A TEST OF LEADERSHIP

Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education

A Report of the Commission Appointed by 

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

Pre-Publication Copy September 2006
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. 

ED-06-C0-0013 with Brenda Long serving as the contracting officer’s technical 

representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the 

positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by 

the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise 

mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Cheryl Oldham

Executive Director

September 2006

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part 

is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation 

should be: U.S. Department of Education, A Test of Leadership: Charting the 

Future of U.S. Higher Education. Washington, D.C., 2006.

To order copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, 

P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

Or fax your request to: 301-470-1244;

Or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

Or call in your request toll-free: 877-433-7827 (877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service 

is not yet available in your area, call 800-872-5327 (800-USA-LEARN). Those 

who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) 

should call 800-437-0833;

Or order online at: www.edpubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large 

print, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s 

Alternate Format Center at 202-260-9895 or 202-205-8113.

ii
iii

A National Dialogue: 

The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education

The Honorable Margaret Spellings

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20202-0001

Dear Madam Secretary:

The undersigned members of the commission respectfully hereby submit this report resulting from your assignment.

Charles Miller (Chairman)

Private Investor

Former Chairman of the Board of 

Regents, University of Texas System

Nicholas Donofrio

Executive Vice President 

Innovation and Technology

IBM Corporation

James J. Duderstadt 

President Emeritus

University Professor of Science 

and Engineering

Director, The Millennium Project

University of Michigan

Gerri Elliott 

Corporate Vice President

Worldwide Public Sector

Microsoft Corporation

Jonathan N. Grayer 

Chairman and CEO

Kaplan, Inc.

Kati Haycock 

Director

The Education Trust

James B. Hunt, Jr. 

Chairman, Hunt Institute for 

Educational Policy and Leadership 

Former Governor of North Carolina

Arturo Madrid 

Murchison Distinguished Professor of 

Humanities, Department of Modern 

Languages and Literatures

Trinity University

Robert Mendenhall

President

Western Governors University

Charlene R. Nunley 

President

Montgomery College

Catherine B. Reynolds

Chairman and CEO

Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation

EduCap, Inc.

Arthur J. Rothkopf 

Senior Vice President and Counselor 

to the President

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

President Emeritus, Lafayette College

Richard (Rick) Stephens 

Senior Vice President 

Human Resources and Administration

The Boeing Company

Louis W. Sullivan 

President Emeritus, Morehouse School 

of Medicine, Former Secretary of the 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services

Sara Martinez Tucker 

President and CEO

Hispanic Scholarship Fund 

Richard Vedder 

Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise 

Institute, Distinguished Professor of 

Economics Ohio University 

Charles M. Vest 

President Emeritus

Professor of Mechanical Engineering 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert M. Zemsky 

Chair and Professor

The Learning Alliance for 

Higher Education

University of Pennsylvania
iv

This report represents the hard work of numerous individuals without whom the work of the commission 

could not have occurred.

The commission wishes to express its appreciation and gratitude to Cheryl Oldham, executive director, 

and to the dedicated staff: Vickie Schray, deputy director for management and planning; Eleanor Schiff, 

deputy director for research and external affairs; Kristen Vetri, chief of staff; and Archie Cubarrubia, 

senior analyst. 

The commission very much appreciated the substantial policy and drafting advice contributed over many 

months and under much time pressure by Patrick Callan, Robert Dickeson, Geri Malandra, T. Vance 

McMahan, Peter Stokes, and Jane Wellman.

Ben Wildavsky made an invaluable contribution in bringing his extensive experience and professional 

judgment in the writing and editing of the report under demanding circumstances.

The insights and ideas offered by ex-officio representatives John Bailey, William Berry, Emily DeRocco, 

and Peter Faletra were valuable contributions and are appreciated by the commission also.

The commission wishes to thank David Dunn, acting under secretary and chief of staff to the U.S. 

secretary of education, for his unstinting policy and operational support. The commission also 

appreciates the high quality information and advice provided by Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, director of the 

Institute of Education Sciences. Additionally, important support was provided by Townsend McNitt, Sally 

Stroup, Kevin Sullivan, Samara Yudof, Mark Schneider, Dennis Carroll, Caryn Grimstead, Carrie Marsh, 

and others at the Department of Education.

The commission also wishes to acknowledge the support of the Lumina Foundation for Education, IBM 

Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and the 

University of Texas System.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REPORT

Preamble vi

Summary 1

Findings 6

Table 1: Percentage of family income needed to cover net college costs 

after grant aid by type of institution from 1992–93 to 2003–04 10

Figure 1: Percentage of college graduates proficient in prose, document, 

and quantitative literacy: 1992 and 2003 13

Recommendations 16

Conclusion 27

APPENDIXES

Appendix A: Charter

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v
vi

Preamble

T

hree hundred and seventy years after the first 

college in our fledgling nation was established 

to train Puritan ministers in the Massachusetts 

Bay Colony, it is no exaggeration to declare 

that higher education in the United States has 

become one of our greatest success stories. Whether America’s 

colleges and universities are measured by their sheer number and variety, by the 

increasingly open access so many citizens enjoy to their campuses, by their crucial 

role in advancing the frontiers of knowledge through research discoveries, or by 

the new forms of teaching and learning that they have pioneered to meet students’ 

changing needs, these postsecondary institutions have accomplished much of 

which they and the nation can be proud.

Despite these achievements, however, this commission believes U.S. higher 

education needs to improve in dramatic ways. As we enter the 21st century, it is no 

slight to the successes of American colleges and universities thus far in our history to 

note the unfulfilled promise that remains. Our yearlong examination of the challenges 

facing higher education has brought us to the uneasy conclusion that the sector’s past 

attainments have led our nation to unwarranted complacency about its future. 

It is time to be frank. Among the vast and varied institutions that make up U.S. 

higher education, we have found much to applaud but also much that requires 

urgent reform. As Americans, we can take pride in our Nobel Prizes, our scientific 

breakthroughs, our Rhodes Scholars. But we must not be blind to the less inspiring 

realities of postsecondary education in our country.

To be sure, at first glance most Americans don’t see colleges and universities 

as a trouble spot in our educational system. After all, American higher education 

has been the envy of the world for years. In 1862, the First Morrill Act created 

an influential network of land-grant universities across the country. After World 

War II, the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also 

known as the G.I. Bill made access to higher education 

a national priority. In the 1960s and 1970s, the launching 

and rapid growth of community colleges further expanded 

postsecondary educational opportunities. For a long time, we 

educated more people to higher levels than any other nation.

We remained so far ahead of our competitors for so long, however, that we 

began to take our postsecondary superiority for granted. The results of this 

inattention, though little known to many of our fellow citizens, are sobering. 

Among the vast and varied 

institutions that make up U.S. 

higher education, we have 

found much to applaud, 

but also much that requires 

urgent reform.
vii

We may still have more than our share of the world’s best 

universities. But a lot of other countries have followed our 

lead, and they are now educating more of their citizens 

to more advanced levels than we are. Worse, they are 

passing us by at a time when education is more important to 

our collective prosperity than ever.

We acknowledge that not everyone needs to go to college. 

But everyone needs a postsecondary education. Indeed, we 

have seen ample evidence that some form of postsecondary 

instruction is increasingly vital to an individual’s economic security. Yet too many 

Americans just aren’t getting the education that they need—and that they deserve.

We are losing some students in our high schools, which do not yet see preparing 

all pupils for postsecondary education and training as their responsibility.

Others don’t enter college because of inadequate information and rising costs, 

combined with a confusing financial aid system that spends too little on those 

who need help the most.

Among high school graduates who do make it on to postsecondary education, a 

troubling number waste time—and taxpayer dollars—mastering English and math 

skills that they should have learned in high school. And some never complete 

their degrees at all, at least in part because most colleges and universities don’t 

accept responsibility for making sure that those they admit actually succeed.

As if this weren’t bad enough, there are also disturbing signs that many 

students who do earn degrees have not actually mastered the reading, writing, 

and thinking skills we expect of college graduates. Over the past decade, 

literacy among college graduates has actually declined. Unacceptable numbers 

of college graduates enter the workforce without the skills employers say they 

need in an economy where, as the truism holds correctly, knowledge matters 

more than ever.

The consequences of these problems are most severe 

for students from low-income families and for racial and 

ethnic minorities. But they affect us all.

Compounding all of these difficulties is a lack of clear, 

reliable information about the cost and quality of 

postsecondary institutions, along with a remarkable 

absence of accountability mechanisms to ensure that 

colleges succeed in educating students. The result 

is that students, parents, and policymakers are often 

left scratching their heads over the answers to basic 

questions, from the true cost of private colleges (where 

most students don’t pay the official sticker price) to which 

institutions do a better job than others not only of graduating 

students but of teaching them what they need to learn.

■

■

■

■

■

■

We remained so far ahead 

of our competitors for 

so long, however, that 

we began to take our 

postsecondary superiority 

for granted. The results of 

this inattention, though little 

known to many of our fellow 

citizens, are sobering.

Over the past decade, 

literacy among college 

graduates has actually 

declined. Unacceptable 

numbers of college graduates 

enter the workforce without 

the skills employers say they 

need in an economy where, 

as the truism holds correctly, 

knowledge matters more 

than ever.
viii

In the face of such challenges, this commission believes change 

is overdue. But when it comes—as it must—it will need to take 

account of the new realities that are sometimes overlooked in 

public discussions about the future of higher education. While 

many Americans still envision the typical undergraduate as an 

18- to 22-year-old with a recently acquired high school diploma 

attending classes at a four-year institution, the facts are more 

complex. Of the nation’s nearly 14 million undergraduates, more than four in ten attend 

two-year community colleges. Nearly one-third are older than 24 years old. Forty 

percent are enrolled part-time. 

As higher education evolves in unexpected ways, this new landscape demands 

innovation and flexibility from the institutions that serve the nation’s learners. 

Beyond high school, more students than ever before have adopted a “cafeteria” 

approach to their education, taking classes at multiple institutions before obtaining 

a credential. And the growing numbers of adult learners aren’t necessarily seeking 

degrees at all. Many simply want to improve their career prospects by acquiring the 

new skills that employers are demanding.

In this consumer-driven environment, students increasingly care little about the 

distinctions that sometimes preoccupy the academic establishment, from whether a 

college has for-profit or nonprofit status to whether its classes are offered online or 

in brick-and-mortar buildings. Instead, they care—as we do—about results. 

Against this backdrop, we have adopted an ambitious set of goals that spell out 

what our commission expects from American higher education, which we define 

as broadly and richly as possible to include all public and private education that 

is available after high school, from trade schools, online professional-training 

institutions and technical colleges to community colleges, traditional four-year 

colleges and universities, and graduate and professional programs.

We want a world-class higher-education system that creates new knowledge, 

contributes to economic prosperity and global competitiveness, and empowers 

citizens;

We want a system that is accessible to all Americans, throughout their lives;

We want postsecondary institutions to provide high-quality instruction while 

improving their efficiency in order to be more affordable to the students, 

taxpayers, and donors who sustain them;

We want a higher-education system that gives Americans the workplace skills 

they need to adapt to a rapidly changing economy; 

We want postsecondary institutions to adapt to a world altered by technology, 

changing demographics and globalization, in which the higher-education 

landscape includes new providers and new paradigms, from for-profit 

universities to distance learning.

■

■

■

■

■

As higher education evolves 

in unexpected ways, this 

new landscape demands 

innovation and flexibility 

from the institutions that 

serve the nation’s learners.
ix

To reach these objectives, we believe that U.S. higher education institutions 

must recommit themselves to their core public purposes. For close to a century 

now, access to higher education has been a principal—some would say the

principal—means of achieving social mobility. Much of our nation’s inventiveness 

has been centered in colleges and universities, as has our commitment to a kind of 

democracy that only an educated and informed citizenry makes possible. It is not 

surprising that American institutions of higher education have become a magnet for 

attracting people of talent and ambition from throughout the world.

But today that world is becoming tougher, more competitive, less forgiving of wasted 

resources and squandered opportunities. In tomorrow’s world a nation’s wealth will 

derive from its capacity to educate, attract, and retain citizens who are to able to work 

smarter and learn faster—making educational achievement ever more important both 

for individuals and for society writ large. 

What we have learned over the last year makes clear that 

American higher education has become what, in the business 

world, would be called a mature enterprise: increasingly riskaverse, at times self-satisfied, and unduly expensive. It is an 

enterprise that has yet to address the fundamental issues of 

how academic programs and institutions must be transformed 

to serve the changing educational needs of a knowledge 

economy. It has yet to successfully confront the impact of 

globalization, rapidly evolving technologies, an increasingly 

diverse and aging population, and an evolving marketplace 

characterized by new needs and new paradigms. 

History is littered with examples of industries that, at their peril, failed to respond 

to—or even to notice—changes in the world around them, from railroads to steel 

manufacturers. Without serious self-examination and reform, institutions of higher 

education risk falling into the same trap, seeing their market share substantially reduced 

and their services increasingly characterized by obsolescence.

Already, troubling signs are abundant. Where once the United States led the world in 

educational attainment, recent data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development indicate that our nation is now ranked 12th 

among major industrialized countries in higher education 

attainment. Another half dozen countries are close on our 

heels. And these global pressures come at a time when data 

from the U.S. Department of Labor indicate that postsecondary 

education will be ever more important for workers hoping to fill 

the fastest-growing jobs in our new economy. 

To implement the goals outlined above, we have distilled our 

deliberations into a series of findings that range across four 

key areas that the U.S. secretary of education charged us 

In tomorrow’s world a 

nation’s wealth will derive 

from its capacity to educate, 

attract, and retain citizens 

who are to able to work 

smarter and learn faster 

—making educational 

achievement ever more 

important both for individuals 

and for society writ large.

Where once the United States 

led the world in educational 

attainment, recent data 

from the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and 

Development indicate that 

our nation is now ranked 12th 

among major industrialized 

countries in higher education 

attainment.
x

with examining when she created this commission: access, affordability, quality, 

and accountability. Those findings are followed by a series of six far-reaching 

recommendations aimed at all the parties whose efforts will be needed to ensure that 

reform takes root: colleges and universities; accrediting bodies and governing boards; 

state and federal policymakers; elementary and secondary schools; the business 

community; and parents and students themselves.

We note that the commissioners did not agree unanimously on every single finding 

and recommendation. This was a diverse group, with varied perspectives and 

backgrounds, and from the beginning our commission’s explicit mandate was to 

engage in debate and discussion, as indicated by the first part of our panel’s formal 

name: “A National Dialogue.” In a higher-education system as diverse and complex 

as ours, it is no surprise that knowledgeable individuals can and do differ over certain 

matters. Nevertheless, there has been remarkable consensus among our members 

not only on the acute challenges facing the nation’s colleges and universities but 

also on how we can begin to address higher education’s weaknesses and build a 

promising foundation for a thriving 21st century postsecondary education system.

In outlining our conclusions and recommendations below, and detailing them in 

the remainder of this report, we recognize that some who care deeply about higher 

education—and whose partnership we value in the new endeavors we propose—

may not easily accept either our diagnosis or our prescriptions. But we would note 

that past reforms that later came to be recognized as transformational for American 

society were not universally embraced at first. The G.I. Bill, for instance, greatly 

worried such 20th century intellectual luminaries as Robert Maynard Hutchins, 

president of the University of Chicago, and James B. Conant, president of Harvard 

University, each of whom fretted that newly returned veterans might overwhelm 

campuses and be ill-suited to reap the benefits of higher education. In retrospect, 

such concerns seem positively archaic.

We can make no promise that our proposed reforms would have an impact as 

enormous as that historic, door-opening measure. Nor do we make light of the 

inevitable questions and concerns that may be raised by all those who we are asking 

to participate in the reform measures called for in our recommendations, including 

postsecondary institutions, federal and state policymakers, and employers. 

But were the American system of higher education—and those who want 

to help it rise to the challenges of a new century—to make the changes our 

commission recommends, we believe other important changes would follow. 

The result would be institutions and programs that are more nimble, more 

efficient, and more effective. What the nation would gain is a heightened 

capacity to compete in the global market place. What individuals would gain 

is full access to educational opportunities that allow them to be lifelong 

learners, productive workers, and engaged citizens.
1

summary

The Value of Higher Education

n an era when intellectual capital is increasingly prized, 

both for individuals and for the nation, postsecondary 

education has never been more important. Ninety percent of 

the fastest-growing jobs in the new knowledge-driven economy will require 

some postsecondary education. Already, the median earnings of a U.S. 

worker with only a high school diploma are 37 percent less 

than those of a worker with a bachelor’s degree. Colleges 

and universities must continue to be the major route for new 

generations of Americans to achieve social mobility. And for 

the country as a whole, future economic growth will depend 

on our ability to sustain excellence, innovation, and leadership 

in higher education. But even the economic benefits of a 

college degree could diminish if students don’t acquire the 

appropriate skills.

Access

We found that access to American higher education is unduly limited by the 

complex interplay of inadequate preparation, lack of information about college 

opportunities, and persistent financial barriers. Substandard high school 

preparation is compounded by poor alignment between high schools and 

colleges, which often creates an “expectations gap” between what colleges 

require and what high schools produce. Although the proportion of high school 

graduates who go on to college has risen substantially in recent decades, the 

college completion rate has failed to improve at anywhere near the same pace. 

Shortcomings in high schools mean that an unacceptable number of college 

students must take costly remedial classes. Moreover, there is a troubling 

and persistent gap between the college attendance and 

graduation rates of low-income Americans and their more 

affluent peers. Similar gaps characterize the college 

attendance rates—and especially the college completion 

rates—of the nation’s growing population of racial and 

ethnic minorities. While about one-third of whites have 

obtained bachelor’s degrees by age 25–29, for example, 

just 18 percent of blacks and ten percent of Latinos in the 

same age cohort have earned degrees by that time.

Substandard high school 

preparation is compounded 

by poor alignment between 

high schools and colleges, 

which often creates an 

“expectations gap” between 

what colleges require and 

what high schools produce.

While about one-third of 

whites have obtained 

bachelor’s degrees by age 

25–29, for example, just 18 

percent of blacks and 10 

percent of Latinos in the 

same age cohort have 

earned degrees by that time.
2

We propose to dramatically expand college participation and success by 

outlining ways in which postsecondary institutions, K–12 school systems, and 

state policymakers can work together to create a seamless pathway between 

high school and college. States’ K–12 graduation standards must be closely 

aligned with college and employer expectations, and states should also provide 

incentives for postsecondary institutions to work actively and collaboratively 

with K–12 schools to help underserved students improve college preparation 

and persistence. While better high-school preparation is imperative, admitted 

students and colleges themselves must jointly take responsibility for academic 

success. Improving the information about college available to students—and 

reducing financial barriers to attendance, which we address below in our 

discussion of affordability—are also crucial to improving access.

Cost and Affordability

The commission notes with concern the seemingly inexorable 

increase in college costs, which have outpaced inflation for 

the past two decades and have made affordability an evergrowing worry for students, families, and policymakers. Too 

many students are either discouraged from attending college 

by rising costs, or take on worrisome debt burdens in order 

to do so. While students bear the immediate brunt of tuition 

increases, affordability is also a crucial policy dilemma for those who are asked to 

fund higher education, notably federal and state taxpayers. Even as institutional 

costs go up, in recent years state subsidies have decreased on a per capita basis 

and public concern about affordability may eventually contribute to an erosion of 

confidence in higher education. In our view, affordability is directly affected by a 

financing system that provides limited incentives for colleges and universities to 

take aggressive steps to improve institutional efficiency and productivity.

To improve affordability, we propose a focused program of cost-cutting 

and productivity improvements in U.S. postsecondary institutions. Higher 

education institutions should improve institutional cost management 

through the development of new performance benchmarks, while also 

lowering per-student educational costs by reducing barriers for transfer 

students. State and federal policymakers must do their part as well, by 

supporting the spread of technology that can lower costs, encouraging more 

high school-based provision of college courses, and working to relieve the 

regulatory burden on colleges and universities.

In our view, affordability 

is directly affected by 

a financing system that 

provides limited incentives 

for colleges and universities 

to take aggressive steps 

to improve institutional 

efficiency and productivity.
3

Financial Aid

We found that our financial aid system is confusing, complex, inefficient, 

duplicative, and frequently does not direct aid to students who truly need it. 

There are at least 20 separate federal programs providing direct financial aid 

or tax benefits to individuals pursuing postsecondary education. For the typical 

household, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, is longer and 

more complicated than the federal tax return. Moreover, 

the current system does not provide definitive information 

about freshman year aid until the spring of the senior year 

of high school, which makes it hard for families to plan and 

discourages college attendance. Unmet financial need is a 

growing problem for students from low-income families, who 

need aid the most.

We propose replacing the current maze of financial aid programs, rules 

and regulations with a system more in line with student needs and national 

priorities. That effort would require a significant increase in need-based 

financial aid and a complete restructuring of the current federal financial 

aid system. Our recommendations call for consolidating programs, 

streamlining processes, and replacing the FAFSA with a much shorter 

and simpler application.

Learning

As other nations rapidly improve their higher education systems, we are 

disturbed by evidence that the quality of student learning at U.S. colleges and 

universities is inadequate and, in some cases, declining. A number of recent 

studies highlight the shortcomings of postsecondary institutions in everything 

from graduation rates and time to degree to learning outcomes and even core 

literacy skills. According to the most recent National Assessment of Adult 

Literacy, for instance, the percentage of college graduates deemed proficient in 

prose literacy has actually declined from 40 to 31 percent in the past decade. 

These shortcomings have real-world consequences. 

Employers report repeatedly that many new graduates 

they hire are not prepared to work, lacking the critical 

thinking, writing and problem-solving skills needed in today’s 

workplaces. In addition, business and government leaders 

have repeatedly and urgently called for workers at all stages 

of life to continually upgrade their academic and practical 

skills. But both national and state policies and the practices 

of postsecondary institutions have not always made this 

easy, by failing to provide financial and logistical support 

We found that our financial 

aid system is confusing, 

complex, inefficient, 

duplicative, and frequently 

does not direct aid to 

students who truly need it.

As other nations rapidly 

improve their highereducation systems, 

we are disturbed by 

evidence that the quality 

of student learning at U.S. 

colleges and universities is 

inadequate and, in some 

cases, declining.
4

for lifelong learning and by failing to craft flexible credittransfer systems that allow students to move easily between 

different kinds of institutions. 

In our view, correcting shortcomings in educational 

quality and promoting innovation will require a series of 

related steps, beginning with some of the accountability 

mechanisms that are summarized below and discussed 

at greater length later in this report. In addition, we urge 

postsecondary institutions to make a commitment to 

embrace new pedagogies, curricula, and technologies to 

improve student learning.

Transparency and Accountability

We have noted a remarkable shortage of clear, accessible information about crucial 

aspects of American colleges and universities, from financial aid to graduation rates. 

Because data systems are so limited and inadequate, it is hard for policymakers to 

obtain reliable information on students’ progress through the educational pipeline. 

This lack of useful data and accountability hinders policymakers and the public from 

making informed decisions and prevents higher education from demonstrating its 

contribution to the public good.

We believe that improved accountability is vital to ensuring the success of 

all the other reforms we propose. Colleges and universities must become 

more transparent about cost, price, and student success outcomes, and 

must willingly share this information with students and families. Student 

achievement, which is inextricably connected to institutional success, must 

be measured by institutions on a “value-added” basis that takes into account 

students’ academic baseline when assessing their results. This information 

should be made available to students, and reported publicly in aggregate form 

to provide consumers and policymakers an accessible, understandable way to 

measure the relative effectiveness of different colleges and universities.

Innovation

Finally, we found that numerous barriers to investment 

in innovation risk hampering the ability of postsecondary 

institutions to address national workforce needs and 

compete in the global marketplace. Too many of our 

colleges and universities have not embraced opportunities 

to be entrepreneurial, from testing new methods of teaching 

We have found a 

remarkable shortage 

of clear, accessible 

information about crucial 

aspects of American 

colleges and universities, 

from financial aid to 

graduation rates.

But both national and 

state policies and the 

practices of postsecondary 

institutions have not always 

made this easy, by failing 

to provide financial and 

logistical support for lifelong 

learning and by failing to 

craft flexible credit-transfer 

systems that allow students 

to move easily between 

different kinds of institutions.
5

and content delivery to meeting the increased demand for 

lifelong learning. For their part, state and federal policymakers 

have also failed to make supporting innovation a priority. 

Accreditation, along with federal and state regulation, can 

impede creative new approaches as well.

We recommend that America’s colleges and universities 

embrace a culture of continuous innovation and quality 

improvement. We urge these institutions to develop new 

pedagogies, curricula and technologies to improve learning, 

particularly in the areas of science and mathematics. At the 

same time, we recommend the development of a national 

strategy for lifelong learning designed to keep our citizens 

and our nation at the forefront of the knowledge revolution.

Too many of our colleges 

and universities have not 

embraced opportunities 

to be entrepreneurial, 

from testing new methods 

of teaching and content 

delivery to meeting the 

increased demand for 

lifelong learning. For their 

part, state and federal 

policymakers have also 

failed to make supporting 

innovation a priority.
6

Findings

T

he U.S. secretary of education asked this 

commission to examine four central issues in 

American higher education: access, affordability, 

quality, and accountability. Despite the many 

successes of our system, we have found that 

significant shortcomings remain. Our recommendations for improving 

U.S. higher education, and thus fulfilling the untapped promise of our colleges and 

universities, stem from the following findings: 

Findings Regarding the Value of Higher Education

In today’s knowledge-driven society, higher education has never been more 

important. 

America’s national capacity for excellence, innovation and leadership in higher 

education will be central to our ability to sustain economic growth and social 

cohesiveness. Our colleges and universities will be a key source of the human and 

intellectual capital needed to increase workforce productivity and growth. They 

must also continue to be the major route for new generations of Americans to 

achieve social mobility.

The transformation of the world economy increasingly demands a more highly 

educated workforce with postsecondary skills and credentials. Ninety percent of 

the fastest-growing jobs in the new information and service economy will require 

some postsecondary education.1

 Job categories that require only on-the-job 

training are expected to see the greatest decline.2 In high-demand fields, the 

value of postsecondary credentials and skills is likely to rise. The Department 

of Labor projects, for instance, that by 2014 there will be close to four million 

new job openings combined in health care, education, and computer and 

mathematical sciences.3

The benefits of higher education are significant both for individuals and for 

the nation as a whole. In 2003, for example, the median annual salary of an 

American worker with only a high school diploma was $30,800, compared 

with the $37,600 median for those with an associate’s degree and the $49,900 

median for those with a bachelor’s degree.4

 Over a lifetime, an individual with 

a bachelor’s degree will earn an average of $2.1 million—nearly twice as much 

as a worker with only a high school diploma.5

 Higher education also produces 

broader social gains. Colleges and universities are major economic engines, 

while also serving as civic and cultural centers. 

■

■
7

Findings Regarding Access

Too few Americans prepare for, participate in, and complete higher 

education—especially those underserved and nontraditional groups who 

make up an ever-greater proportion of the population. The nation will rely on 

these groups as a major source of new workers as demographic shifts in the 

U.S. population continue. 

This commission believes the nation must be committed to building and sustaining 

a higher education system that is accessible to all qualified students in all life 

stages. While the proportion of high school graduates who immediately enter 

college has risen in recent decades, unfortunately, it has largely stalled at around 

60 percent since the late 1990s.6

 The national rate of college completion has 

also remained largely stagnant.7 Most important, and most worrisome, too many 

Americans who could benefit from postsecondary education do not continue 

their studies at all, whether as conventional undergraduates or as adult learners 

furthering their workplace skills.8

We found that access to higher education in the United States is unduly limited 

by the complex interplay of inadequate preparation, lack of information about 

college opportunities, and persistent financial barriers. Inadequate high school 

preparation is compounded by poor alignment between high schools and colleges, 

which often creates an “expectations gap” between what colleges require and 

what high schools produce. The result is a high level of remediation by colleges 

(and by employers), a practice that is both costly and inefficient. We are especially 

troubled by gaps in college access for low-income Americans and ethnic and 

racial minorities. Notwithstanding our nation’s egalitarian principles, there is ample 

evidence that qualified young people from low-income families are far less likely to 

go to college than their similarly qualified peers from high-income families.

Several national studies confirm the insufficient preparation of high school 

graduates for either college-level work or the changing needs of the workforce.9

Dismal high school achievement rates nationwide have barely budged in the 

last decade. Close to 25 percent of all students in public high schools do not 

graduate10—a proportion that rises among low-income, rural, and minority 

students. 

The educational achievement levels of our young people who do complete 

high school are simply not high enough to allow them to succeed in college. 

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 

17 percent of seniors are considered proficient in mathematics,11 and just 36 

percent are proficient in reading.12

Ample evidence demonstrates that a key component of our national 

achievement problem is insufficient alignment between K-12 and higher 

education. Studies show the overwhelming majority of both college and 

■

■

■
8

high school faculty and administrators are unaware of the standards and 

assessments being used by their counterparts in the other sector. For example, 

only eight states require high school graduates to take at least Algebra II—a 

threshold course for college-level success in math-based disciplines including 

engineering and science.13 Fewer than 22 percent of the 1.2 million students 

who took the ACT college-entrance examinations in 2004 were ready for 

college-level work in the core subjects of mathematics, English and science.14

Forty-four percent of faculty members say students aren’t well prepared for 

college-level writing, in contrast to the 90 percent of high school teachers who 

think they are prepared.15

Not surprisingly, the consequences of substandard preparation and poor 

alignment between high schools and colleges persist in college. Remediation 

has become far too common an experience for American postsecondary 

students. Some 40 percent of all college students end up taking at least one 

remedial course16—at an estimated cost to the taxpayers of $1 billion.17,18

Additionally, industry spends significant financial resources on remediation 

and retraining. 

Access and achievement gaps disproportionately affect low-income and 

minority students. Historically these are the very students who have faced the 

greatest academic and financial challenges in getting access to or completing 

college. Many will be the first in their families to attend college. Regardless 

of age, most will work close to full-time while they are in college and attend 

school close to home. Despite years of funding student aid programs, family 

income and the quality of high school education remain major factors in 

college-level access and success.19, 20 By age 25–29, about 34 of every 100 

whites obtain bachelor’s degrees, compared to 17 of every 100 blacks and 

just 11 of every 100 Latinos.21 Just as dismaying, low-income high school 

graduates in the top quartile on standardized tests attend college at the same 

rate as high-income high school graduates in the bottom quartile on the same 

tests.22 Only 36 percent of college-qualified low-income students complete 

bachelor’s degrees within eight and a half years, compared with 81 percent 

of high-income students.23

Access problems also affect adult students. More and more adults are 

looking for ways to upgrade and expand their skills in an effort to improve or 

protect their economic position. Nearly 40 percent of today’s postsecondary 

students are self-supporting adults age 24 and up24; almost half attend 

school part-time; more than one-third work full-time; 27 percent have 

children themselves.25 In 2005, more than 12 million adults age 25 and 

older participated in credential or degree-granting programs in colleges and 

universities.26 But we are not expanding capacity across higher education to 

meet this demand. America’s community colleges, whose enrollments have 

been growing significantly, have provided a place to begin for many of these 

students. In some states, however, community colleges are reaching their 

capacity limits, a cause for deep concern.

■

■

■
9

Findings Regarding Cost and Affordability

Our higher education financing system is increasingly dysfunctional. State 

subsidies are declining; tuition is rising; and cost per student is increasing 

faster than inflation or family income. Affordability is directly affected 

by a financing system that provides limited incentives for colleges and 

universities to take aggressive steps to improve institutional efficiency and 

productivity. Public concern about rising costs may ultimately contribute to 

the erosion of public confidence in higher education. 

There is no issue that worries the American public more about higher education 

than the soaring cost of attending college. That may explain why most public 

discussions of college affordability are framed solely in terms of the financial 

strain faced by students and families. Yet because students and families only pay 

a portion of the actual cost of higher education, affordability is also an important 

public policy concern for those who are asked to fund colleges and universities, 

notably federal and state taxpayers but also private donors. Tuition increases 

for students have gone hand in hand with a rapid rise in the cost of operating 

institutions. While the pattern of cost increases varies (it has been much less 

pronounced, for example, at community colleges), it is in general unacceptably 

large and contributes to problems of access discussed elsewhere in this report. 

From 1995 to 2005, average tuition and fees at private four-year colleges and 

universities rose 36 percent after adjusting for inflation. Over the same period, 

average tuition and fees rose 51 percent at public four-year institutions and 30 

percent at community colleges.27

One of the reasons tuition and fees have increased is that state funding fell to 

the lowest level in over two decades.28 State funding for higher education has 

always followed a zigzag course—going up in times of growth and down during 

recessions. The prospects for a return to a time of generous state subsidies 

are not good. States are expected to experience long-term structural deficits 

in funds for postsecondary education, caused by the squeeze of revenues and 

pressures on spending from rising health care costs.29 The bottom line is that 

state funding for higher education will not grow enough to support enrollment 

demand without higher education addressing issues of efficiency, productivity, 

transparency, and accountability clearly and successfully. However, based on 

our commission’s review of the education needs of our nation, we encourage 

states to continue their historic and necessary commitment to the support of 

public higher education. 

Funding cuts are not the only reason costs are rising. Institutions are spending 

more money, particularly the wealthiest universities with the greatest access 

to capital. Next to institutional financial aid, the greatest growth has been in 

administrative costs for improvements in student services (including state-ofthe-art fitness centers and dormitories). 

■

■

■
10

College and university finances are complex, and are made more so by 

accounting habits that confuse costs with revenues and obscure production 

costs. The lack of transparency in financing is not just a problem of public 

communication or metrics. It reflects a deeper problem: inadequate attention to 

cost measurement and cost management within institutions.

A significant obstacle to better cost controls is the fact that a large share of the 

cost of higher education is subsidized by public funds (local, state and federal) 

and by private contributions. These third-party payments tend to insulate 

what economists would call producers—colleges and universities—from the 

consequences of their own spending decisions, while consumers—students—also 

lack incentives to make decisions based on their own limited resources. Just as 

the U.S. healthcare finance system fuels rising costs by shielding consumers from 

the consequences of their own spending choices, the high level of subsidies to 

higher education also provides perverse spending incentives at times. 

In addition, colleges and universities have few incentives to contain costs 

because prestige is often measured by resources, and managers who hold down 

spending risk losing their academic reputations. With pressures on state funding 

for higher education continuing, institutional attention to cost—and price—control 

will inevitably become an urgent priority both for internal institutional accountability 

and public credibility. 

Another little-recognized source of cost increases is excessive state and federal 

regulation. Specifically, institutions of higher education must comply with more 

than 200 federal laws—everything from export administration regulations to 

the Financial Services Modernization Act. At their best, these regulations are 

a mechanism to support important human values on campuses. At worst, 

regulations can absorb huge amounts of time and waste scarce campus financial 

resources with little tangible benefit to anyone.30

■

■

■

■

Distribution of Family Income

Type of Institution

Lowest Quartile

2003 (1992)

2nd Quartile

2003 (1992)

3rd Quartile

2003 (1992)

Highest Quartile

2003 (1992)

Public Two-Year 37% (29%) 19% (15%) 13% (13%) 7% (6%)

Public Four-Year 47% (41%) 26% (22%) 18% (16%) 11% (10%)

Private Four-Year 83% (60%) 41% (33%) 29% (25%) 19% (17%)

Lowest quartile: $0-$34,000; 2nd quartile: $34,000-$62,000; 3rd quartile: $62,000-$94,000; 

Highest quartile: $94,000+. (Source: College Board, 2005.)

Table 1: Percentage of family income needed to cover net college costs after grant aid by type of 

institution from 1992–93 to 2003–04
11

Findings Regarding Financial Aid

The entire financial aid system—including federal, state, institutional, and 

private programs—is confusing, complex, inefficient, duplicative, and 

frequently does not direct aid to students who truly need it. Need-based 

financial aid is not keeping pace with rising tuition.

There are at least 20 separate federal programs providing direct financial aid 

or tax benefits to individuals seeking postsecondary education.31 The system 

is overly complicated and its multitude of programs sometimes redundant and 

incomprehensible to all but a few experts. This complexity has the unfortunate 

effect of discouraging some low-income students from even applying to college.

For the typical household, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or 

FAFSA, is longer and more complicated than the federal tax return.32 Moreover, 

the simplest IRS tax form, the 1040EZ, already collects most of the key pieces 

of data that could determine federal aid eligibility.

The current system does not provide definitive information about freshman year 

aid until the spring of the senior year in high school, which makes it difficult for 

families to plan and discourages college attendance.

Unmet financial need among the lowest-income families (those with family 

incomes below $34,000 annually) grew by 80 percent from 1990 to 2004 at 

four-year institutions, compared with seven percent for the highest-income 

families.33 The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance estimates 

that in the first decade of the new century, financial barriers will keep nearly 

two million low- and middle-income college qualified high school graduates 

from attending college.34 Over half of today’s undergraduates take out loans to 

finance part of their college work. According to the most recent College Board 

figures, nearly three-quarters of undergraduate students in private, non-profit 

institutions graduate with some debt, compared with 62 percent in public 

institutions. Median debt levels among students who graduated from four-year 

institutions were $15,500 for publics and $19,400 for private, nonprofits.35

Large majorities of adults—59 percent overall and 63 percent among parents 

of college students—say students today graduate with too much debt. While 

80 percent of adults say a college education is more important today than it 

was a decade ago, two-thirds say that affording college is harder now—and 70 

percent say they expect it to be even more difficult in the future.36 

■

■

■

■

■
12

Findings Regarding Learning

At a time when we need to be increasing the quality of learning outcomes 

and the economic value of a college education, there are disturbing 

signs that suggest we are moving in the opposite direction. As a result, 

the continued ability of American postsecondary institutions to produce 

informed and skilled citizens who are able to lead and compete in the 

21st-century global marketplace may soon be in question. 

While U.S. higher education has long been admired internationally, our 

continued preeminence is no longer something we can take for granted. The 

rest of the world is catching up, and by some measures has already overtaken 

us. We have slipped to 12th in higher education attainment and 16th in high 

school graduation rates.37

While educators and policymakers have commendably focused on getting 

more students into college, too little attention has been paid to helping them 

graduate. The result is that unacceptable numbers of students fail to complete 

their studies at all, while even those that graduate don’t always learn enough. 

Several national studies highlight shortcomings in the quality of U.S. higher 

education as measured by literacy, rising time to degree, and disturbing racial 

and ethnic gaps in student achievement: 

The National Assessment of Adult Literacy indicates that, 

between 1992 and 2003, average prose literacy (the ability 

to understand narrative texts such as newspaper articles) 

decreased for all levels of educational attainment, and document 

literacy (the ability to understand practical information such as 

instructions for taking medicine) decreased among those with at 

least some college education or a bachelor’s degree or higher 

(Figure 1).38

Only 66 percent of full-time four-year college students complete 

a baccalaureate degree within six years.39 (This reflects 

the percentage of students who begin full-time in four-year 

institutions and graduate within six years.)

Significant attainment gaps between white and Asian students 

and black and Hispanic students remain during the college 

years.40

Employers complain that many college graduates are not 

prepared for the workplace and lack the new set of skills 

necessary for successful employment and continuous career 

development.41

■

■

■

❏

❏

❏

❏
13

Findings Regarding Transparency and

Accountability

There is inadequate transparency and accountability for measuring 

institutional performance, which is more and more necessary to maintaining 

public trust in higher education. 

Our complex, decentralized postsecondary education system has no 

comprehensive strategy, particularly for undergraduate programs, to provide either 

adequate internal accountability systems or effective public information. Too many 

decisions about higher education—from those made by policymakers to those 

made by students and families—rely heavily on reputation and rankings derived to 

a large extent from inputs such as financial resources rather than outcomes. Better 

data about real performance and lifelong working and learning ability is absolutely 

essential if we are to meet national needs and improve institutional performance.

Traditionally, institutional quality is measured primarily through financial inputs 

and resources. In today’s environment, these measures of inputs are no longer 

adequate, either within individual institutions or across all of higher education.

Despite increased attention to student learning results by colleges and 

universities and accreditation agencies, parents and students have no solid 

evidence, comparable across institutions, of how much students learn in 

colleges or whether they learn more at one college than another. Similarly, 

policymakers need more comprehensive data to help them decide whether the 

national investment in higher education is paying off and how taxpayer dollars 

could be used more effectively. 

■

■

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 

National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 1. Percentage of college graduates proficient in prose, document, 

and quantitative literacy: 1992 and 2003
14

Colleges and universities can also use more comparable data about the 

benchmarks of institutional success—student access, retention, learning and 

success, educational costs (including the growth in administrative expenses 

such as executive compensation), and productivity—to stimulate innovation 

and continuous improvement.

Extensive government data on higher education do exist, but they leave out 

large numbers of nontraditional students who are increasingly attending our 

colleges and universities42 and rarely focus on outcomes.43 Data collected 

by the National Center for Education Statistics through the Graduation Rate 

Survey under the Integrated Postsecondary Education Systems (IPEDS) 

are limited to full-time, first-time degree- or certificate-seeking students. 

Unfortunately, for a significant portion of students—those who enroll on a parttime basis and those who transfer to other institutions—no data exist on time to 

degree for individual students or completion for students who, in an increasingly 

common pattern, begin their studies, drop out, and then restart.44

Accreditation, the large and complex public-private system of federal, state 

and private regulators, has significant shortcomings. Accreditation agencies 

play a gatekeeper role in determining the eligibility of institutions and programs 

to receive federal and state grants and loans. However, despite increased 

attention by accreditors to learning assessments, they continue to play largely 

an internal role. Accreditation reviews are typically kept private, and those that 

are made public still focus on process reviews more than bottom-line results 

for learning or costs. The growing public demand for increased accountability, 

quality and transparency coupled with the changing structure and globalization 

of higher education requires a transformation of accreditation.45 

Findings Regarding Innovation

American higher education has taken little advantage of important 

innovations that would increase institutional capacity, effectiveness and 

productivity. Government and institutional policies created during a different 

era are impeding the expansion of models designed to meet the nation’s 

workforce needs. In addition, policymakers and educators need to do more 

to build America’s capacity to compete and innovate by investing in critical 

skill sets and basic research.

Institutions as well as government agencies have failed to sustain and nurture 

innovation in our colleges and universities. Reports from those working at the 

grassroots level in fields such as teacher preparation and math and science 

education indicate that the results of scholarly research on teaching and 

learning are rarely translated into practice. Little of the significant research 

of the past decade in areas such as cognitive science, neurosciences, and 

organizational theory is making it into American classroom practice, whether at 

the K–12 level or in colleges and universities. 

■

■

■

■
15

With the exception of several promising practices, many of our postsecondary 

institutions have not embraced opportunities for innovation, from new methods 

of teaching and content delivery to technological advances to meeting the 

increasing demand for lifelong learning. For their part, both state and federal 

policymakers have also failed to make supporting innovation a priority by 

adequately providing incentives for individuals, employers, and institutions to 

pursue more opportunities for innovative, effective and efficient practice. 

Traditional academic calendars and schedules often result in inefficient use of 

institution’s physical plant and learning programs that are less than optimal. 

Barriers to the recognition of transfer credits between different types of institutions 

pose challenges to students and prevent institutions from increasing capacity. 

Students too often receive conflicting information about credit-transfer policies 

between institutions, leading to an unknown amount of lost time and money (and 

additional federal financial aid) in needlessly repeated course work. Underlying 

the information confusion are institutional policies and practice on student 

transfers that are too often inconsistently applied, even within the same institution. 

Accreditation and federal and state regulations, while designed to assure 

quality in higher education, can sometimes impede innovation and limit the 

outside capital investment that is vital for expansion and capacity building.

Fewer American students are earning degrees in the STEM fields (science, 

technology, engineering, mathematics), medicine, and other disciplines critical 

to global competitiveness, national security, and economic prosperity. Even 

as the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that 16 of the 30 fastest-growing 

jobs in the next decade will be in the health professions, current and projected 

shortages of physicians, registered nurses and other medical specialists 

may affect the quality of care for the increasingly aging population of baby 

boomers.46 

It is fundamental to U.S. economic interests to provide world-class education 

while simultaneously providing an efficient immigration system that welcomes 

highly educated individuals to our nation. Foreign-born students represent 

about half of all graduate students in computer sciences, and over half of the 

doctorate degrees awarded in engineering. Almost 30 percent of the actively 

employed science and engineering doctorate holders in the U.S. are foreign 

born. However, current limits on employer-sponsored visas preclude many U.S. 

businesses from hiring many of these graduates, which may discourage some 

talented students from attending our universities. 

At a time when innovation occurs increasingly at the intersection of multiple 

disciplines (including business and social sciences), curricula and research 

funding remain largely contained in individual departments.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■
16

recommendations

Our colleges and universities are treasured 

national assets, but the shortcomings we 

have outlined persuade us that it is time for 

Americans to concentrate on what higher 

education can become. The challenge before us is 

nothing less than securing the promise of the future and unleashing the potential 

of the American people.

To that end, we offer recommendations that aim to improve access to higher 

education and make it more affordable. We seek to strengthen quality and encourage 

innovation. And we want to bring much-needed transparency and accountability 

to our colleges and universities. Secretary Spellings charged us to be bold. The 

commission believes that America must embrace a new agenda and engage in a 

new dialogue that places the needs of students and the nation at its center.

1. Every student in the nation should have the opportunity to pursue 

postsecondary education. We recommend, therefore, that the U.S. commit to 

an unprecedented effort to expand higher education access and success by 

improving student preparation and persistence, addressing non academic 

barriers and providing significant increases in aid to low-income students.

A high school diploma should signify that a student is ready for college or 

work. States must adopt high school curricula that prepare all students for 

participation in postsecondary education and should facilitate seamless 

integration between high school and college. The commission believes higher 

education must assume responsibility for working with the K–12 system 

to ensure that teachers are adequately trained, curricula are aligned and 

entrance standards are clear. The effort underway in a number of states to align 

K–12 graduation standards with college and employer expectations should 

be implemented in all 50 states. States should provide incentives for higher 

education institutions to make long-term commitments to working actively and 

collaboratively with K–12 schools and systems to help underserved students 

improve college preparation and persistence. 

The commission strongly encourages early assessment initiatives that 

determine whether students are on track for college. A prominent chancellor 

has described the 12th grade as a “vast wasteland” rather than a time to ensure 

that students are prepared for college or are enrolled in college-level courses. 

We endorse the expansion of early college or dual enrollment programs, as 

well as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses. 

■

■
17

The California State University System: 

Increasing Access and Improving Preparation

One of the best national models of how higher-education and K­–12 officials can 

collaborate to help students is the Early Assessment Program (EAP) developed 

by Chancellor Charles Reed and administrators at the California State University 

(CSU) system in partnership with the California Department of Education and the 

State Board of Education. This statewide assessment is designed to test students’ 

proficiency in mathematics and English and to reduce the likelihood that students 

will have to take remedial classes once they enter college. The award-winning 

program embeds a voluntary college-placement exam in the state testing program 

required of all 11th-grade students, using the CSU’s admissions placement 

standards in math and English. The “early” component of the program—testing in 

the 11th grade, rather than the 12th—provides students an opportunity to make 

gains in areas of weakness during their senior year. 

Additionally, CSU is raising awareness of college opportunities by reaching future 

students where they are—in their homes, their churches, and their communities. 

Partnering with community leaders and the state’s K–12 system, administrators 

are targeting low-income and minority students and putting higher education 

within their reach. For the 54 percent of CSU’s 405,000 students who are racial 

or ethnic minorities, initiatives such as visits by campus presidents to the largest 

African-American church in Los Angeles and partnerships with Latina mothers of 

elementary school children show the university system’s commitment to bringing 

underrepresented populations into higher education. An informative “How to Get to 

College” poster available in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, and Chinese 

outlines step-by-step advice on how students and parents can begin getting ready 

for college as early as the sixth grade. These posters have been distributed to the 

state’s middle and high schools and contain helpful information on the admission 

process, applying for financial aid, and appropriate courses to take in high school 

to best prepare students for collegiate-level learning. Finally, the system has a 

dedicated Web site (http://www.csumentor.edu) to help students and families 

navigate the college admissions and financial aid application processes.

The commission recommends 

support for initiatives that 

help states hold high schools 

accountable for teaching all 

students and that provide federal 

support for effective and timely 

intervention for those students 

who are not learning at grade 

level. Such initiatives would 

include requirements for state 

assessments in high school 

to ensure that diplomas mean 

students are prepared to enter 

college or the workforce with the 

skills to succeed. In addition, the 

current 12th-grade NAEP test 

should be redesigned to allow 

the NAEP proficiency standard to 

be used to measure college and 

workforce readiness and provide 

disaggregated data in stateby-state reports. (Historically, 

the 12th-grade NAEP has been 

limited to a national survey with 

a sample size that precludes 

state-by-state reporting of 

assessment results. This is of 

little value for either improvement 

or accountability.) 

Students must have clearer 

pathways among educational 

levels and institutions and we 

urge colleges to remove barriers 

to student mobility and promote 

new learning paradigms (e.g., 

distance education, adult education, workplace programs) to accommodate 

a far more diverse student cohort. States and institutions should review and 

revise standards for transfer of credit among higher education institutions, 

subject to rigorous standards designed to ensure educational quality, to 

improve access and reduce time-to-completion.

Even though surveys show that most students and parents believe college is 

essential, numerous non academic barriers undermine these aspirations. Many 

student and parents don’t understand the steps needed to prepare for college 

and the system fails to address this information gap. The commission calls 

on businesses to partner with schools and colleges to provide resources for 

■

■

■
18

early and ongoing college awareness activities, academic support, and college 

planning and financial aid application assistance. Such efforts should include 

developing students’ and parents’ knowledge of the economic and social 

benefits of college through better information, use of role models and extensive 

career exploration.

2. To address the escalating cost of a college education and the fiscal 

realities affecting government’s ability to finance higher education in the 

long run, we recommend that the entire student financial aid system be 

restructured and new incentives put in place to improve the measurement 

and management of costs and institutional productivity. 

Public providers of student financial aid should commit to meeting the needs 

of students from low-income families.

The federal government, states, and institutions should significantly increase 

need-based student aid. To accomplish this, the present student financial aid 

system should be replaced with a strategically oriented, results-driven system 

built on the principles of (i) increased access, or enrollment in college by those 

students who would not otherwise be likely to attend, including nontraditional 

students; (ii) increased retention, or graduation by students who might not have 

been able to complete college due to the cost, (iii) decreased debt burden, and 

(iv) eliminating structural incentives for tuition inflation.

Any new federal financial aid system should aim to replace the current federal 

aid form (the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA) with a 

much shorter and simpler application form. The application process should be 

substantially streamlined by analyzing student need through a simple criterion 

such as family income. Students should have information about financial aid 

eligibility (such as need or ability to pay) sooner and with early estimates of 

likely aid available as soon as the eighth grade.

The financial-aid needs of transfer students, including those who transfer from 

two-year to four-year institutions, and part-time students should be attended to 

as part of the restructuring we recommend.

Federal grant programs should be consolidated to increase the purchasing 

power of the Pell Grant. Whatever restructuring of federal financial aid takes 

place, the Pell Grant will remain the core need-based program. A specific 

benchmark should be established to increase the purchasing power of the 

average Pell Grant to a level of 70 percent (from 48 percent in 2004–05) of 

the average in-state tuition at public, four-year institutions over a period of 

five years. However, even with significant additional federal investment, there 

is little chance of restoring the Pell’s purchasing power if tuition increases 

absorb most or all of the new money. This effort requires not only federal 

investment but also strategies by which colleges and universities contain 

increases in tuition and fees.

■

■

■

■
19

Additionally, administrative and regulatory costs of federal aid programs should 

be streamlined through a comprehensive review of financial aid regulations.

Policymakers and higher education leaders should develop, at the 

institutional level, new and innovative means to control costs, improve 

productivity, and increase the supply of higher education. 

Higher education governing and coordinating boards, entrusted with the 

responsibility to ensure both internal and external accountability, should 

work with colleges to improve information about costs as well as prices for 

consumers, policymakers and institutional leaders. 

Higher education institutions should improve institutional cost management 

through the development of new performance benchmarks designed to 

measure and improve productivity and efficiency. Also, better measures of 

costs, beyond those designed for accounting purposes, should be provided to 

enable consumers and policymakers to see institutional results in the areas 

of academic quality, productivity and efficiency. An important benchmark, for 

example, would be that the growth in college tuition not exceed the growth 

in median family income over a five-year period. At the same time, the 

commission opposes the imposition of price controls. 

Colleges should help lower per-student educational costs by reducing 

barriers for transfer students. This step would be likely to lower costs to the 

overall postsecondary system by eliminating a great deal of redundancy 

within the system.

The commission urges states to provide financial incentives to institutions that 

show they are fostering access, increasing productivity and cutting costs while 

maintaining or enhancing educational quality. States can drive improvements in 

educational learning productivity by encouraging both traditional and electronic 

delivery of college courses in high school. 

Federal and state policymakers should support the dissemination of 

technological advances in teaching that lower costs on a quality-adjusted 

basis. Institutions that reduce instructional costs generally on a quality-adjusted 

basis should be financially rewarded. States should provide similar incentive 

payments to institutions that significantly reduce academic attrition and 

increase graduation rates within the traditional period for the degree (e.g., four 

years for a bachelor’s degree). 

Federal and state policymakers and accrediting organizations should work 

to eliminate regulatory and accreditation barriers to new models in higher 

education that will increase supply and drive costs down. To address these 

barriers, federal and state policymakers should: 

Eliminate federal financial aid regulations that differentiate 

between traditional semesters and non-standard terms or, at a 

minimum, rewrite those regulations to provide the same benefits 

to nontraditional programs as to traditional semester programs.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

❏
20

Require accreditation agencies to act in a more timely manner 

to accredit new institutions and new programs at existing 

institutions, while focusing on results and quality rather than 

dictating, for example, process, inputs, and governance, which 

perpetuates current models and impedes innovation. 

Federal and state policymakers should relieve the regulatory burden 

on colleges and universities by undertaking a review of the hundreds of 

regulations with which institutions must comply and recommend how they 

might be streamlined or eliminated. Additionally, nearly every federal agency 

is involved in regulating some aspect of higher education and each ought to 

create a compliance calendar to assist colleges and universities with identifying 

the myriad regulations and meeting their requirements. 

Finally, the federal government should work closely and cooperatively with 

institutions and higher education associations to develop compliance materials 

when new regulations are issued and to develop a system for notifying 

institutions when they are covered by a new law or regulation. 

3. To meet the challenges of the 21st century, higher education must 

change from a system primarily based on reputation to one based on 

performance. We urge the creation of a robust culture of accountability and 

transparency throughout higher 

education. Every one of our 

goals, from improving access 

and affordability to enhancing 

quality and innovation, will be 

more easily achieved if higher 

education institutions embraces 

and implements serious 

accountability measures. 

We recommend the creation of 

a consumer-friendly information 

database on higher education 

with useful, reliable information 

on institutions, coupled with a 

search engine to enable students, 

parents, policymakers and others 

to weigh and rank comparative 

institutional performance.

The Department of Education 

should collect data and provide 

information in a common format so 

that interested parties can create a 

❏

■

■

■

Quality and Innovation Through 

Course Redesign

From 1999 to 2004, Carol Twigg and the National Center for Academic 

Transformation at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute worked with 30 colleges 

and universities to enhance quality of instruction, improve student learning, 

and reduce costs through the use of technology and innovative pedagogy. The 

participating institutions, which included Carnegie Mellon University, Northern 

Arizona University, and Tallahassee Community College, redesigned instructional 

approaches to improve some of their large, introductory courses. Instead of 

offering traditional lecture formats, instructors used active learning strategies 

to engage students in course material. These redesigned courses provided 

online access to Web-based tutorials, on-demand feedback, and support from 

student peer mentors. The use of technology reduced course preparation time for 

instructors and lowered instructional costs per student.

The results speak for themselves: more learning at a lower cost to the university. 

Institutions reported an average of 37 percent reduced cost and an increase in 

student engagement and learning. For example, scores in a redesigned biology 

course at the University of Massachusetts increased by 20 percent, while the cost 

to the university per student dropped by nearly 40 percent. For more information, 

visit http://www.collegecosts.info/pdfs/solution_papers/Collegecosts_Oct2005.pdf.
21

searchable, consumer-friendly database that provides access to institutional 

performance and aggregate student outcomes in a secure and flexible format. 

The strategy for the collection and use of data should be designed to recognize 

the complexity of higher education, have the capacity to accommodate diverse 

consumer preferences through standard and customizable searches, and make 

it easy to obtain comparative information including cost, price, admissions data, 

college completion rates and, eventually, learning outcomes. 

Third-party organizations should be encouraged and enabled to publish 

independent, objective information using data from such a database. In 

addition, comparative studies such as, for example, the National Center for 

Public Policy and Higher Education’s biennial Measuring Up report, which 

gauges how successful state systems are at preparation, participation, 

affordability, completion and learning, should be published and disseminated by 

the Department as part of this information system. 

In addition to this new consumer-oriented database, more and better 

information on the quality and cost of higher education is needed by 

policymakers, researchers and the general public.

The secretary of education should require the National Center for Education 

Statistics to prepare timely annual public reports on college revenues and 

expenditures, including analysis of the major changes from year to year, at 

the sector and state level. Unlike the data currently available, institutional 

comparisons should be consumer-friendly and not require a sophisticated 

understanding of higher education finance. 

The commission supports the development of a privacy-protected higher 

education information system that collects, analyzes and uses student-level 

data as a vital tool for accountability, policy-making, and consumer choice. A 

privacy-protected system would not include individually identifiable information 

such as student names or Social Security numbers at the federal level. Such a 

system would allow policymakers and consumers to evaluate the performance 

of institutions by determining the success of each institution’s students without 

knowing the identities of those students. It is essential for policymakers and 

consumers to have access to a comprehensive higher education information 

system in order to make informed choices about how well colleges and 

universities are serving their students, through accurate measures of individual 

institutions’ retention and graduation rates, net tuition price for different categories 

of students, and other important information. Right now, policymakers, scholarly 

researchers, and members of the public lack basic information on institutional 

performance and labor market outcomes for postsecondary institutions. This is 

particularly true for measuring outcomes from the work of those institutions that 

serve the growing proportion of nontraditional students who do not begin and 

finish their higher education at the same institution within a set period of time.

■

■

■
22

Examples of Student Learning Assessments

The Collegiate Learning Assessment 

Among the most comprehensive national efforts to measure how much students actually learn at different campuses, the 

Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) promotes a culture of evidence-based assessment in higher education. Since 2002, 

134 colleges and universities have used the exam, which evaluates students’ critical thinking, analytic reasoning, and 

written communication using performance tasks and writing prompts rather than multiple choice questions. Administered to 

freshmen and seniors, the CLA allows for comparability to national norms and measurement of value added between the 

freshman and senior years. Additionally, because the CLA’s unit of analysis is the institution and not the student, results are 

aggregated and allow for inter-institutional comparisons that show how each institution contributes to learning. For more 

information, visit www.cae.org/cla.

The National Survey of Student Engagement and the Community College Survey of Student 

Engagement 

Administered by the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, the National Survey of Student Engagement 

(NSSE) and its community college counterpart, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), survey 

hundreds of institutions annually about student participation and engagement in programs designed to improve their learning 

and development. The measures of student engagement - the time and effort students put into educational activities in and 

out of the classroom, from meeting with professors to reading books that weren’t assigned in class - serve as a proxy for 

the value and quality of their undergraduate experience. NSSE and CCSSE provide colleges and universities with readily 

usable data to improve that experience and create benchmarks against which similar institutions can compare themselves. 

With surveys from several million students already compiled, these instruments provide a comprehensive picture of the 

undergraduate student experience at four-year and two-year institutions. Results from NSSE and CCSSE, which are 

publicly reported, can provide institutions and external stakeholders data for improving institutional performance, setting 

accountability standards, and strategic planning. For more information, visit http://nsse.iub.edu.

The National Forum on College-Level Learning

The National Forum on College-Level Learning has been called “the first attempt to measure what the college educated 

know and can do across states.” Piloted in 2002 across Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, the 

study collected data on student learning using multiple assessment instruments already in use or widely available such as 

the National Adult Literacy Survey, the Collegiate Learning Assessment (for four-year colleges) or WorkKeys (for two-year 

colleges), and graduate admissions exams. Results from these assessments provide states comparable information on how 

their colleges and universities contribute to student learning and identify challenges such as performance gaps and inconsistent 

teacher preparation. Comparable assessment also allows states to identify best practices, providing information useful in 

creating policy and programs that will improve the states’ intellectual capital. For more information, visit http://curry.edschool.

virginia.edu/centers/collegelevellearning. 
23

The philanthropic community and other third-party organizations are urged 

to invest in the research and development of instruments measuring the 

intersection of institutional resources, student characteristics, and educational 

value-added. Tools should be developed that aggregate data at the state level 

and that also can be used for institutional benchmarking.

Postsecondary education institutions should measure and report meaningful 

student learning outcomes.

Higher education institutions should measure student learning using qualityassessment data from instruments such as, for example, the Collegiate 

Learning Assessment, which measures the growth of student learning taking 

place in colleges, and the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress, 

which is designed to assess general education outcomes for undergraduates in 

order to improve the quality of instruction and learning. 

The federal government should provide incentives for states, higher education 

associations, university systems, and institutions to develop interoperable 

outcomes-focused accountability systems designed to be accessible and useful 

for students, policymakers, and the public, as well as for internal management 

and institutional improvement.

Faculty must be at the forefront of defining educational objectives for students 

and developing meaningful, evidence-based measures of their progress toward 

those goals. 

The results of student learning assessments, including value-added 

measurements that indicate how much students’ skills have improved over 

time, should be made available to students and reported in the aggregate 

publicly. Higher education institutions should make aggregate summary results 

of all postsecondary learning measures, e.g., test scores, certification and 

licensure attainment, time to degree, graduation rates, and other relevant 

measures, publicly available in a consumer-friendly form as a condition of 

accreditation.

The collection of data from public institutions allowing meaningful interstate 

comparison of student learning should be encouraged and implemented in 

all states. By using assessments of adult literacy, licensure, graduate and 

professional school exams, and specially administered tests of general 

intellectual skills, state policymakers can make valid interstate comparisons 

of student learning and identify shortcomings as well as best practices. The 

federal government should provide financial support for this initiative.

The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), should be administered by 

U.S. Department of Education at five- instead of ten-year intervals. The survey 

sample should be of sufficient size to yield state-by-state as well as national 

results. The NAAL should also survey a sample of graduating students at two 

and four-year colleges and universities and provide state reports.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■
24

Accreditation agencies should make performance outcomes, including completion 

rates and student learning, the core of their assessment as a priority over 

inputs or processes. A framework that aligns and expands existing accreditation 

standards should be established to (i) allow comparisons among institutions 

regarding learning outcomes and other performance measures, (ii) encourage 

innovation and continuous improvement, and (iii) require institutions and 

programs to move toward world-class quality relative to specific missions and 

report measurable progress in relationship to their national and international 

peers. In addition, this framework should require that the accreditation process 

be more open and accessible by making the findings of final reviews easily 

accessible to the public and increasing public and private sector representation in 

the governance of accrediting organizations and on review teams. Accreditation, 

once primarily a private relationship between an agency and an institution, now 

has such important public policy implications that accreditors must continue and 

speed up their efforts towards transparency as this affects public ends.

4. With too few exceptions, higher education has yet to address the 

fundamental issues of how academic programs and institutions must be 

transformed to serve the changing needs of a knowledge economy. We 

recommend that America’s colleges and universities embrace a culture 

of continuous innovation and quality improvement by developing new 

pedagogies, curricula, and technologies to improve learning, particularly in 

the area of science and mathematical literacy.

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) should 

be revitalized and its funding increased. Its original mission of promoting 

improvement and innovation in higher education needs to be reenergized to 

sustain and enhance innovation in postsecondary education. The commission 

recommends that FIPSE prioritize, disseminate, and promote best practices 

in innovative teaching and learning models as well as the application of 

high-quality learning-related research in such rapidly growing areas as 

neuroscience, cognitive science and organizational sciences. 

An additional purpose of revitalizing FIPSE would be to encourage broad 

federal support of innovation in higher education from multiple agencies 

(Departments of Education, Energy, Labor, Defense, and Commerce; the 

National Science Foundation; the National Institutes of Health; and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration) in order to align and coordinate federal 

investment of innovation in higher education.

Institutions should harness the power of information technology by sharing 

educational resources among institutions, and use distance learning to meet the 

educational needs of rural students and adult learners, and to enhance workforce 

development. Effective use of information technology can improve student 

learning, reduce instructional costs, and meet critical workforce needs. We urge 

states and institutions to establish course redesign programs using technologybased, learner-centered principles drawing upon the innovative work already 

■

■

■

■
25

being done by organizations such 

as the National Center for Academic 

Transformation. Additionally, we 

urge institutions to explore emerging 

interdisciplinary fields such as 

services sciences, management and 

engineering and to implement new 

models of curriculum development 

and delivery.

The commission encourages 

the creation of incentives to 

promote the development of 

information technology-based 

collaborative tools and capabilities 

at universities and colleges across 

the United States, enabling access, 

interaction, and sharing of educational materials from a variety of institutions, 

disciplines, and educational perspectives. Both commercial development 

and new collaborative paradigms such as open source, open content, and 

open learning will be important in building the next generation learning 

environments for the knowledge economy.

5. America must ensure that our citizens have access to high quality and 

affordable educational, learning, and training opportunities throughout their 

lives. We recommend the development of a national strategy for lifelong 

learning that helps all citizens understand the importance of preparing for 

and participating in higher education throughout their lives.

The commission encourages institutions to expand their reach to adults through 

technology such as distance learning, workplace learning, and alternative 

scheduling programs. 

The secretary of education, in partnership with states and other federal 

agencies, should develop a national strategy that would result in better 

and more flexible learning opportunities, especially for adult learners. The 

comprehensive plan should include better integration of policy, funding and 

accountability between postsecondary education, adult education, vocational 

education, and workforce development and training programs. Emphasis 

should be placed on innovation incentives, development of tailored, new 

delivery mechanisms, ability to transfer credits among institutions easily 

(subject to rigorous standards designed to ensure educational quality), and the 

ability to acquire credits linked to skill certifications that could lead to a degree. 

The plan should include specific recommendations for legislative and regulatory 

changes needed to create an efficient, transparent and cost-effective system 

needed to enhance student mobility and meet U.S. workforce needs.

■

■

■

Innovation in Curriculum Development and 

Program Delivery

Salt Lake City-based Neumont University is educating the most sought-after 

software developers in the world. Neumont’s curriculum is project-based and 

focuses on the skills most valued by today’s employers. The institution’s unique 

instructional approach is built on a project-based, experiential foundation that 

incorporates the tools and technologies important to the industry. Students learn 

both the theory of computer science and then apply that theory in real-world 

projects, initially mentored by faculty, and ultimately mentored by other senior 

students in peer-to-peer relationships. Neumont offers an accelerated program; in 

about 28 months graduates can earn a Bachelor of Science in computer science 

degree; IBM, .NET and other leading industry certifications; and a digital portfolio 

of projects. For more information, visit www.neumont.edu.
26

6. The United States must ensure the capacity of its universities to achieve 

global leadership in key strategic areas such as science, engineering, medicine, 

and other knowledge-intensive professions. We recommend increased federal 

investment in areas critical to our nation’s global competitiveness and a 

renewed commitment to attract the best and brightest minds from across the 

nation and around the world to lead the next wave of American innovation.

The commission supports increasing federal and state investment in education 

and research in critical areas such as the STEM fields, teaching, nursing, 

biomedicine, and other professions along the lines recommended by President 

George W. Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative; Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm, published by the National Academies’ Committee on Science, 

Engineering, and Public Policy; and the National Innovation Initiative by the 

Council on Competitiveness. 

The administration should encourage more research collaboration, multidisciplinary research and curricula, including those related to the growing services 

economy, through existing programs at the Department of Education, the National 

Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy’s 

Office of Science.

The need to produce a globally literate citizenry is critical to the nation's continued 

success in the global economy. The federal government has recently embarked 

on an initiative to dramatically increase the number of Americans learning critically 

needed foreign languages from K–16 and into the workforce. Higher education, 

too, must put greater emphasis on international education, including foreign 

language instruction and study abroad, in order to ensure that graduates have the 

skills necessary to function effectively in the global workforce. 

In addition to these competitiveness trends, the racial and ethnic diversity of 

our citizens is also changing. The U.S. must respond with public policies that 

encourage and channel capable students from diverse populations into the 

health care pipeline to become doctors, nurses, dentists, public health officers 

and related health professionals and similarly into the pipelines of other STEM 

professions. Two-year and four-year colleges should expand partnerships that 

encourage the progression of low-income and minority students through STEM 

fields, teaching, nursing, biomedicine, and other knowledge-intensive fields.

In an effort to retain the best and brightest students and professionals from 

around the world, the federal government must address immigration policies 

specifically aimed at international students. The commission recommends that 

these international students who graduate with an advanced STEM degree 

from a U.S. college or university should have an expedited path to an employersponsored green card and also be exempted from the numerical cap for green 

cards. The commission also recommends eliminating the requirement that in 

order to receive a student visa, all students must prove that they have no intent 

to remain in the United States after graduating. After all, talented graduates with 

sought-after advanced training represent precisely the kind of intellectual capital 

our nation needs.

■

■

■

■

■
27

Conclusion

n short, the commission believes it is imperative that the 

nation give urgent attention to improving its system of 

higher education.

The future of our country’s colleges and universities is threatened by global 

competitive pressures, powerful technological developments, restraints on 

public finance and serious structural limitations that cry out for reform.

Our report has recommended strategic actions designed to make higher 

education more accessible, more affordable, and more accountable, while 

maintaining world-class quality. Our colleges and universities must become 

more transparent, faster to respond to rapidly changing circumstances and 

increasingly productive in order to deal effectively with the powerful forces of 

change they now face.

But reaching these goals will also require difficult decisions and major 

changes from many others beyond the higher education community.

The commission calls on policymakers to address the needs of higher 

education in order to maintain social mobility and a high standard of 

living. We call on the business community to become directly and fully 

engaged with government and higher education leaders in developing 

innovative structures for delivering 21st-century educational services—and 

in providing the necessary financial and human resources for that purpose.

Finally, we call on the American public to join in our commitment to improving 

the postsecondary institutions on which so much of our future—as individuals 

and as a nation—relies.

Working together, we can build on the past successes of U.S. higher 

education to create an improved and revitalized postsecondary system 

that is better tailored to the demands, as well as the opportunities, of a 

new century.
REFERENCES

28

1 Internal analysis by the U.S. Department of Labor, August 2006.

2 Jobs for the Future. 2006. Adult Learners in Higher Education: Barriers to Success and Strategies to Improve Results. 

Boston: Jobs for the Future.

3 Hecker, Daniel. November 2005. “Employment Outlook 2004–14: Occupational Employment Projections to 2014.” 

Monthly Labor Review: 70–101.

4 The College Board. 2005. Education Pays. Washington, D.C. The College Board.

5 Day, Jennifer C. and Eric C. Newburger. 2002. The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life 

Earnings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.

6 Snyder, Thomas D., ed. 2005. Digest of Education Statistics 2004, table 182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

7 Adelman, Clifford. 2004. Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in Postsecondary Education, 1972–2000. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

8 O’Donnell, Kevin. 2006. Adult Education Participation in 2004–05 (NCES 2006–077). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

9 Venezia, Andrea, Michael W. Kirst, and Anthony L. Antonio. 2003. “Betraying the College Dream: How Disconnected K–12 

and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspirations.” Final policy report from Stanford University’s Bridge 

Project. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research.

10 Seastrom, Marilyn, Lee Hoffman, Chris Chapman, and Robert Stillwell. 2005. The Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate for 

Public High Schools From the Common Core of Data: School Years 2001–02 and 2002–03 (NCES 2006–601). Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

11 Braswell, James S., Anthony D. Lutkus, Wendy S. Grigg, Shari L. Santapau, Brenda Tay-Lim, and Matthew Johnson. 2001. 

The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 2001–517). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics.

12 Grigg, Wendy S., Mary C. Daane, Ying Jin, and Jay R. Campbell. 2003. The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2002 (NCES 

2003–521). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center 

for Education Statistics.

13 Achieve, Inc. 2006. Closing the Expectations Gap. Washington, D.C.: Achieve, Inc.

14 ACT. 2005. Crisis at the Core: Preparing All Students for College and Work. Iowa City, Iowa: ACT.

15 The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2006. Companion survey of high school teachers and college faculty on students’ 

preparation for college. Results reported in Sanoff, Alvin. “A Perception Gap over Students’ Preparation.” The Chronicle of 

Higher Education, 10 March 2006: B9.

16 Adelman, Clifford. 2004. Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in Postsecondary Education, 1972–2000, table 

7.1, p. 90. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

17 Schmidt, Peter. “Powerful Forces Draw Academe Into the Fray.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10 March 2006: B4.

18 Breneman, David and Robert Costrell. 1998. Remediation in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham 

Foundation; Phipps, Ronald. 1998. College Remediation: What It Is, What It Costs, What’s at Stake. Washington, D.C.: 

Institute for Higher Education Policy.

19 The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2001. Access Denied: Restoring the Nation’s Commitment to 

Equal Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance.

20 Martinez, Monica and Shayna Klopott. 2005. The Link between High School Reform and College Access and Success for 

Low-Income and Minority Youth. Washington, D.C.: American Youth Policy Forum, Pathways to College Network.

21 Stoops, Nicole. 2004. Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003. (Current Population Reports P20-550). 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.

22 Gladieux, Lawrence E. 2004. Low-Income Students and the Affordability of Higher Education. In R.D. Kahlenberg, ed., 

America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education. New York: The Century Foundation Press.
REFERENCES continued

29

23 Internal analysis by Cliff Adelman, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, August 2006.

24 Horn, Laura and Stephanie Nevill. 2006. Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions: 2003–04, table 3.3, 

p. 87. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

25 Choy, Susan. 2002. Nontraditional Undergraduates (NCES 2002–012). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics.

26 Internal analysis by U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. August 2006.

27 The College Board. 2005. Trends in College Pricing. Washington, D.C.: The College Board.

28 State Higher Education Executive Officers. 2006. State Higher Education Finance FY 2005. Boulder, Colo.: SHEEO.

29 Boyd, Donald. 2005. State Fiscal Outlooks from 2005 to 2013: Implications for Higher Education. Boulder, Colo.: National 

Center for Higher Education Management Systems. 

30 Parker, Craig W. and Margaret L. O’Donnell. 2006. “Some Observations on the Federal Regulation of Higher Education.” 

Issue paper released by the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education.

31 Burgdorf, Barry D. 2006. “Eliminating Complexity and Inconsistency in Federal Financial Aid Programs for Higher Education 

Students: Towards a More Strategic Approach.” Testimony presented to the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the 

Future of Higher Education, Apr. 6, 2006.

32 Dynarski, Susan M. and Judith E. Scott-Clayton. 2006. The Cost of Complexity in Federal Student Aid:

Lessons from Optimal Tax Theory and Behavioral Economics. Unpublished manuscript.

33 Coles, Ann. 2005. “Non-Academic Issues Related to Improving College Access for Underserved Students.” Testimony 

presented to the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Dec. 9, 2005.

34 The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2002. Empty Promises: The Myth of College Access in America. 

Washington, D.C.: The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance.

35 The College Board. 2005. Trends in Student Aid. Washington, D.C.: The College Board.

36 The Project on Student Debt. 2006. Looking for Relief: Americans’ View of College Costs and Student Debt. Washington, 

D.C.: The Project on Student Debt.

37 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2005. Education at a Glance, tables A3.1, C2.2. Paris, 

France: OECD.

38 National Center for Education Statistics. 2006. The Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006-071), table 19-1, p. 152. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

39 Berkner, Lutz, Shirley He, and Emily F. Cataldi. 2003. Descriptive Summary of 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary Students: 

Six Year Later. Education Statistics Quarterly, 5(1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

40 Adelman, Clifford. 2006. The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College, table 32, 

p. 92. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

41 Business-Higher Education Forum. 1997. Spanning the Chasm: A Blueprint for Action. Washington, D.C.: BHEF.

42 Whitehurst, Grover J. 2005. Testimony presented to the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher 

Education, Dec. 8, 2005. 

43 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. 2004. Measuring Up 2004: The National Report on Higher 

Education. San Jose, Calif.: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

44 Whitehurst, Grover J. 2005. Testimony presented to the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher 

Education, Dec. 8, 2005. 

45 Schray, Vickie. 2006. “Assuring Quality in Higher Education: Recommendations for Improving Accreditation.” Issue paper 

released by the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Education.

46 Schiff, Eleanor. 2006. “Preparing the Health Workforce.” Issue paper released by the Secretary of Education’s Commission 

on the Future of Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
3

CHARTER

A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s 

Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Authority

A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s 

Commission on the Future of Higher Education (Commission) 

is established by the Secretary of Education and governed by 

the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 

(P.L. 92-463, as amended; 5 U.S.C.A. Appendix 2).

Background

Higher education in the United States encompasses a wide 

array of educational opportunities and programs. Students 

attend institutions of higher education offering programs 

that range from baccalaureate and advanced degrees to 

occupational training of less than one year. The Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, has benefited millions 

of students by making higher education more affordable and 

ensuring its quality. As we look to the future, it is imperative 

that we maintain a system of higher education that meets 

the needs of our diverse population, and in particular the 

needs of traditionally underserved communities; provides 

enhanced opportunities for lifelong learning; and addresses 

the economic and workforce needs of the country. 

In particular, the country is encountering a significant change 

to its economic structure, resulting in unmet workforce needs. 

This is particularly true with respect to highly skilled workers 

and in the fields of mathematics and science. The need is 

clear and unavoidable: only 68 out of 100 entering 9th graders 

graduate from high school on time. Yet, 80 percent of our 

fastest-growing jobs will require some higher education. As the 

need for highly skilled workers continues to grow, institutions of 

higher education must assess whether they are providing the 

necessary coursework and incentives that will enable American 

students to compete in the new global economy. 

Purpose and Functions

The purpose of the Commission is to consider how best to 

improve our system of higher education to ensure that our 

graduates are well prepared to meet our future workforce 

needs and are able to participate fully in the changing 

economy. To accomplish this purpose, the Commission 

shall consider Federal, state, local, and institutional roles 

in higher education and analyze whether the current goals 

of higher education are appropriate and achievable. By 

August 1, 2006, the Commission will provide its written 

recommendations to the Secretary.

Structure

The Commission will be composed of no more than 20 

representatives appointed by the Secretary from the public 

and private sectors, as well as several ex officio members 

from the Department of Education and other Federal 

agencies. These representatives shall include former or 

current public and private college presidents, and may also 

include former elected officials, representatives of Fortune 

500 corporations, the financial services industry, for-profit 

education companies, nonprofit education foundations, higher 

education researchers and other such group representatives 

as the Secretary deems appropriate. As representatives, the 

members will speak for the groups of persons they represent, 

drawing on their personal experience as members of these 

groups with respect to these issues. 

The Secretary shall appoint members for the life of the 

Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect 

its powers but shall be filled in the same manner as the 

original appointment. The Secretary shall select one or more 

chairpersons from among the members of the Commission.

The Secretary names the Designated Federal Official (DFO) 

to the Commission. The Institute of Education Sciences, 

A

Appendix
3

the Office of Postsecondary Education, and the Office of the 

Secretary will provide management and staff support.

Meetings

The Commission will conduct at least three (3) meetings in 

different parts of the country to obtain a public discussion 

of the issues. In furtherance of its duties, the Commission 

shall invite experts and members of the public to provide 

information and guidance.

The Commission shall meet at the call of the DFO or the 

DFO’s designee, who is present at all meetings. Meetings are 

open to the public except as may be determined otherwise 

by the Secretary in accordance with Section 10(d) of the 

FACA. Adequate public notification will be given in advance 

of each meeting. Meetings are conducted and records of the 

proceedings kept, as required by applicable laws.

A quorum of the Commission consists of eight members. 

A lesser number of members may hold public meetings.

Estimated Annual Cost

Members will serve without compensation. Members 

may each receive reimbursement for travel expenses for 

attending Commission meetings, including per diem in 

lieu of subsistence, as authorized by the Federal travel 

regulations. Funds will be provided by the Department of 

Education to administer the Commission. The estimated 

annual person-years of staff support are three (3) Full Time 

Equivalents. The estimated one-fiscal year non-pay cost will 

be approximately $700,000.

Report

As representatives, the Commission’s members will work 

independently of Departmental supervision to produce 

their report. The Commission’s written report will address 

how best to improve our system of higher education, from 

increasing academic preparation in secondary school to 

building transitions for students between secondary school, 

higher education, and the workplace. Recommendations will 

be targeted at ensuring that our graduates are well prepared 

to meet our changing workforce needs and are able to 

participate fully in the new economy. 

The Commission’s report shall address the following 

questions. In addressing these questions, the report should 

address the appropriate roles for the various participants and 

how they intersect with one another. 

How can State and local governments, with the assistance 

and encouragement of the Department of Education, better 

align secondary and higher education systems?

What changes are needed to ensure that higher education 

remains both affordable and accessible to students and 

their families?

What should be done to promote, sustain, and enhance 

world-class research and intellectual discourse? 

How well are institutions of higher education preparing our 

students, especially nontraditional students and lifelong 

learners, to compete in the new global economy? What must 

be done to ensure that our system of higher education is able 

to keep up with the demand for highly skilled workers? How 

can the business community, other public and private sector 

organizations, and the higher education community work 

together to accomplish this goal?

Termination

The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submitting 

its report.

The Commission is hereby chartered in accordance with 

Section 14(b) of FACA. This charter expires two years from 

the date of filing or before as the Secretary determines.

Approved:

 

Date Secretary

 

Filing date: 
3

Commissioners

Nicholas Donofrio 

Executive Vice President, Innovation and Technology

IBM Corporation

Nick Donofrio is a renowned business leader and the 

architect of IBM’s global innovation and technology strategy. 

A 42-year IBM veteran, he is a tireless champion of the 

engineering and technical professions, and personally 

commits hundreds of hours each year to work with women 

and underrepresented minorities to enrich the technical 

professions around the world with a diversity of culture and 

thought. Among the many milestones accomplished under 

Donofrio’s leadership, IBM has generated more patents

than any other company for 13 consecutive years, entered 

a ground-breaking research partnership with the National 

Geographic Society to map how humankind populated the 

planet, and developed and nurtured one of the largest and 

most capable technical talent pools in the industrial world. 

Donofrio earned a B.S. degree in electrical engineering 

from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a M.S. degree in 

the same discipline from Syracuse University. He has been 

awarded numerous honorary degrees and is a member of the 

National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of 

Arts and Sciences and the Royal Academy of Engineering in 

the United Kingdom.

James J. Duderstadt 

President Emeritus and University Professor of Science and 

Engineering

Director, The Millennium Project

After receiving a B.Eng. degree in electrical engineering 

from Yale in 1964 and a Ph.D. in engineering science from 

the California Institute of Technology in 1967, Duderstadt 

joined the University of Michigan in 1968 as a professor of 

nuclear engineering. He later served as dean of engineering 

in 1981, provost in 1986, and president of the university 

in 1988, returning to the faculty as university professor of 

science and engineering in 1996. His teaching and research 

interests have spanned a wide range of subjects in science, 

mathematics, and engineering, including work in areas such 

as nuclear fission reactors, thermonuclear fusion, highpowered lasers, computer simulation, science policy, higher 

education, and information technology. Duderstadt has 

as served in various public policy roles including member 

and chair of the National Science Board (1984 to 1996) 

while chairing various studies and advisory groups for the 

Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and 

the National Academies.

Gerri Elliott

Corporate Vice President

Worldwide Public Sector

Microsoft Corporation

Gerri Elliott is corporate vice president of Microsoft’s 

Worldwide Public Sector organization, which includes 

more than 1,200 sales professionals. She is responsible 

for strengthening customer and partner outreach within 

government, education and non-privatized healthcare 

markets in more than 75 countries worldwide. Prior to 

assuming her current role in October 2004, Elliott led 

Microsoft’s U.S. Enterprise Sales segment where she 

was responsible for software sales across several vertical 

industries including financial services, retail and hospitality, 

automotive and healthcare as well as three geographic 

regions across the U.S. A 22-year veteran of IBM, Elliott held 

several senior executive positions focused on customers 

within Asia Pacific, North and South America, including 

vice president of distribution sector, Asia Pacific, and vice 

president, distribution sector, IBM Americas. She received her 

B.A. degree in International Politics from New York University.

B

Appendix

COMMISSION and Staff ROSTER AND BIOGRAPHIES
3

Jonathan Grayer 

Chairman and CEO 

Kaplan, Inc. 

Jonathan Grayer is chairman and CEO of Kaplan, Inc., one 

of the world’s leading providers of educational services. 

Grayer has overseen Kaplan’s expansion from an $80 million 

test preparation company in 1994 to a diverse education 

corporation with more than $1.4 billion in revenue in 2005. 

Kaplan has 900,000 students, 23,000 employees and more 

than 4,000 classroom locations. In an era of globalization, 

technological advancements and education reform, Grayer’s 

vision is helping to transform the for-profit education industry. 

Under his leadership, Kaplan has embraced an aggressive, 

outcomes-based approach that has served as a model in the 

education community. Kaplan is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

the Washington Post Company. Grayer joined Kaplan in 1991 

and held several key positions before being named president 

and CEO of Kaplan in 1994, and chairman and CEO in 2002. 

He received an A.B. degree from Harvard College and an 

M.B.A. degree from Harvard Business School.

Kati Haycock 

Director

The Education Trust

Kati Haycock is one of the nation’s leading child advocates 

in the field of education and she has served as director of 

the Education Trust since 1992. Previously, Haycock served 

as executive vice president of the Children’s Defense Fund, 

the nation’s largest child advocacy organization. A native 

Californian, Haycock founded and served as president 

of the Achievement Council, a statewide organization 

that provides assistance to teachers and principals in 

predominately minority schools in improving student 

achievement. She also served as director of the Outreach 

and Student Affirmative Action programs for the ninecampus University of California system. Haycock received 

her B.A. degree from the University of California, Santa 

Barbara, and her M.A. degree in Education Policy from the 

University of California, Berkeley.

James B. Hunt, Jr. 

Governor of North Carolina (1977–85; 1993–2001)

Chairman, James B. Hunt, Jr. Institute for Educational 

Leadership and Policy

Serving a historic four terms as governor, Jim Hunt is a 

nationally recognized leader in education who led North 

Carolina through 20 years of education reform and economic 

growth. His early childhood Smart Start program won the 

prestigious Innovations in American Government Award. In 

K–12 education, Governor Hunt led his state in setting high 

standards and rigorous accountability. During the decade 

of the 1990s, North Carolina raised NAEP scores more 

than any other state in America. He also set high standards 

and pay for teachers and was the founding chairman of the 

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards where 

he served for ten years. Governor Hunt serves as chairman 

of the board for the National Center on Public Policy and 

Higher Education in San Jose, Calif., the Hunt Institute for 

Educational Leadership and Policy within the University 

of North Carolina, and the Institute for Emerging Issues at 

North Carolina State University. Governor Hunt is a partner 

in the large Southeastern U.S. law firm of Womble Carlyle 

Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, in Raleigh, N.C. He holds B.A. and 

M.S. degrees from North Carolina State University and a J.D. 

from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Arturo Madrid 

Murchison Distinguished Professor of Humanities

Trinity University

Arturo Madrid is the Norine R. and T. Frank Murchison 

distinguished professor of the humanities at Trinity University 

and the recipient of the Charles Frankel Prize in the 

Humanities. Madrid has served as the founding president of 

the Tomás Rivera Center, the nation’s first institute for policy 

studies on Latino issues. He has also served as director of 

the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education 

(FIPSE) as well as national director of the Ford Foundation’s 

Graduate Fellowship Program for Mexican Americans, Native 

Americans and Puerto Ricans. He is an elected fellow of the 

Council on Foreign Relations and of the National Academy 

for Public Administration. Madrid received a B.A. degree from 

the University of New Mexico and holds a Ph.D. in Hispanic 

Languages and Literatures from the University of California, 

Los Angles as well as several honorary degrees. 
3

Robert Mendenhall

President 

Western Governors University 

Robert Mendenhall is the president of Western Governors 

University (WGU). Established in 1997, WGU is a private, 

not-for-profit, online university offering degrees based on 

demonstrating competency, rather than on credit hours or 

clock hours. It was founded and is supported by 19 governors 

as well as 23 leading corporations and foundations, and is 

the only regionally accredited competency-based university. 

WGU currently offers bachelor’s and master’s degrees 

in business, information technology and K–12 teacher 

education, with students in all 50 states and nine countries. 

Mendenhall has more than 25 years of experience in 

technology-based education, serving as general manager of 

IBM’s K–12 education division, and as founder, president and 

CEO of Wicat Systems, a publicly traded company providing 

computer-based curriculum and instructional management to 

K–12 schools, and technology-based training to government 

and industry. Mendenhall has a Ph.D. in instructional 

psychology and technology from Brigham Young University.

Charles Miller, Chairman

Private Investor

Former Chairman of the Board of Regents 

University of Texas System

Charles Miller is the former chairman of the University of 

Texas System Board of Regents. During his tenure as 

chairman, Miller took the lead toward developing better 

higher education accountability systems, to be matched with 

deregulation and institutional autonomy. He also fostered 

strategies to generate significant increases in research 

funding, enrollment, patient care, private contributions and 

tuition revenues, while increasing financial aid. Miller has had 

a long-standing interest in education and served as chairman 

of the Texas Education Policy Center, which designed the 

public school accountability system for Texas. He also served 

as chairman of the Education Committee of the Governor’s 

Business Council during Governor Bush’s term and was 

a member of the Bush-Cheney Transition Team. Miller is 

chairman emeritus of the board of directors of the Greater 

Houston Partnership and has been very active in civic, 

business and educational organizations. He has had a long 

and successful career in investment management and is a 

private investor in Houston, Texas. Miller received a B.A. 

degree in mathematics from the University of Texas, Austin.

Charlene Nunley

President

Montgomery College

Charlene Nunley is the president of Montgomery College, a 

multi-campus community college in Montgomery County, Md., 

just outside the nation’s capital. The college’s diverse student 

population is made up of more than 50,000 students in credit 

and noncredit programs. Nunley is a staunch advocate for 

preserving the open access mission of community colleges. 

She led a statewide task force that examined capacity 

challenges facing Maryland’s public colleges and universities, 

an effort that contributed to the recent adoption of legislation 

to enhance state funding for community colleges. To preserve 

access at her own institution, she led efforts to expand and 

enhance facilities at all three campuses of Montgomery 

College. Additionally, to broaden educational opportunities in 

Montgomery County, Nunley also led efforts to build model 

partnerships between the college and the local school district, 

Montgomery County Public Schools—one of the nation’s 

largest and most outstanding school systems, as well as 

with the University of Maryland. As president, she has led 

Montgomery College into the top five community colleges 

nationally in private fundraising for several consecutive years. 

Prior to her tenure as president, she served in several other 

key posts at Montgomery College. Nunley received a B.A. 

and M.Ed. degrees from Pennsylvania State University and a 

Ph.D. from the George Washington University.

Catherine B. Reynolds 

CEO and Chairman

Educap, Inc

Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation

Catherine B. Reynolds is chairman and Chief Executive 

Officer of EduCap, Inc. and chairman and Chief Executive 

Officer of Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation. Featured 

in Business Week magazine as one of the 50 most 

philanthropic living Americans, Reynolds helped to create 

the private education loan market that provides affordable 

financing for millions of students to attend college. 

She is the vice chairman of the American Academy of 
3

Achievement and has served as the host chairman of 

its annual International Achievement Summit since its 

inaugural gathering in Budapest, Hungary. She has been 

active in community affairs, serving as a major benefactor 

of a number of organizations, including the National Gallery 

of Art, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 

Arts, Morehouse College and the Catherine B. Reynolds 

Foundation Fellowship in Social Entrepreneurship at 

Harvard University and New York University. Reynolds 

was recently appointed as chairman of the Dance Theatre 

of Harlem. A native of Jacksonville, Fla., Reynolds is a 

graduate of Vanderbilt University.

Arthur J. Rothkopf 

Senior Vice President and Counselor to the President

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Arthur J. Rothkopf has served as senior vice president and 

counselor to the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

since 2005. One of his principal responsibilities is to manage 

the Chamber’s initiative on workforce development and 

education. From 1993–2005, Rothkopf served as president of 

Lafayette College, a highly selective undergraduate college 

of liberal arts and engineering. Rothkopf is past board chair 

of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the 

Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of 

Pennsylvania. Rothkopf has held numerous key posts within 

the federal government including deputy secretary of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), general counsel 

for DOT and staff lawyer at the Securities and Exchange 

Commission. Additionally, Rothkopf was a senior partner in 

Hogan & Hartson, Washington’s largest law firm. Rothkopf 

earned his undergraduate degree from Lafayette College and 

received a J.D. from Harvard University.

Richard Stephens 

Senior Vice President

Human Resources and Administration

The Boeing Company

Richard (Rick) Stephens is senior vice president, Human 

Resources and Administration for the Boeing Company 

and is a member of the Boeing Executive Council. In 

a career with Boeing that spans 26 years, he has led 

a number of businesses, involving homeland security, 

communications, reusable space systems and space 

shuttle, naval systems, missile systems, submarine combat 

systems, and a number of service and support-related 

programs. Stephens serves on a number of nonprofit and 

business focused boards and has been recognized for his 

long-standing leadership to local and national organizations 

regarding the use of science and technology education 

programs to develop the workforce of the future. Stephens is 

an enrolled member of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, and 

served as its chairman from 1988–89. A former U.S. Marine 

Corps officer, and published author, Stephens received his 

B.S degree in mathematics from the University of Southern 

California and his M.S. degree in computer science from 

California State University, Fullerton.

Louis W. Sullivan, M.D. 

President Emeritus, Morehouse School of Medicine

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services 1989-1993 

In 1975 Louis W. Sullivan was the founding dean and 

first president of Morehouse School of Medicine (MSM). 

With the exception of his tenure as secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from 1989 

to 1993, Dr. Sullivan was president of MSM for more than 

two decades. Prior to assuming the presidency at MSM, 

Sullivan served as an instructor at Harvard Medical School, 

and professor of medicine at Seton Hall College of Medicine 

and Boston University School of Medicine. In 1989, after 

Senate confirmation, Sullivan became Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, the federal 

agency responsible for the major health, welfare, food and 

drug safety, medical research and income security programs 

serving the American people. Sullivan serves as chairman on 

numerous national boards including: the Sullivan Alliance on 

Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce, the President’s Board 

of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 

and co-chair of the President’s Commission on HIV and 

AIDS. A native of Atlanta, Sullivan graduated magna cum 

laude from Morehouse College and cum laude from Boston 

University School of Medicine. He is certified in internal 

medicine and hematology.
3

Sara Martinez Tucker 

President and CEO 

Hispanic Scholarship Fund 

Sara Martinez Tucker is president and chief executive 

officer of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF). In 2005,

Time magazine named her one of the 25 most influential 

Hispanics in America. In her time at the helm of HSF, Tucker 

has generated funds for almost $135 million in scholarships 

to more than 39,000 students, clearly establishing HSF as 

our country’s premier Hispanic higher education organization. 

Recognizing that scholarships alone will not get HSF 

to its goal, she led the launch of community outreach 

programs to raise college expectations in Latino families 

and communities. To date, these programs have directly 

touched more than 65,000 students, parents, HSF alumni 

and community members. Prior to joining HSF in 1997, she 

spent 16 years at AT&T, becoming the first Latina to reach 

the company’s executive level. Tucker also served as vice 

president for Consumer Operations, a $370 million operation 

with 6,500 employees serving AT&T’s 80 million consumers. 

Under her leadership, this group contributed to the division’s 

receipt of the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award. A native of 

Laredo, Texas, Tucker received her undergraduate and MBA 

degrees from the University of Texas, Austin.

Richard Vedder 

Distinguished Professor of Economics, Ohio University

Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Richard Vedder is distinguished professor of economics 

at Ohio University and a visiting scholar at the American 

Enterprise Institute. He has won many awards for teaching 

undergraduate students (which he has done for over 40 

years), and is the author of numerous books, including The 

American Economy in Historical Perspective, Out of Work: 

Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America 

(with Lowell Gallaway), Going Broke by Degree: Why College 

Costs Too Much, and the forthcoming The Wal-Mart Revolution 

(with Wendell Cox), as well as some 200 scholarly essays and 

papers. Vedder serves as the director of the newly created 

Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) and he 

has been a visiting professor at several universities, including 

serving as John M. Olin visiting professor of labor economics 

and public policy at Washington University in St. Louis. 

Vedder has served as an economist with the Joint Economic 

Committee of Congress, and has advised numerous political 

leaders of public policy matters, including Russian President 

Vladimir Putin. He writes extensively in the popular press 

(e.g., Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor’s Business 

Daily, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Christian Science 

Monitor). Vedder completed his undergraduate education 

at Northwestern University and received his Ph.D. from the 

University of Illinois.

Charles M. Vest

President Emeritus

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Charles M. Vest was president of MIT from 1990 until 

December 2004. During his presidency, he placed special 

emphasis on enhancing undergraduate education, exploring 

new organizational forms to meet emerging directions in 

research and education, building a stronger international 

dimension into education and research programs, developing 

stronger relations with industry, and enhancing racial and 

cultural diversity at MIT. He also devoted considerable 

energy to bringing issues concerning education and research 

to broader public attention and to strengthening national 

policy on science, engineering and education. His research 

interests have focused on the thermal sciences and the 

engineering applications of lasers and coherent optics. Vest 

has been a member of several government commissions 

and task forces including service on the President’s 

Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United 

States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Vest 

earned his B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from West 

Virginia University and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the 

University of Michigan. Additionally, he is a life member of the 

MIT Corporation, the institute’s board of trustees.

David Ward 

President

American Council on Education

A leading spokesperson for American higher education, 

David Ward became the 11th president of the American 

Council on Education (ACE) on Sept. 1, 2001. ACE is the 

major umbrella organization for all of the nation’s higher 

education institutions that strives to provide a unified voice 

on higher education issues to policy makers. Prior to his 

appointment at ACE, Ward served as a faculty member 
3

and then held several top administrative posts before being 

named chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison 

in 1993, a position he held until 2001. Under his leadership 

at UW-Madison, Ward led the development of a strategic 

plan that improved the quality of undergraduate education 

there; added to the campus research facilities; enhanced the 

connections between the university, the city, the business 

community, and the state; and creatively combined public and 

private support for the institution. Ward has held numerous 

visiting appointments at universities around the world. He 

completed his undergraduate education and master’s work 

at the University of Leeds, U.K., and received a Ph.D. at the 

University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

Robert Zemsky 

Chair and Professor

The Learning Alliance for Higher Education

University of Pennsylvania

Robert Zemsky currently serves as chair of the Learning 

Alliance for Higher Education, a broad coalition of 

organizations and firms assisting institutions in implementing 

their change agendas. From 1980 through 2000, Zemsky 

served as the founding director of the University of 

Pennsylvania’s Institute for Research on Higher Education, 

one of this country’s major public policy centers specializing 

in educational research and analysis. In his research 

Zemsky pioneered the use of market analyses for higher 

education as well as the importance of purposeful change. 

From 1990 through 1995, Zemsky served as co-director 

of the National Center on the Educational Quality of the 

Workforce and later as a senior scholar with the National 

Center for Postsecondary Improvement. He is currently a 

trustee of Franklin and Marshall College and a member of the 

National Advisory Board for the National Survey of Student 

Engagement (NSSE). Zemsky received his B.A. degree from 

Whittier College and his Ph.D. in history from Yale University.

Ex Officio Members

Samuel Bodman

Secretary

U.S. Department of Energy

Samuel Wright Bodman was sworn in as the 11th secretary 

of energy on February 1, 2005 after the United States 

Senate unanimously confirmed him on January 31, 2005. 

He leads the Department of Energy with a budget in excess 

of $23 billion and over 100,000 federal and contractor 

employees. Previously, Bodman served as deputy secretary 

of the Treasury beginning in February 2004. He also served 

the Bush administration as the deputy secretary of the 

Department of Commerce beginning in 2001. A financier 

and executive by trade with three decades of experience in 

the private sector, Bodman graduated in 1961 with a B.S. 

degree in chemical engineering from Cornell University and 

completed his Sc.D. degree at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology in 1965.

Raymond Orbach, designee for Samuel Bodman

Under Secretary for Science

U.S. Department of Energy

Raymond Lee Orbach was sworn in as the department’s first 

under secretary for science on June 1, 2006, and he has 

served as director of the DOE Office of Science since March 

2002. As under secretary for science, Orbach is responsible 

for planning, coordinating and overseeing the Energy 

Department’s research and development programs and its 17 

national laboratories, as well as the Department’s scientific 

and engineering education activities. Orbach manages an 

organization that is the third largest federal sponsor of basic 

research in the United States and is viewed as one of the 

premier science organizations in the world. He oversees 

$3.6 billion in funds for research in high energy and nuclear 

physics, basic energy sciences, magnetic fusion energy, 

biological and environmental research, and computational 

science, which supports scientists at more than 300 colleges 

and universities nationwide. Prior to his service at DOE, 

Orbach served as chancellor of the University of California, 

Riverside from 1992-2002 during a period of continued 

expansion for the university. Orbach is a committed educator 

and has held numerous visiting professorships at universities 
3

around the world and has received several professional 

awards for his scholarship. Orbach completed his 

undergraduate education in physics at the California Institute 

of Technology and earned a Ph.D. from the University of 

California, Berkeley. 

Elaine Chao

Secretary

U.S. Department of Labor

Elaine L. Chao is the nation’s 24th secretary of labor, 

representing a new generation of American leadership. 

Since her confirmation by the United States Senate on 

January 29, 2001, she has been dedicated to carrying 

out the Department of Labor’s mission of inspiring and 

protecting the hardworking people of America. She is 

respected as an effective and articulate champion of the 

nation’s contemporary workforce, acting quickly to focus the 

Labor Department on the modern realities of workers’ lives. 

Chao’s previous government career includes serving as the 

deputy secretary at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, and 

deputy maritime administrator in the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. She received her M.B.A. degree from the 

Harvard Business School and her undergraduate degree in 

economics from Mount Holyoke College. 

Emily Stover DeRocco, designee for Elaine Chao

Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training 

Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

As assistant secretary for employment and training, Emily 

Stover DeRocco is responsible for managing a $10 billion 

budget that funds the country’s public workforce investment 

system. DeRocco has made it her purpose to develop 

a “demand driven” workforce investment system, which 

links employment, education, and economic development. 

Her belief is that only by effectively equipping workers 

with the skills that are needed by employers, and better 

understanding the workforce needs of business, can we 

create the highly skilled workforce needed to be globally 

competitive in the 21st century. Before her appointment 

as assistant secretary, DeRocco spent over ten years 

as executive director of the National Association of 

State Workforce Agencies. During President Reagan’s 

administration, she held several executive positions at the 

Departments of the Interior and Energy. DeRocco earned a 

B.A. degree from Pennsylvania State University and a J.D. 

from Georgetown Law Center.

Carlos Gutierrez

Secretary

U.S. Department of Commerce

Carlos M. Gutierrez is the 35th secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, the voice of business in 

government. The former chairman of the board and chief 

executive officer of Kellogg Company, Gutierrez was sworn 

into office on February 7, 2005. Born in Havana, Cuba, he 

came to the United States with his family in 1960. In 1975 he 

joined Kellogg as a sales representative. Rising to president 

and chief executive officer in 1999, he was the youngest 

CEO in the company’s nearly 100-year history. In April 2000, 

he was named chairman of the board of Kellogg Company. 

Gutierrez studied business administration at the Monterrey 

Institute of Technology in Queretaro, Mexico. 

John Bailey, designee for Carlos Gutierrez

Deputy Policy Director

U.S. Department of Commerce

John Bailey is the deputy policy director for the U.S. 

Department of Commerce. He serves as the secretary’s 

principal policy advisor on issues related to immigration, 

innovation, pandemic influenza, and health care. He has also 

served at the Department of Education, directing the Office 

of Educational Technology and, while there, established a 

research agenda of more than $56 million over five years 

including the first national long-term study of technology’s 

impact on teaching and learning. Bailey previously worked 

for former Governor Tom Ridge. He received his B.A. degree 

in policy studies from Dickinson College and attended the 

Kennedy School of Government’s Executive Program for 

State and Local Government.
39

Donald Rumsfeld

Secretary

U.S. Department of Defense

Donald H. Rumsfeld was sworn in as the 21st secretary 

of defense on January 20, 2001. Before assuming his 

present post, the former Navy pilot had also served as 

the 13th secretary of defense, White House chief of staff, 

U.S. ambassador to NATO, U.S. congressman, and chief 

executive officer of two Fortune 500 companies. Under 

Rumsfeld’s leadership, the department has developed a new 

defense strategy and replaced the old model for sizing forces 

with a newer approach more relevant to the 21st century. He 

has received numerous honors and awards, including the 

Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian 

award. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic 

and NROTC scholarships and served in the U.S. Navy as an 

aviator and flight instructor.

William Berry, designee for Donald Rumsfeld

Director for Basic Research

Office of the Director of Defense, Research and Engineering

U.S. Department of Defense

As the director for basic research, Berry is responsible for 

providing scientific leadership, management oversight, 

policy guidance and coordination of the $1.3 billion yearly 

basic research programs of the Military Services and 

Defense Agencies. In this capacity, Berry has cognizance 

over the complete spectrum of basic research. In addition, 

he is responsible for science, technology, engineering and 

mathematics education and workforce issues, policy for 

grants. Prior to his current position, he has held numerous 

other positions within the Department of Defense. Berry’s 

research publications are in the fields of environmental 

toxicology and neuroscience. Berry earned a B.S. degree 

in Biology from Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, a 

M.A.T. degree in zoology from Miami University, Ohio, and 

a Ph.D. in zoology and biochemistry from the University of 

Vermont, Burlington. 

David Dunn (April 2006–September 2006)

Acting Under Secretary and Chief of Staff

U.S. Department of Education

President Bush appointed David Dunn acting under secretary 

at the U.S. Department of Education in January 2006. In 

this role, Dunn oversees policies, programs and activities 

related to vocational and adult education, postsecondary 

education, college aid and the president’s financial reforms 

for the Pell Grant program. Dunn is also the chief of staff 

to U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Prior to 

coming to the U.S. Department of Education, Dunn served 

as special assistant to the president for domestic policy at 

the White House Domestic Policy Council. Before working in 

Washington, D.C., Dunn served as the Associate Executive 

Director of the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB). 

Dunn has a B.A. degree in political science from Baylor 

University and an M.A. degree in government from the 

University of Texas at Austin.

Sally Stroup (October 2005–April 2006)

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

U.S. Department of Education 

Sally Stroup served as assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education. She advised the U.S. Secretary of Education 

on all matters related to postsecondary education. In this 

capacity, Stroup coordinated Department programs relating 

to financial assistance for eligible students enrolled in higher 

education institutions and recommended policies to recruit 

and prepare disadvantaged students to enroll and complete 

postsecondary education programs. Before joining the 

Department, Stroup served as the director of industry and 

government affairs for the Apollo Group Inc. (University 

of Phoenix). From 1993 to 2001, she was a professional 

staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce. She completed 

her undergraduate education at Indiana University of 

Pennsylvania and received a J.D. from Loyola University 

School of Law in New Orleans.
40

Staff

Cheryl Oldham

Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer

Cheryl Oldham came to the U.S. Department of Education in 

January 2003 from the White House. Prior to her appointment 

as executive director of the commission, she served as the 

director, Office of White House Liaison. As liaison she oversaw 

the political personnel process, advised the secretary, and 

served as the White House’s contact to the department on 

matters of personnel and political affairs. During her tenure 

at the White House, Oldham served in both the Presidential 

Personnel and Cabinet Affairs offices. She received her J.D. 

from St. Mary’s University School of Law and her B.A. degree 

from Texas Christian University. 

Vickie Schray

Deputy Director for Management and Planning

For more than 20 years, Vickie Schray has dedicated her 

career to improving secondary and postsecondary education 

and has led state and national initiatives to develop standards 

and assessments, accountability systems, curriculum 

reform models, and public-private partnerships. For the past 

eight years she has worked in a variety of roles at the U.S. 

Department of Education. In previous assignments, she led the 

department’s effort to implement a new vision for career and 

technical education and implement performance measurement 

and accountability systems at the state and local level. Prior 

to joining the commission staff she worked for the Executive 

Secretariat in the Office of the Secretary. She received her B.S. 

degree from Oregon State University and her M.S. degree from 

Portland State University. She began her career as a business 

and management teacher and administrator at the secondary 

and postsecondary levels.

Eleanor L. Schiff

Deputy Director for Research and External Affairs

Eleanor Schiff spent several years working at the White House 

prior to her appointment at the U.S. Department of Education. 

She has also worked at the Department of Health and Human 

Services and the U.S. Senate. In addition, she has worked in 

college admissions and as a substitute English teacher. She 

received her B.A. degree at Carleton College and has pursued 

graduate work at the George Washington University.

Kristen Vetri

Chief of Staff

Prior to joining the commission, Kristen Vetri served as deputy 

chief of staff for the Office of Postsecondary Education at the 

U.S. Department of Education. As deputy chief of staff, Vetri 

assisted in personnel management and travel operations for the 

office. She graduated from James Madison University with a 

B.A. degree in political science.

Archie P. Cubarrubia

Senior Analyst

Before joining the U.S. Department of Education, Archie 

Cubarrubia coordinated new student orientation, transition, 

and retention programs at the University of Rhode Island. 

Cubarrubia has also served as coordinator of new student 

programs at Northern Arizona University and Boston University. 

He earned his B.S. degree in health studies and Ed.M. degree 

in higher education administration from Boston University. He is 

currently a doctoral candidate in higher education administration 

at the George Washington University.
41

In order to advance the work of the Secretary of 

Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher 

Education, Chairman Charles Miller asked that a series 

of issues papers on key topics affecting the work of the 

Commission be produced. These papers were authored 

by various experts and their purpose was to spark a 

national dialogue, educate the public, generate debate, 

and inform the work of the Commission surrounding key 

postsecondary issues. These papers did not represent 

the opinions of the Commissioners; the papers were not 

formal recommendations by the Commission nor were they 

intended to reflect the views of the U.S. Department 

of Education.

Burgdorf, Barry and Kent Kostka. 2006. A National 

Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on 

the Future of Higher Education, Issue Paper, “Eliminating 

Complexity and Inconsistency in Federal Financial Aid 

Programs for Higher Education Students: Towards a More 

Strategic Approach.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/

hiedfuture/reports/burgdorf-kostka.pdf.

Dickeson, Robert. 2006. A National Dialogue: The 

Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future 

of Higher Education, Issue Paper, “Frequently Asked 

Questions About College Costs.” Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/

bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/dickeson2.pdf.

Dickeson, Robert. 2006. A National Dialogue: The 

Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of 

Higher Education, Issue Paper, “The Need for Accreditation 

Reform.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/

dickeson.pdf.

Jones, Dennis. 2006. A National Dialogue: The Secretary 

of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher 

Education, Issue Paper, “State Shortfalls Projected to 

Continue Despite Economic Gains; Long-Term Prospects 

for Higher Education No Brighter.” Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/

bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/jones.pdf.

Kirst, Michael and Andrea Venezia. 2006. A National 

Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on 

the Future of Higher Education, Issue Paper, “Improving 

College Readiness and Success for All Students: A 

Joint Responsibility Between K–12 and Postsecondary 

Education.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/

hiedfuture/reports/kirst-venezia.pdf.

Miller, Charles. 2006. A National Dialogue: The Secretary 

of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher 

Education, Issue Paper, “Accountability/Consumer 

Information.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/

hiedfuture/reports/miller.pdf.

Miller, Charles and Geri Malandra. 2006. A National 

Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the 

Future of Higher Education, Issue Paper, “Accountability/

Assessment.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/

hiedfuture/reports/miller-malandra.pdf.

Miller, Charles and Cheryl Oldham. 2006. A National 

Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on 

the Future of Higher Education, Issue Paper, “Setting the 

Context.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/

miller-oldham.pdf.

C

Appendix

ISSUE PAPERS
42

Parker, Craig W. and Margaret L. O’Donnell. 2006. A 

National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission 

on the Future of Higher Education, Issue Paper, “Federal 

Regulation of Higher Education.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/

list/hiedfuture/reports/parker.pdf.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher 

Education. 2006. A National Dialogue: The Secretary of 

Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 

Issue Paper, “Income of U.S. Workforce Projected to 

Decline if Education Doesn’t Improve.” Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/

bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/equity.pdf.

Schiff, Eleanor. 2006. A National Dialogue: The Secretary of 

Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 

Issue Paper, “Preparing the Health Workforce.” Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/

about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/schiff.pdf.

Schray, Vickie. 2006. A National Dialogue: The Secretary 

of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher 

Education, Issue Paper, “Assuring Quality in Higher 

Education: Key Issues and Questions for Changing 

Accreditation in the United States.” Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/

bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/schray.pdf.

Schray, Vickie. 2006. A National Dialogue: The Secretary of 

Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 

Issue Paper, “Assuring Quality in Higher Education: 

Recommendations for Improving Accreditation.” Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/

about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/schray2.pdf.

Stokes, Peter. 2006. A National Dialogue: The Secretary of 

Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 

Issue Paper, “Hidden in Plain Sight: Adult Learners Forge 

a New Tradition in Higher Education.” Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/

bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/stokes.pdf.

Wellman, Jane. 2006. A National Dialogue: The Secretary of 

Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 

Issue Paper, “Costs, Prices and Affordability.” Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/

about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/wellman.pdf.
43

Information was received in many forms: white papers, testimony, opinion pieces, research reports on topics relevant to the 

work of the Commission and also reviewed reports of past blue-ribbon commissions.

Organizations

Academy One Navigating Education System

Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology

Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology

Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training

Achieve, Inc.

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance

American Association of Colleges of Nursing 

American Association of Community Colleges

American Dental Education Association

American Productivity and Quality Center

Appalachian State University 

Association of American Medical Colleges

Association for Consortium Leadership

Association on Higher Education and Disability

Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

American Association of University Professors 

American Association of University Women of Washington

American College Health Association

American Council of Trustees and Alumni

American Council on Education

American Indian Science and Engineering Society

American InterContinental University – London

Anti-Defamation League 

Arizona State University

Associated Students of Oregon State University

Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools Accreditation Commission

Association of American Colleges and Universities

Association of American Universities

Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors

Bellevue Community College

Bentley College

The Boston Foundation

Boston University

D

Appendix

ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDED INFORMATION TO 

THE COMMISSION

American Federation of Teachers
44

Bunker Hill Community College

Business Roundtable

California State University System

California Student Public Interest Research Group

Cambridge College

Capella Education Company

Carnegie Mellon University

The Carol R. Goldberg Seminars

Center for Law and Social Policy

Center for Reform of School Systems

CISCO Systems

College Board

College Parents of America

College Summit, Inc.

Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education

Connecticut Board of Governors for Higher Education

Consortium for High Academic Performance Institute for the Study of Social Change 

Council for Adult and Experiential Learning

Council for Aid to Education

Council for Higher Education Accreditation

College Solutions Network

Demos: A Network for Ideas and Action

Distance Education and Training Council

The Education Resources Institute

Education Sector

The Education Trust

Educational Testing Service

Eduventures, Inc.

Federal Interagency Committee on Education

Florida Department of Education

Florida Higher Education Accountability Project

Genentech

Georgia Institute of Technology

Heritage University

Highland Campus Health Group

Houston Community College

Indiana University

The Institute for College Access and Success, Inc.

Institute for Community Inclusion

Institute of Education Sciences

International Association of Medical Schools

Ivy Tech State College

Jobs for the Future

Just for the Kids

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab

Louisiana Tech University

Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Massachusetts School of Law at Andover

Miami University, Ohio
45

Minnesota State College Student Association

Minnesota System of Higher Education

NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education

National Academic Advising Association

National Association for College Admission Counseling 

National Association of College and University Business Officers

National Association of Manufacturers

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators

National Center for Academic Transformation

National Center for Education Statistics

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

National Down Syndrome Society National Policy Center

National Education Association (NEA)

National Science Foundation

Nebraska Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education

New England Association of Schools and Colleges 

Olin College of Engineering

Oregon State University

Pepperdine University

The Project on Student Debt

Public Interest Research Groups

Quad Ventures

Quinsigamond Community College

R.W. Baird

RAND Corporation

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Saint Anselm College

San Diego State University

Seattle Community College District

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

Stark Education Partnership

State Higher Education Executive Officers The State PIRGs’ Higher Education Project

Student Debt Alert

Texas A&M University

Temple University

Tufts University

United States Student Association 

University of Massachusetts

University of Northern Colorado

University of Oregon

University of Texas

University of Texas-Austin Board of Regents 

University of Washington

University System of New Hampshire

Upward Bound

Utah State University

Wagner College
46

Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges

Washington State University

Wayne State University

Western Connecticut State University

Western Illinois University

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Individual Students from the following institutions provided testimony 

to the Commission:

Bellevue Community College

Cambridge College

Capella University

Central Washington University

Columbus State Community College

Eastern Washington University

Evergreen State College

Harvard University

Howard University

Kaplan University

Lane Community College

Massachusetts Bay Community College

Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts

Northeastern University

Oberlin College

Providence College

Quinsigamond Community College

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Salem State College

St. Louis Community College at Meramec

St. Phillips College

University of Alaska

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

University of Connecticut, Storrs

University of Maryland, College Park

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

University of Massachusetts, Boston

University of New Hampshire

University of Southern Maine

University of Oregon

University of Washington

Vanderbilt University

Western Governors University

The Commission would also like to acknowledge and thank all of the students and individuals from around the country who 

e-mailed and provided their insights regarding key issues in higher education.
47

Full Commission Meeting

Washington, D.C.

Presenters:

Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education

Samuel Bodman, Secretary of Energy

Charles Miller, Chairman, The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Full Commission Meeting

Nashville, Tenn.

Presenters:

The State of Higher Education Today

Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, Director, Institute of Education Sciences

Peter J. Stokes, Executive Vice President, Eduventures, Inc.

Patrick M. Callan, President, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

Accountability 

Paul E. Lingenfelter, President, State Higher Education Executive Officers

Patrick M. Callan, President, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

Geri Malandra, Associate Vice Chancellor for Institutional Planning and Accountability, University of 

Texas System

Affordability

Richard Vedder, Commission Member

Robert Zemsky, Commission Member

Accessibility

Michael Cohen, President, Achieve, Inc.

Ann Coles, Senior Vice President, College Access Programs, The Education Resources Institute

Quality

Charles Vest, Commission Member

Invited Remarks

Sen. Lamar Alexander, (R–Tenn.)

Student Panel

Mari Corales, St. Phillips College and Southern Region Vice President for Delta Epsilon Chi

Sondra Wilson, Columbia State Community College

Lori Plato, Vanderbilt University

Oct. 17, 2005

E

Appendix

COMMISSION MEETINGS, HEARINGS, AND TESTIMONY

Dec. 8-9, 2005
48

Full Commission Meeting

San Diego, Calif.

Presenters:

Innovation and the Economy

G. Wayne Clough, President, Georgia Institute of Technology

Nicholas Donofrio, Commission Member

Innovative Financing

Trace A. Urdan, Senior Research Analyst, R.W. Baird

Andrew E. Kaplan, Partner, Quad Partners

Howard M. Block, Managing Director; Senior Research Analyst, Banc of America Securities

Innovative Models of Delivery

Robert Mendenhall, Commission Member

Jonathan Grayer, Commission Member

Stephen G. Shank, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Capella Education Company; Chancellor, 

Capella University

Innovative Public/Private Partnerships

Roland J. Otto, Head, Center for Science and Engineering Education, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory

Charles B. Reed, Chancellor, California State University System

Monica L. Poindexter, Associate Director, Corporate Diversity and College Programs, Genentech

Innovative Teaching and Learning Strategies (Course/Program Level)

Thomas L. Magnanti, Dean, School of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Joel M. Smith, Vice Provost, Chief Information Officer for Computing Services, and Director, Carnegie 

Mellon’s Office of Technology for Education, Carnegie Mellon University

David A. Wiley, Associate Professor and Director, Center for Open and Sustainable Learning, Utah 

State University

Student Panel

Jerry Davis, Western Governors University

Jon Lamphier, Kaplan University

Carol Young, Capella University

Public Hearing

Seattle, Wash.

Presenters (morning session):

Samuel H. Smith, President Emeritus, Washington State University

Pamela Tate, President, Council for Adult and Experiential Learning

Charles H. Mitchell, Chancellor, Seattle Community College District

David T. Conley, Director, Center for Educational Policy Research, University of Oregon

Mark A. Emmert, President, University of Washington

Andrew Menter, President and Chief Executive Officer, Highland Campus Health Group

Richard J. Anderson, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington

Pamela Silas, Executive Director, American Indian Science and Engineering Society

Public Comment (afternoon session)

Feb. 2-3, 2006

Feb. 7, 2006
49

Public Hearing

Boston, Mass.

Presenters (morning session):

Susan Hockfield, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Jack M. Wilson, President, University of Massachusetts

Dennis D. Berkey, President, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Robert A. Brown, President, Boston University

Richard K. Miller, President, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering

Lawrence S. Bacow, President, Tufts University

Mary L. Fifield, President, Bunker Hill Community College

Stephen J. Reno, Chancellor, University System of New Hampshire

Valerie F. Lewis, Commissioner, Connecticut Board of Governors for Higher Education

Public Comment (afternoon session)

Accreditation Roundtable Discussion

Washington, D.C.

Participants:

Vickie Schray, Deputy Director for Management and Planning, The Secretary of Education’s 

Commission on the Future of Higher Education, U.S. Department of Education, Moderator

John Barth, Director, Accreditation and State Liaison, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. 

Department of Education

Barbara E. Brittingham, Director, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, New England 

Association of Schools and Colleges

Jennifer Butlin, Director, Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education

Judith S. Eaton, President, Council for Higher Education Accreditation

Marshall Hill, Executive Director, Nebraska Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education

Michael P. Lambert, Executive Director, Accrediting Commission, Distance Education and Training 

Council

Paul E. Lingenfelter, President, State Higher Education Executive Officers

Cheryl Oldham, Executive Director, The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher 

Education, U.S. Department of Education

George Peterson, Executive Director, Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology

Arthur J. Rothkopf, Commission Member

Elise Scanlon, Executive Director, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of 

Technology

Belle S. Wheelan, President, Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

Roger J. Williams, Executive Director, Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training

Mar. 20, 2006

Mar. 28, 2006
50

Full Commission Meeting

Indianapolis, Ind.

Presenters:

Affordability

Robert Dickeson, Consultant, and President Emeritus, University of Northern Colorado

Barry Burgdorf, Vice Chancellor and General Counsel, University of Texas System

James A. Boyle, President, College Parents of America

James Garland, President, Miami University, Ohio

Carol A. Twigg, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Center for Academic Transformation

A. Frank Mayadas, Program Director, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Accreditation

Carol D’Amico, Executive Vice President, Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana

Judith S. Eaton, President, Council for Higher Education Accreditation

Kay Norton, President, University of Northern Colorado

Commission Discussion

Richard (Rick) Stephens, Commission Member, Moderator

Articulation

Jay Pfeiffer, Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Accountability, Research, and Measurement, Florida 

Department of Education

Gaston Caperton, President, College Board

Peter J. Joyce, Workforce Development Manager, CISCO Systems

Richard Kazis, Senior Vice President, Jobs for the Future

Accountability

Peter Ewell, Vice President, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems

Roger Benjamin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council for Aid to Education

Stephen P. Klein, Senior Research Scientist, RAND Corporation

M. Peter McPherson, President, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

Anne D. Neal, President, American Council of Trustees and Alumni

George D. Kuh, Director, Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University 

Kevin Carey, Research and Policy Manager, Education Sector

Full Commission Meeting

Washington, D.C.

Presenters:

Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education

Commission Discussion (Discussion leaders listed below):

Universal Access and Preparation

Charlene Nunley, Commission Member

Affordability

Robert Mendenhall, Commission Member

Apr. 6-7, 2006

May 18-19, 2006
51

Accountability: Assessment and Consumer Information

Charles Miller, Commission Member

Accountability: Accreditation

Arthur Rothkopf, Commission Member

Workforce Development and Meeting Labor Market Needs

Richard (Rick) Stephens, Commission Member

Increasing Supply to Address Capacity

Charles Vest, Commission Member

Innovation

Nicholas Donofrio, Commission Member

Identification of Gaps/New Areas

Nicholas Donofrio, Commission Member

Commission Discussion and Wrap-Up

Richard (Rick) Stephens, Commission Member

Full Commission Meeting

Washington, D.C.

Introduction and Discussion of Meeting Process

Charles Miller, Chairman, The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 

U.S. Department of Education

Update on Process for Production and Transmittal of Final Commission Report

Cheryl Oldham, Executive Director, The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher 

Education, U.S. Department of Education

Motion to Adopt Draft Report

Commission Discussion –— Follow-up to Report

Aug. 10, 2006