availability of
    information about such opportunities; and removing policy and
    procedural barriers that limit the international flow of students.

38. OPE should support enhanced coordination of international education
    programs within OPE; across the U.S. Department of Education; and
    among executive branch departments and agencies, international
    organizations, and education ministries of other nations, in
    collaboration with the U.S. Department of State.

**APPENDICES**

**Appendix A**

*Agenda Project* Meetings

# JANUARY

1.  **Teacher Quality Project Directors Meeting**

## January 21, 2000

## Crystal City, VA

2.  **Training Session for Accrediting Associations**

> January 24, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

3.  **Higher Education Council for Special Education**

> January 28, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

4.  **Council for Christian Colleges and Universities Presidents'
    Meeting**

> January 31, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

# FEBRUARY

5.  **National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities**

> February 3, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

6.  **Tribal Colleges**

> February 10, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

##### National Association of Graduate and Professional Students

##### February 11, 2000

> Washington, DC

7.  **Association of Teacher Educators**

> February 14, 2000
>
> Orlando, FL

##### Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Board Meeting

> February 24, 2000

### Washington, DC

### 

##### National Education Association

##### February 24, 2000

## Washington, DC 

8.  **Arizona Business Executives**

## February 28, 2000

> Phoenix, AZ

9.  **Arizona Academic Administrators**

### February 28, 2000

### Phoenix, AZ

10. **Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Reviewers**

### February, 29, 2000

> Greensboro, NC

11. **American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education**

> February 29, 2000
>
> Chicago, IL

12. **Texas College (HBCU's)**

### February 29, 2000

> Tyler, Texas

13. **Arizona State University West (Faculty)**

## February 29, 2000

## Phoenix, AZ

14. **Arizona State University West (Students)**

> February 29, 2000
>
> Phoenix, AZ

# MARCH

15. **Florida International University**

### March 1, 2000

> Miami, FL

16. **Distance Education Demonstration Program**

### March 15-16, 2000

> Chicago, IL

17. **Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education**

> **Project Directors Meeting**

### March 16, 2000

> Austin, TX

18. **National Committee on Foreign Medical Education Accreditation**

> March 17, 2000

### Washington, DC

19. **Child Care Grantee/Project Directors Meeting**

### March 20, 2000

> Washington, DC

20. **Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges**

### March 20, 2000

> New Orleans, LA

##### Committee on Institutional Cooperation

##### March 20, 2000

Chicago, IL

21. **American Council on Education**

> March 21, 2000
>
> Chicago, IL

22. **National Association of Student Personnel Administrators**

> March 21, 2000
>
> Indianapolis, IN

23. **Career College Association**

### March 23, 2000

### Washington, DC

### 

24. **Skidmore College**

> March 23, 2000
>
> Saratoga Springs, NY

25. **National Alliance for Business**

### March 29, 2000

> Washington, DC

26. **Office of Postsecondary Education Staff**

> March 30, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

# 

# APRIL

27. **National Association of Graduate and Professional Students**

### April 1, 2000 

### Durham, NC

### 

### Council of Recognized National Accrediting Agencies 

### April 4, 2000

### Washington, DC

### 

28. **TRIO Conference**

### April 5, 2000 

> Newport, RI

29. **Boston Regional Meeting**

> April 5, 2000

## Boston, MA 

30. **Associated New American College**

> April 8, 2000
>
> Tacoma, WA

31. **Students**

### April 10, 2000

### Iowa

### 

32. **American Association of Community Colleges**

## April 10, 2000

> Washington, DC

33. **Southeastern University**

### April 11, 2000

> Washington, DC

34. **George Mason University**

### April 12, 2000

### Fairfax, VA

#####  

##### United Faculty of Florida

> April 14, 2000
>
> Orlando, FL

##### Meeting of HSI Presidents

##### April 17, 2000

San Bernadino, CA

35. **University of Alaska - Anchorage**

### April 17, 2000

### Anchorage, AK

### 

36. **University of Alaska - Fairbanks**

### April 18, 2000

> Fairbanks, AK

37. **Denver Business Executives**

### April 18, 2000

> Denver, CO

##### Meeting of Presidents of Public Colleges in Texas

##### April 19, 2000

Austin, TX

##### 

##### International Education Dialogue

> April 19, 2000

### Washington, DC

##### American Association of University Professors (Collective Bargaining Group)

### April 21, 200

### Washington, DC

##### University of Maine

> April 25, 2000

### Portland, ME

38. **Dallas Regional Meeting**

> April 26, 2000
>
> Dallas, TX

##### Columbia University, NYC Educators

> April 26, 2000

### New York, NY

##### Reed College

> April 27, 2000

####### Portland, OR

# MAY

39. **San Francisco Regional Meeting**

> May 2, 2000
>
> San Francisco, CA

40. **Technology Dialogue**

> May 4, 2000

### Washington, DC

41. **United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
    International Dialogue**

> May 4, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

42. **Distance Education Dialogue (Business Executives)**

> May 5, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

43. **Puerto Rican University Presidents and the Association of Private
    Schools**

### May 5, 2000

### San Juan, Puerto Rico

44. **National Center for Learning Disabilities (Hosted by the College
    Board)**

### May 8, 2000

> New York City, NY

45. **Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education**

### May 9, 2000

### Denver, CO

46. **Atlanta Regional Meeting**

> May 10, 2000
>
> Atlanta, GA

47. **Learning Disabilities Association**

> May 18, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

48. **NAFSA -- Association of International Educators**

> May 30-June 2, 2000
>
> San Diego, CA

49. **American Council on Education**

> June 4, 2000
>
> Salt Lake City, UT

50. **Occidental College (faculty)**

> June 6, 2000
>
> Los Angeles, CA

51. **National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and
    Administration**

> June 9, 2000
>
> Washington, DC

52. **United Negro College Fund**

### June 12, 2000

> Austin, TX

53. **United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization**

### June 22, 2000

> Washington, DC

54. **Chicago Education Alliance**

> June 28, 2000
>
> Chicago, IL

**Appendix B**

Programs of the Office of Postsecondary Education**---**

# [Programs of the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)]{.smallcaps}

# [U.S. Department of Education]{.smallcaps}

Dr. A. Lee Fritschler, *Assistant Secretary*

\(202\) 502-7750

Maureen A. McLaughlin, Claudio R. Prieto,

######## Deputy Assistant Secretary for Deputy Assistant Secretary for

*Policy, Planning and Innovation Higher Education Programs*

**Helping All Americans Reach Postsecondary Education** OPE's work
supporting higher education begins before students even enroll at
postsecondary institutions. Students -- especially those who may become
the first in their families to go on to higher education -- need to
start planning early for college and need information, encouragement and
academic support as they prepare for higher education. Our GEAR UP
initiative and several of our TRIO programs provide grants to support
projects that meet these needs

***[Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
(GEAR UP)]{.underline}***

*Description:* Promotes and supports community-based and state efforts
to encourage more young people to have high expectations, stay in
school, study hard and take the right courses to go to college. GEAR UP
funding is allocated among grants to community-based partnerships and
grants to states.

*Potential Grantees:* Partnerships among at least one higher education
institution, at least one school district acting on behalf of one or
more middle schools and high schools in low-income communities, and at
least two additional organizations; state agencies designated by the
Governor.

*Funding:* \$200 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$460,000 for Partnership Grants; \$2 million for State
Grants

*Next Competition*: Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Ray Ramirez at (202)
502-7676 or gearup@ed.gov.

#### 

####### *[Talent Search]{.underline}*

*Description:* Identifies and assists individuals from disadvantaged
backgrounds who have the potential to succeed in higher education.
Projects provide services such as counseling, tutoring and mentoring;
help with admissions and financial aid applications; exposure to college
campuses; and career exploration and aptitude assessment.

*Potential Grantees:* Institutions of higher education, public or
private not-for-profit agencies, a combination of institutions,
agencies, and organizations, and in exceptional cases, secondary schools

*Funding:* \$100,507,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$279,000 for one year of a four-year grant

#### Next Competition: *Fiscal Year 2002* Contact: *Peggy Whitehead at (202) 502-7600 or OPE_TRIO@ed.gov* 

#### 

## Upward Bound

*Description:* Provides support to participants in their preparation for
college entrance. Projects provide academic instruction and additional
services like counseling, tutoring, mentoring, and help with college
entrance and financial aid applications.

*Potential Grantees:* Institutions of higher education, public or
private not-for-profit agencies, a combination of institutions,
agencies, and organizations, and in exceptional cases, secondary schools

*Funding:* \$240,805,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$311,000 for one year of a grant

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2003 *Contact:* Peggy Whitehead at (202)
502-7600 or OPE_TRIO@ed.gov

#### [Upward Bound Math and Science]{.underline}

*Description*: Funds specialized Upward Bound math and science centers
to strengthen the math and science skills of participating students and
encourage students to pursue degrees in these fields. Projects support
math and science-oriented activities like intensive summer programs;
counseling and advisement; exposure to university researchers; computer
training; and participant-conducted, mentored research.

*Potential Grantees:* Institutions of higher education, public or
private not-for-profit agencies, a combination of institutions,
agencies, and organizations, and in exceptional cases, secondary schools

*Funding:* \$30,155,000 in Fiscal Year 200

*Average Award:* \$245,163 for one year of a grant

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2003 *Contact:* Peggy Whitehead at (202)
502-7600 or OPE_TRIO@ed.gov

####### 

####### [Educational Opportunity Centers]{.underline}

*Description:* Provides counseling and information on college admissions
to qualified adults who want to enter or continue a program of
postsecondary education. Projects provide services like counseling,
tutoring and mentoring; help with admissions and financial aid
applications; coordination with local higher education institutions; and
career workshops.

*Potential Grantees:* Institutions of higher education, public or
private not-for-profit agencies, a combination of institutions,
agencies, and organizations, and in exceptional cases, secondary schools

*Funding:* \$30,474,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$372,000 for one year of a grant

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2002 *Contact:* Peggy Whitehead at (202)
502-7600 or OPE_TRIO@ed.gov

#### 

#### [Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs Staff]{.underline}

*Description:* Provides training to enhance the skills and expertise of
project directors and staff employed in the Federal TRIO programs.
Topics for training include improving student retention; counseling
services; student testing; working with specific TRIO populations;
legislative and regulatory requirements; program evaluation; helping
students obtain financial aid; design and operation of model TRIO
projects; new director training; and use of appropriate educational
technology.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions and public and
private not-for-profit institutions or organizations

*Funding:* \$5,677,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$237,000

*Next Competition:* FY 2002 *Contact:* Linda Bird-Johnson at (202)
502-7600 or OPE_TRIO@ed.gov

***Improving Teaching at All Levels***

Promoting quality instruction is essential to maintaining quality in
postsecondary education, and postsecondary schools play an important
role in training teachers at the elementary and secondary levels, too.
Two new initiatives -- our Teacher Quality programs and Preparing
Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology -- address teacher education.
Several of our Fulbright-Hays international programs support quality
instruction at postsecondary institutions by funding faculty research
and educational experiences abroad.

####### [Teacher Quality State Grants]{.underline} 

*Description:* Helps states improve the quality of their teaching force
through comprehensive changes in state policies and practices for
teacher preparation, licensure, certification, and professional
development.

*Potential Grantees:* State authorities responsible for teacher
certification and preparation

*Funding:* \$7.9 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* Approximately \$1.4 million

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2000 *Contact:* Ed Crowe at (202)
502-7878 or TeacherQuality@ed.gov

####### [Teacher Quality Recruitment Grants]{.underline} 

*Description:* Helps identify the critical needs of high-need local
school districts for recruiting and preparing highly competent teachers;
helps identify the pools of potential teachers who fit these needs and
recruit from these pools; and helps design high-quality teacher
preparation and induction programs tailored to the needs of the
community and the teacher candidates.

*Potential Grantees:* States, and partnerships that include a teacher
preparation institution, a school of arts and sciences, and a high-need
local school district

*Funding:* \$9.6 million in Fiscal Year 1999

*Average Award:* Approximately \$343,000

*Next Competition:* N/A *Contact:* Ed Crowe at (202) 502-7878 or
TeacherQuality@ed.gov

####### [Teacher Quality Partnership Grants]{.underline} 

*Description:* Supports partnerships to improve student learning by
bringing about fundamental change and improvement in the way teachers
are prepared for service in local high-need school districts.

*Potential Grantees:* Partnerships that include a higher education
institution\'s teacher preparation program and its school of arts and
science, together with a local high-need school district

*Funding:* \$6.3 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$1.32 million

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2000 *Contact:* Ed Crowe at (202)
502-7878 or TeacherQuality@ed.gov

####### [Demonstration Projects to Ensure Quality Higher Education for Students with Disabilities]{.underline} 

*Description:* Supports demonstration projects that provide technical
assistance and professional development activities for postsecondary
faculty and administrators in order to provide students with
disabilities a quality postsecondary education.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$5,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$290,000 (estimated)

*Next Competition:* Not yet scheduled *Contact:* Amie Amiot at (202)
502-7880; TTY: (202) 205-9277 or Amie_Amiot@ed.gov

**[Preparing Tomorrow\'s Teachers to Use Technology]{.underline}**

*Description:* Helps future teachers become proficient in the use of
modern learning technologies. The program addresses looming teacher
shortages by developing well-qualified, technology-proficient teachers
who are prepared to teach in 21st century schools, particularly schools
in low-income communities or rural areas.

*Potential Grantees:* Consortia composed of higher education
institutions, state agencies, school districts, nonprofit organizations,
and other interested organizations

*Funding:* \$75 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$400,000

#### Next Competition: *Fiscal Year 2001* Contact: *Tom Carroll at (202) 502-7788 or* [*Teacher_Technology@ed.gov*](mailto:Teacher_Technology@ed.gov)

#### 

####### [Fulbright-Hays Training Grants -- Faculty Research Abroad]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides grants to institutions of higher education to
fund faculty to maintain and improve their area studies and language
skills by conducting research abroad for periods of 3 to 12 months.

*Potential Grantees:* U.S. higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$930,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$46,500 for fellowships

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact*: Eliza Washington at
(202) 502-7700 or Eliza_Washington@ed.gov

####### [Fulbright-Hays Training Grants -- Group Projects Abroad]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides grants to support overseas projects in training,
research, and curriculum development in modern foreign languages and
area studies for teachers, students, and faculty engaged in a common
endeavor. Projects may include short-term seminars, curriculum
development, group research or study, or advanced intensive language
programs.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions, state education
departments, nonprofit education organizations, and consortia

*Funding:* \$2,361,010 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* Approximately \$63,811

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Lungching Chiao at (202)
502-7700 or Lungching_Chiao@ed.gov

####### [Fulbright-Hays Seminars Abroad -- Bilateral Projects]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides short-term study/travel seminars abroad for U.S.
educators in the social sciences and humanities for the purpose of
improving their understanding and knowledge of the peoples and cultures
of other countries.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$1,135,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* Approximately \$160,000

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Lungching Chiao at (202)
502-7700 or Lungching_Chiao@ed.gov

***Supporting Undergraduate Postsecondary Students***

Once students are ready for postsecondary education, they may still need
special services or support to stay in school and succeed. Several TRIO
programs and the new Childcare Access Means Parents in School initiative
provide some of these services. In addition, the Byrd Honors Scholarship
program provides financial support for some exceptional students. (The
U.S. Department of Education also provides substantial direct student
aid for students under programs like the Pell Grant program and the
Federal Direct Student Loan Program; the Office of Student Financial
Assistance, not OPE, administers these programs, however, and
information about them can be obtained by calling 1-800-4FED AID.)

## 

## Student Support Services

*Description:* Provides low-income, first generation college students,
as well as disabled students, with support services to increase
retention and graduation rates. Projects provide services such as
counseling, tutoring, and instruction in study skills.

*Potential grantees:* Higher education institutions or a combination of
higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$183,300,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average award:* \$230,000 for 1 year of a four-year grant

*Next competition:* Fiscal Year 2000 *Contact:* Linda Bird-Johnson at
(202) 502-7600 or OPE_TRIO@ed.gov

**[McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement]{.underline}**

*Description:* Prepare participants who have high academic potential and
come from disadvantaged backgrounds for doctoral studies through
involvement in research and other scholarly activities. Grantees provide
services such as mentoring, tutoring and counseling; internships;
research opportunities; and help obtaining financial aid and graduate
school admission.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions and combinations of
institutions of higher education

##### Funding: \$34,728,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$222,615 for one year of a grant

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2003 *Contact:* OPE_TRIO@ed.gov or (202)
502-7600

####### [Child Care Access Means Parents in School]{.underline} 

*Description:* Supports the participation of low-income parents in the
postsecondary education system by providing campus-based child care
services.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$5,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$56,897 (estimated)

*Next Competition:* Not yet scheduled *Contact:* Karen W. Johnson at
(202) 502-7525 or Karen_Johnson@ed.gov

[**Native Hawaiian Higher Education Program**]{.underline}

*Description:* Provides direct grants to Native Hawaiian educational
organizations or educational entities with experience in developing or
operating Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction conducted
in the Native Hawaiian language, to enable such organizations or
entities to provide a program of baccalaureate and postbaccalaureate
fellowship assistance to Native Hawaiian students.

*Potential Grantees:* Native Hawaiian private nonprofit educational
organizations and entities with experience in developing or operating
Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction conducted in the
Native Hawaiian language

*Funding:* \$2,700,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$900,000

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Susanna Easton at (202)
502-7700 or Susanna_Easton@ed.gov

####### [Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship]{.underline}

*Description:* A federally funded, State-administered program to
recognize exceptionally able high school seniors who show promise of
continued excellence in postsecondary education. The Department award
funds to State education agencies, which make scholarship awards to
eligible applicants. Students who receive scholarships use the money for
college expenses.

*Potential Grantees:* State education agencies

*Funding:* \$39,858,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$1,500 scholarships

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Margaret Wheeler at
(202) 502-7777 or Margaret_Wheeler@ed.gov

## 

**Supporting Graduate Postsecondary Students**

OPE's support for students continues through graduate school. Several
programs provide funding, directly or through institutions, for graduate
fellowships and research and educational experiences abroad.

## 

## 

## Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 

*Description:* Provides fellowships, through academic departments and
programs of institutions of higher education, to assist graduate
students with excellent records who demonstrate financial need and plan
to pursue the highest degree available in their course of study.

*Potential Grantees:* Academic programs and departments of higher
education institutions

*Funding:* \$30,829,500 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$139,500

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Cosette L. Ryan at (202)
502-7700 or Cosette_Ryan@ed.gov

####### [Jacob K. Javits Fellowships]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides financial assistance to students of superior
ability, as demonstrated by their achievements and exceptional promise,
to undertake study at the doctoral and Master of Fine Arts (MFA) level
in selected fields of the arts, humanities, and social sciences.

*Potential Grantees:* Students in and applicants to qualified graduate
programs

*Funding:* \$9,897,673 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$23,510

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Cosette Ryan at (202)
502-7700 or Cosette_Ryan@ed.gov

[**Native Hawaiian Higher Education Program**]{.underline}

*Description:* Provides direct grants to Native Hawaiian educational
organizations or educational entities with experience in developing or
operating Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction conducted
in the Native Hawaiian language, to enable such organizations or
entities to provide a program of baccalaureate and postbaccalaureate
fellowship assistance to Native Hawaiian students.

*Potential Grantees:* Native Hawaiian private nonprofit educational
organizations and entities with experience in developing or operating
Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction conducted in the
Native Hawaiian language

*Funding:* \$2,700,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$900,000

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Susanna Easton at (202)
502-7700 or Susanna_Easton@ed.gov

####### 

####### [Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides academic year and summer fellowships to
institutions of higher education to assist graduate students in foreign
language and either area or international studies.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$15.1 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$128,974

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2003 *Contact:* John Paul at (202)
502-7700 or OPE_NRC-FLAS@ed.gov

## 

####### [Fulbright-Hays Training Grants\--Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides grants to colleges and universities to fund
individual doctoral students to conduct research in other countries, for
periods of 6 to 12 months, in modern foreign languages and area studies.

*Potential Grantees:* U.S. higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$2.1 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$69,573

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Karla Ver Bryck Block at
(202) 502-7700 or

Karla_VerBryckBlock@ed.gov

***Promoting Innovation and Technology in Education***

To ensure that America's students are the best-educated in the world, we
have to have top-quality, innovative higher education; replicate the
educational approaches that work; and take advantage of all the new
technologies that can strengthen student learning. Several OPE programs
serve these goals.

#### [FIPSE Comprehensive Program]{.underline}

*Description:* An annual competition for grants to support and
disseminate innovative reform projects that promise to be models for
solving problems in postsecondary education.

*Potential Grantees*: A wide range of non-profit providers of
educational services

*Funding:* \$30,590,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* Approximately \$115,000

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Cassandra Courtney at
(202) 502-7500 or Cassandra_Courtney@ed.gov

####### 

####### [Learning Anytime Anywhere Program]{.underline}

*Description:* Provides grants to broaden access to technology-mediated
distance education that is not limited by time or place. Grants may be
used to develop model programs and software; innovative on-line student
support services such as job placement, academic counseling, and library
services; competency-based programs, especially those that use
self-paced alternatives to traditional semester scheduling; and methods
of assessing the quality and success of distance learning programs.

*Potential Grantees:* Partnerships among institutions of higher
education, community organizations, and other public and private
institutions, agencies, and organizations

*Funding:* \$15,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$1 million over three years

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Brian Lekander at (202)
502-7500 or Brian_Lekander@ed.gov

####### [Distance Learning Demonstration Program]{.underline}

*Description:* Supports the use of technology to deliver instruction by
issuing waivers of certain Department regulations in order to enhance
access to federal student aid for distance education students pursuing
college-level academic studies and training.

*Potential Grantees:* Not a grant program. Postsecondary schools,
systems and consortia can apply for selection as demonstration projects.

*Funding:* N/A. Fifteen programs were selected in Fiscal Year 1999.

*Average Award:* N/A

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 (tentative) *Contact:* Marianne
Phelps at (202) 502-7750 or DistanceDemo@ed.gov

####### 

####### [TRIO Dissemination Partnership Program]{.underline} 

*Description:* Allows TRIO grantees with proven and promising programs
and practices to expand and leverage the success of the TRIO programs by
working with other institutions and community-based organizations that
are serving low-income and first-generation college students but do not
have TRIO grants.

*Potential Grantees:* TRIO projects that were funded as of October 7,
1998

*Funding:* \$5,981,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$192,935

*Next Competition:* Not yet scheduled *Contact:* Linda Bird-Johnosn at
(202) 502-7600 or OPE_TRIO@ed.gov

**[Preparing Tomorrow\'s Teachers to Use Technology]{.underline}**

*Description:* Helps future teachers become proficient in the use of
modern learning technologies. The program addresses looming teacher
shortages by developing well-qualified, technology-proficient teachers
who are prepared to teach in 21st century schools, particularly schools
in low-income communities or rural areas.

*Potential Grantees:* Consortia composed of higher education
institutions, state agencies, school districts, nonprofit organizations,
and other interested organizations

*Funding:* \$75 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$400,000

#### Next Competition: *Fiscal Year 2001* Contact: *Tom Carroll at (202) 502-7788 or* [*Teacher_Technology@ed.gov*](mailto:Teacher_Technology@ed.gov)

#### 

#### *Strengthening International Education* 

#### To prepare students to compete in today's international economy, American postsecondary institutions need the resources to give students language skills and understanding of the many nations that constitute our competitors and trading partners. Several Office of Postsecondary Education programs work to meet this need.

#### 

#### [National Resource Centers]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides grants to establish, strengthen, and operate
language and area/international studies centers that will be national
resources for teaching any modern foreign language; for instruction in
fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or
countries; for research and training in international studies; for
language aspects of professional and other fields of study; and for
instruction and research on issues in world affairs.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions, individually and in
consortia

*Funding:* \$21,340,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$188,850

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2003 *Contact:* John Paul at (202)
502-7629 or OPE_NRC-FLAS@ed.gov

#### [Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides funds to plan, develop, and carry out programs
to strengthen and improve undergraduate instruction in international
studies and foreign languages.

*Potential Grantees:* Institutions of higher education, combinations of
such institutions, and partnerships between nonprofit educational
organizations and institutions of higher education

*Funding:* \$4.3 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$71,775

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Christine Corey at (202)
502-7629 or Christine_Corey@ed.gov

#### [International Research and Studies]{.underline} 

*Description:* Supports surveys, studies, and development of
instructional materials to improve and strengthen instruction in modern
foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$3,975,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$113,571

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* José L. Martínez at
(202) 502-7635 or Jose_Martinez@ed.gov

#### [Business and International Education]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides funds for higher education institutions that
enter into agreements with trade associations and/or businesses to
improve the academic teaching of the business curriculum and to conduct
outreach activities that expand the capacity of the business community
to engage in international economic activities.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$4,168,516 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$77,195

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Tanyelle Richardson at
(202) 502-7626 or Tanyelle_Richardson@ed.gov

####### [Centers for International Business Education]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides funding to schools of business for curriculum
development, research, and training on issues of importance to U.S.
trade and competitiveness.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$8.1 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$289,286

*Next Competition:* not yet scheduled *Contact:* Susanna Easton at (202)
502-7700 or Susanna_Easton@ed.gov

####### [Language Resource Centers]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides grants for establishing, strengthening, and
operating centers that serve as resources for improving the nation\'s
capacity for teaching and learning foreign languages through teacher
training, research, materials development, and dissemination projects.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions, individually or in
combination

*Funding:* \$2, 984,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$331,556

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2002 *Contact:* José L. Martínez at
(202) 502-7700 or Jose_Martinez@ed.gov

####### [American Overseas Research Centers]{.underline} 

*Description:* provides grants to establish or operate overseas research
centers that promote postgraduate research, exchanges, and area studies.

*Potential Grantees:* Consortia of higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$700,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$63,636

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2003 *Contact:* Cheryl Gibbs at (202)
502-7700 or cheryl_gibbs@ed.gov

####### [Institute for International Public Policy]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides a single grant to assist a consortium of
colleges and universities to establish an institute designed to increase
the representation of minorities in international service, including
private international voluntary organizations and the U.S. Foreign
Service.

*Potential Grantees:* Consortia of higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$1,022,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 for one grant

*Average Award:* \$1,022,000

*Next Competition:* Not yet scheduled *Contact:* Tanyelle Richardson at
(202) 502-7700 or Tanyelle_Richardson@ed.gov

####### [Technological Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Information Access]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides grants to develop innovative techniques or
programs that address national teaching and research needs in
international education and foreign languages by using new electronic
technologies to access, collect, organize, preserve and widely
disseminate information on world regions and countries other than the
U.S.

*Potential Grantees:* Institutions of higher education, public or
nonprofit libraries or combinations of these institutions or libraries

*Funding:* \$1,086,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$135,750

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2002 *Contact:* Susanna Easton at (202)
502-7700 or Susanna_Easton@ed.gov

####### [Fulbright-Hays Training Grants -- Group Projects Abroad]{.underline} 

*Description:* Provides grants to support overseas projects in training,
research, and curriculum development in modern foreign languages and
area studies by teachers, students, and faculty engaged in a common
endeavor. Projects may include short-term seminars, curriculum
development, group research or study, or advanced intensive language
programs.

*Potential Grantees:* Higher education institutions, state education
departments and private nonprofit educational organizations

*Funding:* \$2,361,010 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$63,811

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Lungching Chiao at (202)
502-7700 or Lungching_Chiao@ed.gov

# **[FIPSE Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education]{.underline}**

*Description:* A program jointly administered with the Mexican and
Canadian governments to foster student exchange within the context of
multilateral curricular development. Students benefit from having an
added \"North American\" curriculum and cultural dimension to their
studies through combination of trilateral curricular innovation and
study abroad.

*Potential Grantees:* Consortia of higher education institutions

*Funding:* \$250,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$50,000 for first year awards; \$200,000 for four-year
duration of grants

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Michael Nugent at (202)
502-7500 or Mike_Nugent@ed.gov

#### [FIPSE European Community/U.S. Joint Consortia for Cooperation in Higher Education and Vocational Education]{.underline}

*Description:* Provides grants to add a new European Community/United
States dimension to student-centered cooperation and to bring balanced
benefits to both the European Community and the United States.

*Potential Grantees:* Consortia including higher education institutions
and other relevant organizations

*Funding:* \$600,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$60,000 for first year awards

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Frank Frankfort at (202)
502-7500 or Frank_Frankfort@ed.gov

***Improving Access through Institutional Development and Support***

To ensure that every American has access to quality higher education,
OPE works to build capacity at the institutions that serve our country's
most underserved groups. The federal Institutional Development programs
provide funds to help higher education institutions that serve a large
proportion of disadvantaged students improve their academic programs and
administrative capabilities. One of OPE's new initiatives is a
demonstration program that promotes access to quality postsecondary
education for students with disabilities.

#### [Strengthening Institutions]{.underline} 

*Description:* Helps eligible higher education institutions expand their
capacity to serve low-income students. An institution's grant activities
may include improving and strengthening its academic quality,
management, and fiscal stability.

*Potential Grantees:* Colleges and universities that serve a substantial
proportion of students receiving federal financial aid. Specific sums
are available for American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and
Universities (\$6 million in Fiscal Year 1999) and for Alaska Native and
Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (\$4.4 million in Fiscal Year
2000).

*Funding:* Approximately \$60,250,000 million in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$320,479

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2001 *Contact:* Darlene Collins at (202)
502-7777 or Darlene_Collins@ed.gov

####### [Strengthening HBCUs]{.underline}

*Description:* Provides financial assistance to Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) for establishing or strengthening
their physical plant, management capabilities, academic resources, and
endowment building capacity. Activities may include student services,
educational equipment acquisition, facility construction, and
faculty/staff development.

*Potential Grantees:* Historically Black Colleges and Universities as
designated by law.

*Funding:* \$148,750,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 distributed by formula.

*Average Award:* \$1,502,525

*Next Competition: Not a competitive program. Contact: Kenneth Waters at
(202) 502-7777 or Ken_Waters@ed.gov*

#### [Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions]{.underline}

*Description:* Helps eligible institutions of higher education expand
their capacity to serve Hispanic and low-income students. Grant
activities include faculty development; management improvements; and
developing and improving student services.

*Potential Grantees:* Colleges and universities that serve a substantial
proportion of Hispanic students with low incomes.

*Funding:* \$42,250,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$367,391

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2000 *Contact:* Jessie DeAro at (202)
502-7562 or Jessie_DeAro@ed.gov

###### [Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions]{.underline}

Description: Awards grants to Historically Black Graduate Institutions
(HBGIs). Grant activities may include improving and strengthening
academic quality, institutional management, access, and fiscal
stability.

*Potential Grantees:* Historically Black Graduate Institutions as
designated by law.

*Funding:* \$31,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 distributed by formula.

*Average Award:* Awards range from \$1 million to \$ 6.7 million

*Next Competition:* Not a competitive program*. Contact:* Kenneth Waters
at (202) 502-7777 or Ken_Waters@ed.gov

####### [Minority Science and Engineering Improvement]{.underline} 

*Description:* Assists predominantly minority institutions in effecting
long-range improvement in science education programs, and increasing the
flow of underrepresented ethnic minorities, particularly minority women,
into science and engineering careers.

*Potential Grantees*: Colleges and universities with minority enrollment
that exceeds 50% of its total enrollment; professional scientific
societies; nonprofit science organizations; and non-minority colleges
and universities that provide needed services to a group of eligible
minority institutions.

*Funding:* \$7,500,000 in Fiscal Year 2000

*Average Award:* \$84,270

*Next Competition:* Fiscal Year 2000 *Contact:* Deborah Newkirk at (202)
502-7777 or Deborah_Newkirk@ed.gov

**Appendix C**

[^1]: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001.
    Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office: 2000.

[^2]: U.S. Department of Education. TRIO program data, fiscal years 1993
    and 2000.

[^3]: The College Board. *Trends in Student Aid*. New York: 1999.

[^4]: See endnote 2.

[^5]: U.S. Department of Education. Pell Grant program data, fiscal
    years 1993 and 2000.

[^6]: U.S. Department of Education. Higher Education account program
    data, fiscal years 1990 and 2000.

[^7]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics, *The Condition of Education 2000,* NCES 2000-062,
    Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000.

[^8]: U.S. Department of Education. "A Back to School Special Report.
    Growing Pains: The Challenge of Overcrowded Schools Is Here to
    Stay.\" August 21, 2000.

[^9]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics. *Descriptive Summary of 1995--96 Beginning Postsecondary
    Students: Three Years Late*r, NCES 2000--154, by Lutz Berkner, Laura
    Horn, and Michael Clune. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll.
    Washington, DC: 2000.

[^10]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics. *Stopouts or Stayouts? Undergraduates Who Leave College
    in Their First Year*, NCES 1999-087, by Laura Horn. Project Officer:
    Dennis Carroll. Washington DC: 1998.

[^11]: Kominski, Robert and Andrea Adams, *Educational Attainment in the
    United States: March 1993 and 1992*, U.S. Bureau of the Census,
    Current Population Reports, P20-476, U.S. Government Printing
    Office, Washington, DC, 1994.

[^12]: See endnote 8.

[^13]: See endnote 8.

[^14]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Digest of Education Statistics, 1999,* NCES 2000-031,
    by Thomas D. Snyder. Production Manager, Charlene M. Hoffman.
    Washington DC: 2000.

[^15]: *Sacremento Bee*, September 29, 1999.

[^16]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. *Distance Education at Postsecondary Education
    Institutions: 1997-98.* NCES 2000-013, by Laurie Lewis, Kyle Snow,
    Elizabeth Farris, Douglas Levin. Bernie Greene, project officer.
    Washington, DC: 1999.

[^17]: Institute of International Education. *Open Doors Report on
    International Educational Exchange: 1998-99.* New York: 1999.

[^18]: See endnote 9.

[^19]: Note that this is properly the "Act of July 7, 1862," though it
    is commonly referenced as the "First Morrill Act."

[^20]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, "Projected Postsecondary Outcomes of 1992 High School
    Graduates," (Working Paper), Washington, DC: 1999.

[^21]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics*, Access to Postsecondary Education for the 1992 High
    Schools Graduates*, NCES 98-105, by Lutz Berkner and Lisa Chavez.
    Project

    Officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington DC: 1997.

[^22]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, "Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS)." Unpublished
    tabulations.

[^23]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Digest of Education Statistics, 1999,* NCES 2000-031,
    by Thomas D. Snyder. Production Manager, Charlene M. Hoffman.
    Washington DC: 2000.

[^24]: See endnote 22.

[^25]: See endnote 23.

[^26]: See endnote 23.

[^27]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics. *Students With Disabilities in Postsecondary Eduction: A
    Profile of Preparation, Participation, and Outcomes,* NCES
    1999--187, by Laura Horn and Jennifer Berktold. Project Officer:
    Larry Bobbitt. Washington DC: 1999.

[^28]: Ibid.

[^29]: See endnote 1.

[^30]: See endnote 20.

[^31]: See endnote 11.

[^32]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, *The Condition of Education 1999,* NCES 1999-022,
    Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999.

[^33]: The College Board. *Trends in College Pricing*. New York: 1999.

[^34]: U.S. Department of Education. "National Postsecondary Student Aid
    Study, 1995-96." Unpublished tabulations.

[^35]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Digest of Education Statistics, 1999,* NCES 2000-031,
    by Thomas D. Snyder. Production Manager, Charlene M. Hoffman.
    Washington DC: 2000.

[^36]: See endnote 33.

[^37]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics. *Debt Burden Four Years AfterCollege,* NCES 2000--188,
    by Susan P. Choy. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington,
    DC: 2000.

[^38]: U.S. Department of Education, Press Release: "National Student
    Loan Default Rate Lowest Ever." October 2, 2000.

[^39]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics. *Student Financing of Undergraduate Education: 1995--
    96*, NCES 98-076, by Lutz Berkner. Project Officer: Andrew Malizio.
    Washington DC: 1998.

[^40]: See endnote 38.

[^41]: The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. *What
    Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future*. New York: 1996.

[^42]: National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
    Washington, D.C. 1999.

[^43]: Farkas, Steve and Jean Johnson with Ann Duffett. *Different
    Drummers: How Teachers of Teachers View Public Education.* New York:
    Public Agenda. 1997.

[^44]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993-94*.

[^45]: See endnote 41.

[^46]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and
    Qualifications of Public School Teacher*s, NCES 1999-080, by Laurie
    Lewis, Basmat Parsad, Nancy Carey, Nicole Bartfai, Elizabeth Farris,
    and Becky Smerdon. Bernie Greene, project officer. Washington, DC:
    1999.

[^47]: U.S. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics, 1998 Teacher Survey on Professional Development and
    Training. Fast Response Survey System, 1999. Unpublished
    tabulations.

[^48]: See endnote 46.

[^49]: Haselkorn, David and Elizabeth Fideler. Learning the Ropes: Urban
    Teacher Induction Programs and Practices in the United States,
    Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers, Inc. 1999.

[^50]: See endnote 44.

[^51]: The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. *What
    Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future*. New York: 1996.

[^52]: Ibid.

[^53]: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2000.
    Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1999.

[^54]: U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2001 Justifications of
    Appropriations Estimates to the Congress: Volume I.

[^55]: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001.
    Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office: 2000.

[^56]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. *Distance Education at Postsecondary Education
    Institutions: 1997-98.* NCES 2000-013, by Laurie Lewis, Kyle Snow,
    Elizabeth Farris, Douglas Levin. Bernie Greene, project officer.
    Washington, DC: 1999.

[^57]: See endnote 17.

[^58]: U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2001 Justifications of
    Appropriations Estimates to the Congress: Volume II.

[^59]: See endnote 17.

[^60]: See endnote 17.