U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94-792 PDF 2004

H.R. 4283, THE COLLEGE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY ACT: 

INCREASING THE FOCUS ON 

GRADUATION RATES AND STUDENT OUTCOMES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

July 13, 2004

Serial No. 108-68

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman 

Cass Ballenger, North Carolina 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania 

Charlie Norwood, Georgia 

Fred Upton, Michigan 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Jim DeMint, South Carolina 

Johnny Isakson, Georgia 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John Kline, Minnesota 

John R. Carter, Texas 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee 

Phil Gingrey, Georgia 

Max Burns, Georgia 

George Miller, California 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Ed Case, Hawaii 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Denise L. Majette, Georgia 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York

Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on July 13, 2004 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Boehner, Hon. John A., Chairman, Committee on Education and the 

Workforce ....................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 5

Miller, Hon. George, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and 

the Workforce, prepared statement of ......................................................... 55

Norwood, Hon. Charlie, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia, prepared statement of ............................................................... 56

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 56

Statement of Witnesses: 

Law, Dr. William, President, Tallahassee Community College, Tallahassee, Florida .................................................................................................... 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

Lingenfelter, Dr. Paul, Executive Director, State Higher Education Executive Officers, Denver, Colorado .................................................................. 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Nault, Dr. Richard, Vice President for Student Affairs, Miami University, 

Oxford, Ohio .................................................................................................. 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Wiener, Ross, Policy Director, The Education Trust, Washington, DC ....... 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

Additional materials supplied: 

McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts, letter submitted for the record ...................................... 46

Uhlfelder, Steven J., statement submitted for the record ............................. 57

(1)

H.R. 4283, THE COLLEGE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY ACT: INCREASING THE FOCUS 

ON GRADUATION RATES AND STUDENT 

OUTCOMES 

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Boehner (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Boehner, McKeon, Castle, Johnson, 

DeMint, Osborne, Wilson, Cole, Kline, Carter, Blackburn, Gingery, 

Miller, Kildeer, Andrews, Woolsey, McCarthy, Tierney, Kind, Wu, 

Holt, Davis, Grijalva, and Bishop. 

Staff Present: Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member; Alexa 

Marrero, Press Secretary; Greg Maurer, Coalitions Director of 

Workforce Policy; Catharine Meyer, Legislative Assistant; Alison 

Ream, Professional Staff Member; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk; Kathleen Smith, Professional Staff Member; Ellynne 

Bannon, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Tom Kiley, Minority Press Secretary; Ricardo Martinez, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; and Joe Novotny, Minority Legislative Assistant/Education. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Good morning. The Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony on 

‘‘H.R. 4283, the College Access and Opportunity Act: Increasing 

the Focus on Graduation Rates and Student Outcomes.’’

Under Committee rules, opening statements are limited to the 

Chairman and Ranking Member. Therefore, if other Members have 

statements, they will be included in the hearing record. And with 

that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain 

open for 14 days to allow for member statements, and other extraneous material referenced during today’s hearing, to be submitted 

for the official hearing record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

2

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER, CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

I want to thank all of you for coming today, especially our witnesses, to this hearing on the College Access and Opportunity Act. 

Students, parents, and taxpayers today are making a huge annual investment in America’s colleges and universities. Today we’re 

going to look at what they’re getting in return. And specifically, at 

student graduation rates and outcomes. 

In May, the Education Trust released an alarming report that revealed a major graduation gap at America’s colleges and universities. The report showed a surprisingly large number of students 

who enter higher education and fail to get a degree. And worse, a 

disproportionate share of these students are low-income and minority students. We will be hearing from the Education Trust, today, 

on their findings. 

[The report may be found at http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/

rdonlyres/11B4283F–104E–4511–B0CA–1D3023231157/0/

highered.pdf] 

This is a particularly important discussion at a critical time for 

American education. As I and Chairman McKeon and others have 

said on many occasions, this is not a routine reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act. 

Earlier this year, we had Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Alan 

Greenspan, here before the Committee, and he told us American 

workers need to be better trained and better educated, if our country is going to remain competitive in the years ahead. He urged us 

to focus on quality and constant improvement in education. 

He also reminded us that spending increases don’t guarantee improvements in academic achievement. And while he didn’t get into 

specifics about legislation, his point was clear: the current system 

isn’t getting the job done—and the reauthorization of the Higher 

Education Act must involve real change. 

Chairman Greenspan’s comments were not considered controversial at the time he made them; in fact, I don’t believe that they 

were even reported in some of the prominent education publications. 

But we now see the challenges inherent in his advice. Many 

prominent college lobbying organizations have been quick to demand billions of dollars in increased spending from the Federal 

Government, but are reluctant to address questions about the quality of education being provided for students and families in return. 

The graduation gap, unfortunately, is just the latest in a number 

of troubling signs that America’s colleges and universities aren’t accountable enough to the students that they serve. 

With tuition continuing to climb, America’s higher education consumers are beginning to demand greater transparency in everything from the cost of a higher education to what they can expect 

to get out of that education. 

Representative McKeon and I introduced the College Access & 

Opportunity Act to help empower higher education consumers with 

the information they need to make their own best decisions about 

a college or university. 

Institutions are already reporting volumes of information to the 

Department of Education, the problem is that parents and students 

3

aren’t able to use this information. And what we propose is to take 

that information and put it into the hands of consumers. 

Now, there are no dramatic new reporting requirements in this 

legislation—frankly, nearly all the new reporting requirements 

that I included would apply only to institutions that repeatedly engage in excessive tuition hikes that hurt students and their parents. We recognize that when government gets more involved, costs 

go up—not down. Some lobbying organizations have described our 

bill a little differently. They oppose the bill, claiming it would expand government involvement. The same organizations are demanding additional billions of dollars in Federal funding. And what 

they really mean is they want billions more in taxpayer money, but 

don’t want to be accountable for how it is used. 

Now, the graduation gap exposed in the Education Trust report 

is a reminder of the dangers of this approach. One of our goals for 

this hearing is to ask why the graduation gap exists between minority students and their peers. And to ask what steps the higher 

education community should reasonably be expected to take to 

close that gap. 

Mr. McKeon and I recently introduced a bill that takes some 

modest steps that reflect our thinking on the matter. Some of our 

witnesses have thoughts on this question as well. One of them, Dr. 

Nault, represents Miami University, a school that is in my own 

Congressional District, that has done a better job than most in 

closing the graduation gap. 

Some have expressed concern about the Education Trust report, 

but used it to argue for increased Federal and state spending. 

A report released just last week by the State Higher Education 

Executive Officers casts doubt on this argument. The report found 

higher education enrollments nearly doubled from 1970 to 2003, 

and during that period, state funding kept pace with both enrollment growth and the Consumer Price Index. 

States have faced economic ups and downs and those 33 years, 

but they have continued to fund higher education, even as the 

number of students have increased dramatically. So we look forward to hearing more about that report today. 

I am a strong supporter of American higher education. Our system is the envy of the world. But if we want to keep it that way, 

we can’t turn a blind eye to the problems when they appear. And 

the graduation gap is a very real problem, and he deserves our attention and the attention of America’s colleges and universities. 

And this reauthorization is not about writing a bigger check while 

perpetuating the status quo. This reauthorization is an opportunity 

to expand college access for millions of low- and middle-income students. 

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I am 

hopeful this hearing will give renewed attention to the very real 

problem of the higher education graduation gap. At a time when 

more students than ever are choosing to go to college, millions of 

adults are interested in going back to school, and changing technology requires workers to train and re-train to compete in a 

changing marketplace, we should be focused more than ever on ensuring that students who pursue a higher education get something 

meaningful in return. 

4

Addressing the graduation gap and helping students and parents 

gain access to valuable information will help us reach our shared 

goal of strengthening America’s higher education system. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehner follows:]

Statement of Hon. John Boehner, Chairman, Education & the Workforce 

Committee 

Students, parents, and taxpayers today are making a huge annual investment in 

America’s colleges and universities. Today we’re going to look at what they’re getting in return—specifically, at student graduation rates and outcomes. 

In May, the Education Trust released an alarming report that revealed a major 

graduation gap at America’s colleges and universities. The report showed a surprisingly large number of students who enter higher education fail to get a degree—

and worse, a disproportionate share of these students are low-income and minority 

students. We’ll be hearing from the Education Trust today on their findings. 

This is a particularly important discussion, at a critical time for American education. As I and Chairman McKeon and others have said on many occasions, this 

is not a routine reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 

Earlier this year, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan appeared before this committee, and told us American workers need to be better trained and 

better educated if our country is going to remain competitive in the years ahead. 

He urged us to focus on quality and constant improvement in education. He reminded us that spending increases don’t guarantee improvements in academic 

achievement. And while he didn’t get into specifics about legislation, his point was 

clear: the current system isn’t getting the job done—and the reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act must involve real change. 

Chairman Greenspan’s comments were not considered controversial at the time he 

made them; in fact, I don’t believe they were even reported in some of the prominent 

education publications. But we now see the challenges inherent in his advice. Many 

prominent college lobbying organizations have been quick to demand billions in increased spending from the federal government, but reluctant to address questions 

about the quality of the education being provided for students and families in return. 

The graduation gap is, unfortunately, just the latest in a number of troubling 

signs that America’s colleges and universities aren’t accountable enough to the students they serve. With tuition continuing to climb, America’s higher education consumers are beginning to demand greater transparency in everything from the cost 

of a higher education to what they can expect to get out of that education. 

Rep. McKeon and I introduced the College Access & Opportunity Act to help empower higher education consumers with the information they need to make their 

own best decisions about a college or university. Institutions are already reporting 

volumes of information to the Department of Education. The problem is that parents 

and students aren’t able to use this information. What we propose is to take that 

information and put it into the hands of consumers. There are no dramatic new reporting requirements in this legislation—and nearly all the new requirements that 

are included would apply only to institutions that repeatedly engage in excessive 

tuition hikes that hurt parents and students. We recognize that when government 

gets more involved, costs go up—not down. 

Some lobbying organizations have described our bill differently. They oppose the 

bill, claiming it would expand government involvement. The same organizations are 

demanding billions in additional federal funding. What they really mean is they 

want billions more in taxpayer money, but don’t want to be held accountable for 

how it is used. 

The graduation gap exposed in the Education Trust report is a reminder of the 

dangers of this approach. One of our goals for this hearing is to ask why the graduation gap exists between minority students and their peers, and to ask what steps 

the higher education community should reasonably be expected to take to close that 

gap. 

Rep. McKeon and I recently introduced a bill with some modest steps that reflect 

our thinking on the matter. Some of our witnesses have thoughts on this question 

as well. One of them, Dr. Nault, represents Miami University (Miami of Ohio), a 

school in my own congressional district that has done a better job than most of closing the graduation gap. 

Some have expressed concern about the Education Trust report, but used it to 

argue for increased federal and state spending. A report released last week by the 

State Higher Education Executive Officers casts doubt on this argument. The report 

5

found higher education enrollments nearly doubled from 1970 to 2003, and during 

that period, state funding kept pace both with enrollment growth and the Consumer 

Price Index. States have faced economic ups and downs in those 33 years, but they 

have continued to fund higher education, even as the number of students has increased dramatically. We look forward to hearing more about this report today. 

I’m a strong supporter of American higher education. Our system is the envy of 

the world. But if we want to keep it that way, we can’t turn a blind eye to its problems when they appear. The graduation gap is a very real problem, and it deserves 

our attention and the attention of America’s colleges and universities. This reauthorization is not about writing a bigger check while perpetuating the status quo. 

This reauthorization is an opportunity to expand college access for millions of low 

and middle-income students. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I’m hopeful this hearing will give 

renewed attention to the very real problem of the higher education graduation gap. 

At a time when more students than ever are choosing to go to college, millions of 

adults are interested in going back to school, and changing technology requires 

workers to train and retrain to compete in a changing marketplace, we should be 

focused more than ever on ensuring students who pursue a higher education get 

something meaningful in return. Addressing the graduation gap and helping students and parents gain access to valuable information will help us reach our shared 

goal of strengthening America’s higher education system. 

I yield now to Mr. Miller for his opening statement. 

Chairman BOEHNER. And with that, I am pleased to yield to my 

friend and colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller. 

I am sorry, Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. All right. 

Chairman BOEHNER. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. KILDEE. Good morning. 

I join Chairman Boehner in welcoming our witnesses to today’s 

hearing. I know that both of us are looking forward to your testimony. 

Our focus on graduation rates today is very important and very 

critical. Simply getting into college doesn’t guarantee success in college. In addition to access our institutions of higher education 

should also be focused on persistence. 

College graduation rates overall should be higher, especially for 

low-income and minority students. Institutions of higher education 

need to challenge themselves to improve these rates. Without continued improvement in graduation rates, individual students and 

the public as a whole, are being short changed. 

Clearly we do have room for improvement on this issue. Unfortunately, the topic of today’s hearing has little to do with H.R. 4283, 

the latest bill on higher education. H.R. 4283 does little to actually 

improve graduation rates at colleges and universities. In fact, I fear 

that it would harm our efforts to increase the number of students 

who graduate college within 6 years. 

Even though we track graduation rates by a 6-year term, I remember taking my youngest son to campus, and the president said, 

‘‘You know, only about 25 percent of our students graduate in the 

traditional 4 years.’’ I turned to my son and said, ‘‘You’re going to 

be one of those 25 percent.’’ He was. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KILDEE. H.R. 4283 jeopardizes improvements to graduation 

rates by repealing the current low fixed rate consolidation loan 

6

benefit for students, which I think is very, very important. We 

should not repeal that. It also caps the Pell Grant maximum program. It redistributes campus-based aid, essentially taking from 

one needy student to give to another. 

Overall, this legislation simply makes college more expensive. I 

hope that we can find a bipartisan solution to give schools the tools 

they need to improve graduation rates in the future. 

As the hearings in this matter and in higher education in general 

continue through the remainder of this Congress and next year, I 

look forward to working with my colleagues to craft answers to 

these important questions. 

As I close, I do want to comment on the recent report by the 

State Higher Education Executive Officers. This report claims that 

state appropriations for higher education have not decreased over 

the past 30 years. 

The report is being used to claim that decreases in state appropriations are not to blame for increased tuition. First, I can tell you 

that from experience as a state legislator, and on the Appropriations Committee there, and having worked with my home state of 

Michigan for 28 years here in Congress, that the level of state appropriations for higher education really hasn’t kept pace. I would 

be very interested to find how you reach your conclusions. 

In addition, tuition continues to make up a greater share of the 

budget of Michigan’s public universities than in the 1970’s. Tuition 

prices tend to go up when state appropriations go down, but tuition 

doesn’t go down when state appropriations go back up. It’s almost 

like gasoline prices and the price of a barrel of oil. Every time state 

appropriations go down, tuition goes up and stays up. 

Michigan support for higher education has risen and fallen with 

the economic tide of the State. In good times appropriation levels 

have remained constant or risen. However, in bad times, there 

have been sharp cuts including extremely tough mid-year cuts. 

I look forward to the hearing testimony on this report. I fear its 

conclusions can and have been misinterpreted, and I would like to 

hear your comments. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our discussion today and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHNER. It’s my pleasure to introduce our four witnesses today. Our first witness today will be Dr. Richard Nault. 

And Dr. Nault currently serves as Vice President of Student Affairs for Miami University, which, as I mentioned, is located in my 

district in Oxford, Ohio. In this capacity, Dr. Nault helps to develop 

programs that enhance the intellectual and personal development 

of Miami students. 

Dr. Nault has also served as Associate Vice President for Student 

Affairs, and as Director for the University of Miami’s Honors program. 

And then we will hear from Dr. Paul Lingenfelter. Dr. 

Lingenfelter has served in his capacity as the Executive Director 

for State Higher Education Executive Officers since the year 2000. 

Previously, Dr. Lingenfelter served on the staff of the John D. 

and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, where in 1996 he was appointed Vice President to establish and lead the MacArthur Foundation Program on Human and Community Development. 

7

We will hear then from Mr. Ross Wiener, who has certainly been 

here before. He currently serves as the principal partner and Policy 

Director at the Education Trust, a national organization focused on 

eliminating achievement gaps in public education. 

Prior to his position at the Education Trust, Mr. Wiener worked 

in the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, 

where he twice received the Civil Rights Division’s Special Achievement Award. 

And then last, we will hear from Dr. William Law. Dr. Law 

serves in his current capacity as president of Tallahassee Community College since the year 2002. And prior to his current position, 

Dr. Law, served as the founding president of Montgomery College, 

located in Hargrove, Texas. 

Dr. Law has also served as president of Lincoln Land Community College. located in Springfield, Illinois and as Vice President 

for Institutional Program Planning at St. Petersburg Junior College in Florida. 

I know you all know about the lights. It’s OK, we really want to 

hear what you have to say, just don’t get too carried away. 

With that, Dr. Nault. Welcome. Relax, I know that you have 

never testified before Congress, but we’re pretty easy people to get 

along with. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman BOEHNER. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD NAULT, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

STUDENT AFFAIRS, MIAMI UNIVERSITY, OXFORD, OHIO 

Dr. NAULT. Chairman Boehner, I appreciate the opportunity to 

be here and appreciate your support. I would also like to thank 

Congressman Miller, and to all of the Members of the Committee 

for the opportunity to be here. 

At times, schools and colleges appear to be black boxes. We know 

a great deal about the students who enter and we can say a great 

deal about what students are like when they graduate. But we 

often know surprisingly little about the characteristics and practices of universities—what happens inside the box that makes a 

difference in student success. 

The important report from the Education Trust, ‘‘A Matter of Degrees,’’ begins to illuminate these dynamics. And the Trust makes 

an important point: that some colleges do far better than expected 

given the profiles of their students. And the Trust singles out 

Miami University as a model institution in that regard. 

National graduation rates, as the Congressman previously mentioned, are figured on a 6-year basis. Miami’s graduation rate is 81 

percent—we are eighth in the Nation among public—major public 

universities. 

As the Trust researchers point out, Miami’s consistently high results cannot be dismissed as merely reflecting our students abilities. The median rate for our peer institutions that attract the 

same sorts of students is 68 percent compared to our 81 percent 

graduation rate. 

Now, if you asked me about the reason for this success, I would 

argue that it is attributable to the quality of personal education we 

provide. Or, to put it more simply, we teach. 

8

Miami’s primary mission has always been the education of undergraduates. Faculty are expected to be able scholars and skilled 

teachers. But they are expected to teach undergraduates. Full-time 

faculty regularly teach our students, including freshman. The percentage of our freshman classes taught by full-time faculty is 65 

percent. At other universities the percentage can drift as low as 26 

percent. 

You hear evidence of this commitment to teaching in the stories 

of our students. We asked them once, in a recent meeting, we met 

with a group of students and we asked them what is most important about your education experiences here? We heard repeatedly, 

the students told stories of exceptional faculty commitment. One 

student who fell behind because of an illness told of a faculty member who sat with her for long hours to help bring her up to speed 

on difficult content. 

Outside researchers studied Miami and have pointed out other 

characteristics of our environment that they argue enhances learning. Also our first-year students live in residence halls built around 

an academic theme. Faculty readily teach courses related to these 

themes in those halls. Our residence hall directors are trained advisors, and freshman make course choices by meeting with someone 

who knows them well. 

And to enable students to make educationally sound and causeeffective course choices, Miami has developed a software system 

that allows students to monitor their academic progress 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week. In short, we take teaching seriously and we 

define teaching to include all parts of the student experience. 

In Miami, we believe, and I think the Trust touches on this 

theme very well, we have an obligation to ensure that a Miami 

education is assessable to all students, not just the wealthy. 

Last spring, Miami adopted a tuition and scholarship model that 

provides for the same tuition for in-state and out-of-state students. 

But with generous scholarships for Ohio students that vary according to family need. We are the first institution in the country, a 

public institution, to take this approach. 

Under this plan, incoming freshman from Miami this fall received $25.5 million in two renewable scholarships. They first received the Ohio Resident Scholarship of $5,000 which was indexed 

to state support, and when the state support goes up that scholarship will increase. And that is fixed for all Ohio freshman. The 

Ohio Leadership Scholarship vary from $5000 to $6200, and that’s 

a second scholarship they received, and these are based much on 

need. And these scholarships are applied against Miami’s tuition of 

$19,600. 

Now, 40 percent of in-state freshman are paying less this fall 

than they would have under the old tuition model. And, another 23 

percent are paying the same. And we have seen gains in all of the 

groups that traditionally are under represented in our nation’s 

schools. Seventeen percent, for example, of our entering first-year 

students this year are first-generation college goers, those whose 

parents never graduated from college. 

Now, I knows states are being forced to make hard choices between funding higher education and other social purposes, and so 

9

we have tried to do what we can with our structure and our community to make higher education more affordable. 

And we will continue to work to ensure that students graduate 

with a diploma; that’s our bottom line. And that means focusing intentionally on the quality of undergraduate teaching and learning, 

focusing on the value we add to student growth, and increasing access to Miami education, particularly for students who have found 

the doors to higher education closed in the past. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Nault follows:]

Statement of Dr. Richard Nault, Vice President for Student Affairs, Miami 

University, Oxford, Ohio 

On behalf of President Jim Garland and our Board of Trustees, I want to thank 

Chairman John Boehner and Ranking Minority Member George Miller and all the 

members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for the opportunity to 

testify. It is an honor to be invited to talk about Miami University and to describe 

the practices that help a higher percentage of our undergraduates earn their degrees than at almost any other public university in the nation. 

First, let me introduce myself. I am Richard Nault, Vice President of Student Affairs at Miami University, in Oxford, Ohio. 

At times, schools and colleges appear to be black boxes. We know a great deal 

about the students who enter and we can say a great deal about what students are 

like when they graduate, but we often know surprising little about the characteristics and practices of universities—what happens inside the box—that make a difference in student success. 

The important report from the Education Trust, ‘‘A Matter of Degrees: Improving 

Graduation Rates in Four–Year Colleges and Universities,’’ begins to illuminate 

these dynamics. The Trust makes an important point: that some colleges do far better than expected given the profiles of their students. The Trust emphasizes as well 

that these institutions often do particularly well with populations such as students 

of color, first generation college students, and student athletes—groups that often 

graduate at rates lower than their peers. 

The Trust singles out Miami University as a model institution. We were heartened by the recognition, but we also recognize that much of our success is attributable to the talent and abilities of our student body. 

Miami University is a top-tier public institution that attracts superior students 

from every state in the nation. The average ACT of our entering students is nearly 

27, compared to the national average of 21 for all college-bound students. 

National graduation rates are calculated on a six-year basis. Miami’s graduation 

rate is 81 percent—eighth in the nation among major public universities. Our fouryear graduation rate of 66 percent is higher even than the national six-year average 

of 63 percent. 

As the Trust researchers point out, Miami’s consistently high results cannot be 

dismissed as merely reflecting our students’ abilities. The median rate for our peer 

institutions that attract the same sorts of students as we enroll is 68 percent compared to Miami’s 81 percent. Our minority students’ graduation rate is 65 percent 

compared to a 47 percent national rate. 

If you asked me about the reason for success, I would argue that it is attributable 

to the quality of personal education we provide. Or, to put it simply, we teach. 

We teach, not only in the sense of a skilled professor lecturing in the classroom 

but in our research labs, in our advising, in our tutoring support, and in the ways 

we mentor students outside of class. 

Miami’s primary mission has always been the education of undergraduates. Faculty are expected to be able scholars and skilled teachers. Full-time faculty regularly teach our students, including freshmen. The percentage of freshmen classes 

taught by full-time faculty is 65 percent. At other universities that percentage can 

be as low as 26 percent. 

You hear evidence of this commitment to teaching in the stories of our students. 

Late spring semester, our Board of Trustees met with student leaders. Board members asked the students to name their most important academic experience. Repeatedly, the students told stories of exceptional faculty commitment. One student who 

fell behind because of an illness told of a faculty member who met with her for long 

hours to help her understand difficult content. Others told of faculty who became 

partners in research or who captured student interest by the intensity and infecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 20:14 Oct 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\94792 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
10

tiousness of their teaching. Our faculty are scholars, but their primary mission is 

the education of our students. 

Outside researchers have pointed out other characteristics of our environment 

that enhance learning. 

• Our first year students live in residence halls built around an academic theme. 

Faculty regularly teach courses related to these themes in the residence halls. 

• Our residence hall directors are trained academic advisers. Freshmen make 

course selections by meeting with someone who knows them well. 

• Miami is a place where students take active leadership outside the classroom. 

Miami provides more than 300 students organizations, two leadership institutes, and a center to support community volunteerism. This sense of involvement outside the classroom creates an ethos that encourages students to be active learners in the classroom as well. 

• Our organizational climate is one of collaboration. We ask that all members of 

the community, whether faculty, staff, secretaries, or housekeepers in our residence halls, be partners in fostering student learning. 

• To enable students to make educationally sound and cost-effective course 

choices, Miami has developed a software system that allows students to monitor 

their academic progress 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

In short, we take teaching seriously, and we define teaching to include all parts 

of the student experience. Our graduation rates, we believe, reflect the clarity of our 

mission as a teaching institution and reflect the depth of this commitment. 

The authors of the report Documenting Effective Educational Practice (Project 

DEEP) have commented that our climate is one marked by ‘‘serious, sustained attention to improvement.’’ We are not content that our minority students graduate 

at rates far higher than their national peers. Instead, we focus on the lag of these 

students behind their white classmates. On Miami’s campus the difference is 16 percent. We have initiated several programs to close that gap. The status quo on Miami’s minority graduation rates, even if better than other colleges and universities, 

is not good enough. 

At Miami, we believe we also have an obligation to ensure that a Miami education 

is accessible to all students, not just the wealthy. Our new tuition plan is the most 

dramatic evidence of this commitment. 

Last spring, Miami adopted a tuition and scholarship model that provides for the 

same tuition for in-state and out-of-state students, but with generous scholarships 

for Ohio students that vary according to family need. 

Under this plan, incoming freshmen from Ohio this fall will receive $25.5 million 

in two renewable scholarships. The Ohio Resident Scholarship of $5,000 is indexed 

to state support and fixed for all Ohio freshmen, and the Ohio Leader Scholarship 

varies from $5,000 to $6,200 for each student. These scholarships are applied 

against Miami’s tuition of $19,600 annually. 

Forty percent of in-state freshmen will be paying less this fall than under the old 

tuition system and another 23 percent will be paying about the same. We have seen 

gains in all of the groups that traditionally are underrepresented at our nation’s colleges. Seventeen percent of our entering freshmen are first-generation college students, those whose parents never graduated from college. In addition, the percentage of minority students in our incoming class is up considerably. 

In an era when states are being forced to make hard choices between funding 

higher education and other public priorities, Miami has taken steps to ensure that 

it will have the income to maintain and improve its educational quality while still 

remaining accessible to the most deserving in-state students, regardless of family 

income. 

We will continue to work toward ensuring that students who enroll will leave with 

a diploma; that means focusing intentionally on the quality of undergraduate learning, focusing on the value we add to student growth, and increasing access to a 

Miami education, particularly for students who have found the doors to higher education closed in the past. 

Attached are appendices containing more information on the important issues you 

are reviewing. 

[Attachments to Dr. Nault’s statement have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Chairman BOEHNER. Dr. Lingenfelter. 

11

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL E. LINGENFELTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HIGHER EDUCATION EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, 

DENVER, COLORADO 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Committee, for the opportunity to testify. 

SHEEO members, Members of my association, work with higher 

education and the states on state government policy for higher education. It happens that next week we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Association. And as I looked back over the achievements of higher education, although we—I think you appropriately 

are focused on the challenges facing us. I think we have made 

enormous progress in the last half-century. And I want to claim 

some credit for our members. 

The members of SHEEO understand how important higher education is and we are strong advocates of higher education. At the 

same time, we understand that public-policy has to deal with multiple priorities and limited resources. 

A great educator, Frank Rhodes, who is President of Cornell, 

once commented that ‘‘higher education is a sea of toes, waiting to 

be stepped on.’’ I imagine that you understand what he meant, and 

SHEEO dues too. We step on toes, we get our toes stepped on. We 

try to get the facts straight, recognize different perspectives, and 

not be too sensitive. 

I have been asked to comment on our recent study on State 

Higher Education Finance. I want to mention four major findings 

of the report, and then I will elaborate on them briefly, and then 

turned to graduation rates briefly, and then leave some room for 

questions. 

The main points I would like to emphasize is first, we looked 

over 30 years and found that state support for higher education, on 

a per student basis, kept pace with enrollment growth, and with 

inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. That’s an 

enormous achievement. We’ve got to recognize that the Consumer 

Price Index is not necessarily the best index of cost increases in 

higher education. 

And when I talk about the trends in the last 12 years, from 1991 

to 2003, I will be using the Higher Education Cost Adjustment, 

which is an index that we developed—which I can get into if you 

would like—which we think is a more reasonable basis of inflation. 

Second main point is that in the past, the common pattern is for 

state support to lose ground during recessions, and then regained 

ground during economic recovery. 

Third point is above average tuition increases generally occur in 

those recessions, when enrollments go up, and offset decreases in 

state support. 

My last point, and the one that I think deserves, perhaps, the 

most emphasis, is that the variation among the states is just enormous. If you want to find an argument for any points you want to 

make, the evidence is there. 

Let me just give you some of the highlights over the past dozen 

years. Nationally, full-time equivalent enrollment grew by almost 

19 percent. Half of that increase occurred in the past 3 years from 

the year 2001 to 2003. State support per student, in constant dollars, fell by 7.3 percent in this dozen year period. Interestingly 

12

though, it grew more than 15 percent in three states, and it fell 

more than 20 percent in 10 states. 

Actually the enrollment growth was very unevenly distributed 

too. In seven states, enrollments grew more than 40 percent, and 

in 15 states it grew less than 10 percent. 

Net tuition, nationally, and by net tuition we mean tuition less 

state and institutional student aid. It grew by 28 percent during 

this period. But in four states it grew by more than 80 percent. It 

grew less than inflation in four other states. 

Total support for students, considering both tuition and state 

support, grew by 2 percent, and essentially was constant during 

this 12 year period. However, it grew by more than 20 percent in 

five states, it fell by more than 15 percent in five states. 

I would like to make one point about tuition that’s critically important, I think, to emphasize. And that is that a 1 percent decrease in state support has very different implications in a state, 

depending upon what their tuition rate is. 

In California, a 1 percent decrease in state support will require 

a 6 percent increase in tuition to offset that loss of revenue. 

In Vermont, New Hampshire, both high tuition states, it would 

take less than 1 percent of a tuition increase to offset a decline in 

state support. 

I see that I need to sum up, so let me make just a couple more 

points. 

The differences among the states, in their economic situation and 

rates of enrollment, in their interests in improving and strengthening their higher education system, all play an important role in 

this picture. 

One, graduation rates, I would just like to make a few points. 

First, improving graduation rates is a national priority. There’s no 

question about that. You have received some testimony about the 

necessary improvements in our data collection systems. Those are 

important. I think the advantages of a unit record system should 

be seriously considered. A number of states have solved the privacy 

issues and have done a good job with that. 

But if we had perfect data, we would still have to improve graduation rates. My written testimony has a number of points that I 

think deserves emphasis, and would be happy—

I am going to stop now, because I’m instructed to buy this light. 

I will be happy to respond to any questions, later on, on those 

issues. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lingenfelter follows:]

Statement of Paul E. Lingenfelter, Executive Director, State Higher 

Education Executive Officers, Denver, Colorado 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify. I am Paul Lingenfelter, Executive Director of the State Higher Education 

Executive Officers Association, commonly known as SHEEO. 

The main responsibility of SHEEO members is to work with colleges and universities and state government to meet state and national goals for higher education. 

Our members understand how important higher education is to the future of our 

country. We are strong advocates of higher education. At the same time we understand that public policy must deal with multiple priorities and limited resources. We 

work between higher education and state government, which is not always a comfortable place to be. 

13

I am told that a great educator, Frank Rhodes, long President of Cornell University, once said that ‘‘higher education is a sea of toes, waiting to be stepped on.’’ 

I imagine you know what he meant. 

SHEEOs step on toes, and we get stepped on too. We try to get the facts straight, 

recognize the value of different perspectives, and not be too sensitive. 

You have asked me to discuss a recent study by SHEEO, State Higher Education 

Finance, fiscal year 2003, and consider whether the college graduation gap and low 

graduation rates can be attributed to state cutbacks in higher education spending. 

The principal focus of the report is state operating support for public institutions. 

The study also has information on state support for independent institutions. It primarily examines trends in higher education finance from 1991 to 2003, and we took 

a brief long-term look at state funding for higher education since 1970. I’d like to 

make four main points from the study. • Despite contractions during economic downturns, since 1970 state support nationally has kept pace with substantial enrollment growth and inflation as 

measured by the CPI. This is an impressive achievement when one considers 

the amount of enrollment growth we have experienced, even though the CPI 

underestimates inflation in the market basket of colleges and universities. • In the past, state support per student has lost ground during recession and then 

regained ground during economic recovery; • Above average tuition increases generally occur in recessions to help finance enrollment growth and offset decreases in state support per student; in the past 

twelve years net tuition per student has increased substantially more than state 

support; • The situation among individual states varies substantially; national generalizations almost never reflect local conditions. 

The most dramatic thing in these numbers is not state support or inflation; it is 

enrollment growth. From 1970 to 2003 full time equivalent enrollments in public institutions doubled. In the last twelve years we added 1.5 million FTE enrollments, 

an increase of 18.7% to reach 9.6 million. Of that growth more than half, 800,000 

FTE students, has occurred since 2001. 

In recessions three things usually happen: enrollments grow, state support declines, and tuition goes up. In 1991 constant dollar state support per student was 

$6,283; it fell to $5,710 by 1993 during the downturn of the early 1990s. State support per student then grew to $6,546 in 2001, but it dropped to $5,823 in 2003. The 

difference between the peak and valley of constant dollar state support per student 

during the past dozen years was $836, 12.8% of the peak amount. 

Our report examines net tuition revenue, which is the total tuition collected, after 

taking out state and institutional student aid. Constant dollar net tuition per FTE 

was $2,233 in 1991 and it grew $617, or 28% to $2,850 by 1998. It has remained 

essentially at that level since; it was at $2,872 in 2003. 

How can this possibly be, given the large tuition increases recently reported? Several factors might explain this. First, this study reports net tuition—state and institutional aid has offset some of the increases. Institutions are probably using more 

tuition revenues for student aid, given enrollment growth and limits on state and 

federal aid programs. Second, I expect that much of the enrollment growth has been 

in community colleges, where tuition tends to be lower. Third, the institutions with 

the largest, headline grabbing percentage tuition increases usually have the lowest 

tuition in real terms. 

The net effect of these changes in the past dozen years has been that total educational spending (which we define as state support plus net tuition) per FTE has 

been relatively constant. It was at $8,516 in 1991, it grew to $9,381 at the peak 

of 2001, and it decreased to $8,694 between 2001 and 2003. 

The last, and perhaps most important point, I want to make about the findings 

of this study is that these national generalizations conceal enormous variation 

among the states. Let me give a few examples using the 1991 to 2003 time period: 

• Nationally FTE enrollment grew 18.7%; seven states grew more than 40%, and 

fifteen grew less than 10%. 

• Constant dollar state and local appropriations per FTE fell 7.3% nationally; 

three states had more than a 15% constant dollar increase, and ten states had 

more than a 20% decrease. 

• At the national average net tuition pays about 32 % of educational costs. In 

California and Georgia that percentage is about 14%; in Vermont and New 

Hampshire it is 60 to 70%. In Vermont a 1% decrease in state revenue can be 

replaced by less than a 1% increase in tuition. In California a 1% decrease in 

state revenue would require a 6% percent tuition increase to generate equivalent revenue. At the national average it would take a 2 % tuition increase to 

replace a 1% decrease in state support. 

14

• Net tuition per student in constant dollars grew 28% nationally; in four states 

it grew by more than 80% and in four states it grew less than inflation. 

• Total funding per FTE increased 2% nationally; in five states it dropped more 

than 15%, and in five states it increased by more than 20%. 

Many different factors explain the variation among the states. Enrollments are 

growing enormously in some states, very little in others. Some states are trying to 

improve the funding and competitiveness of their higher education system. Some 

have created substantial new scholarship programs. And some are deliberately 

working to change the balance between state appropriations and tuition; they’ve had 

low tuition and they need more revenues to finance rapid enrollment growth. 

These differences make it difficult to devise a federal policy approach that fits the 

situation of most of the states. 

I should mention one technical point before discussing graduation rates. I’m sure 

you have heard arguments that the Consumer Price Index does not reflect what colleges and universities buy. They mostly buy the time of well-educated people, whose 

salaries, like personal incomes in general, have grown faster than the CPI. The 

Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) has been proposed as a more appropriate 

measure of higher education costs, but it too has its critics. 

Our study has used a new approach for estimating higher education inflation, 

based on two federally maintained price indexes: the Employment Cost Index for 

White Collar Workers and the Gross National Product Implicit Price Deflator. Its 

measure of inflation generally turns out to a bit below the Higher Education Price 

Index but higher than the CPI. We believe it is a reasonable approach. 

Now let me turn to the question of graduation rates and the role of finance in 

graduation rates. SHEEO members strongly believe that increasing the rate and 

speed of successful degree and certificate completion is a national priority; it deserves the concentrated attention of policy makers and educators. 

I know you have received testimony documenting the ways our data collection systems provide misleading, incomplete information on graduation rates. A student 

unit record system would help address that concern, and many states have experience with such systems. They have found acceptable ways of protecting privacy 

while providing valuable information for educators and policy makers. We would be 

able to answer a number of important education policy questions better and more 

cheaply if we had unit record data systems to track the progress of groups of individual students throughout their education. 

But if we had perfect data we would still need to improve graduation rates. 

The easy way to increase graduation rates is to compromise on quality or increase 

selectivity by reducing the numbers of students admitted to higher education. Neither is acceptable. We need to increase quality, and we need to increase participation. 

The right way is to work on all of the factors that delay timely graduation or 

cause students to drop out who can succeed. A few of the most important factors 

include: 

1. Improving the number of students who take rigorous, college prep courses in 

high school and are well-prepared for college work. 

2. Providing good academic counseling and coherent, clear pathways toward a degree in every college. 

3. Making sure courses needed for graduation are available. 

4. Providing greater rewards for engaging, rigorous undergraduate teaching. 

5. Reducing inappropriate loss of credit due to transfer among institutions. 

6. Providing enough student assistance to enable and encourage low-income students to limit working hours and take a full time course load. 

7. Providing on-campus work opportunities that keep students focused on campus 

life, rather than on outside distractions. 

8. Providing incentives and counseling assistance to encourage students take a 

full course load and complete their education in a timely fashion. 

9. Providing support services to non-traditional students whose work and family 

responsibilities can delay or derail their educational program. 

Like everything in education, getting better results on graduation rates will require collaboration. Everybody involved—students, faculty, institutions, policymakers—has to help. 

Many, but not all of the items on this list have fiscal implications. Additional 

money always makes progress easier. But we can’t wait until there is enough easy 

money to improve graduation rates. In states, in institutions, and in the federal government we have to make good decisions about spending priorities for using the 

money we have, and we have to improve the ways we use money to get better results. 

15

Your attention to the issues of cost and graduation rates is helpful to higher education and to the states—these issues are fundamentally important to the national 

interest in having a competitive workforce and well-educated citizens. Without federally required information and such discussions it would be very difficult for the 

nation to focus on these important matters. 

We all have distinctive roles to play in achieving our national objectives for higher 

education. As you consider the re-authorization of the Higher Education Act I hope 

the Congress is able to find ways of making even stronger federal contributions that 

complement and strengthen the roles of institutions and the states. It is important 

for us to work well together. 

The Committee staff has indicated that we will have until July 27, 2004 to submit 

a more complete statement of written testimony. I welcome that opportunity to address any questions that may arise in this hearing. It also will give more members 

of the Association an opportunity to provide input. Thank you very much for the 

opportunity to provide testimony.

Chairman BOEHNER. Mr. Wiener. 

STATEMENT OF ROSS WIENER, POLICY DIRECTOR, THE 

EDUCATION TRUST, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. WIENER. Thank you, Chairman Boehner and Members of the 

Committee for this opportunity to testify today. 

Since its establishment in 1991, the Education Trust has worked 

to improve the academic success of America’s young people—especially low-income students and students of color—from kindergarten through college. As many of you know, we recently published a report on college graduation rates. Its author, Kevin 

Carey, is with me here today, and I have brought additional copies 

of the report for Members ofthe Committee. 

Higher education has long been one of the main drivers of opportunity, social mobility and economic progress in our society. But 

that tremendous success has allowed us to overlook a serious and 


94792.001
16

deep-rooted problem in higher education: overall far too many students who enter our higher education system fail to earn a degree. 

Only 63 percent of students who begin full-time at a 4-year college 

get a bachelor’s degree within 6 years. And completion rates are 

substantially lower for minority students and students from low-income families. 

While approximately two-thirds of white freshman and 4-year 

colleges earned a degree within 6 years, fewer than half of AfricanAmericans and Latinos do so. There are also significant differences 

in completion rates between students based on family income: 77 

percent of students from high-income families graduate, while only 

54 percent of students from low-income families graduate. It is important to keep in mind that these figures represent outcomes only 

of those students who began as first-time, degree-seeking freshmen—that is, the students who are most likely to persist and graduate. 

To put these completion rates into perspective, consider this: if 

current trends continue, over 500,000 students will enter college 

this fall, try to earn a degree, and not succeed. At least not within 

6 years. 

But, because the number of students entering the nation’s colleges and universities has been steadily rising, not much attention 

has been paid to these low completion rates. Graduation rates 

among first-time, full-time students in 4-year colleges have remained stagnant for decades—we are successfully getting more 

young people to college, but we are not getting proportionally any 

more of them through college. 

These disturbing patterns—have remained stubbornly consistent, 

the consequences of not graduating have changed drastically. People with a 4-year degree or higher now earn much more relative 

to high school graduates than they did 30 years ago. By contrast, 

those who enroll in college but failed to graduate or get an associate degree have made only slight gains in income. 

Unless we change this current trend, we will become a society 

that is even more polarized by class distinctions. Only 7 percent of 

young people from the poorest families earn a bachelor’s degree by 

the time they are 26. Sixty percent of young people from our most 

affluent families earn a college degree by the time they are 26. College degrees may be the best route out of poverty, but they are a 

route now for only seven of every hundred low-income families. 

Three areas on which Federal policy is focused play significant 

roles in student success: preparation, ability to pay, and institutional policies and practices. There are important opportunities to 

significantly improve student preparation and student financial aid 

through reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We have described some options in our written testimony and I would be 

happy to elaborate on any of them. 

But while preparation and ability to pay are important, they do 

not tell the whole story. What is becoming increasingly clear is the 

critical role institutions themselves play in securing the success of 

their students. 

How do we know? Because right now, institutions that serve 

similar students, with similar academic backgrounds, and similar 

financial situations, have widely divergent graduation rates. 

17

This is the first year that institutional level graduation statistics 

have been released to the public, disaggregate by student gender 

and race ethnicity. Examining these numbers, we find that some 

institutions stand out even after controlling for factors such as institutions size, resources, mission, degree programs, and financial 

and academic backgrounds of their entering students. 

Some colleges and universities have much higher graduation 

rates than other very similar institutions. Examples of these exceptional institutions encompass a wide range, from Elizabeth City 

State University, a historically black institution in North Carolina, 

to Miami of Ohio, who you have heard from earlier today, a highly 

selective public university, to the University of California at Riverside, which serves a highly diverse mix of Black, Latino, White, 

and Asian students. 

These institutions are different in many ways. Their size, location, mission, selectivity, and students vary tremendously. But they 

are similar in one fundamental respect: they constantly and significantly outperform their peers in graduating students. 

This fall, the Education Trust will be making all of this data 

available through and interactive data base on our web site. Visitors will be able to select a given institution and see how it compares to similar peer institutions in graduating students. 

But even as individual institutions have distinguished themselves, our higher education system has collectively made virtually 

no progress in improving graduation rates. That must change both 

for the students and for our country. Institutions of higher education must be accountable for doing what they can do to enable 

the success of the students they admit. 

States are currently in the best position to create these accountability systems. But, it is important that states and systems of 

higher education began to see accountability as a responsibility, not 

a choice. Therefore, Congress should require states to put in place 

an accountability systems for 4-year colleges and universities. 

I see that my time has run out. I know that there are limitations 

of the data right now, and we can discuss those. We would agree 

with a number of suggestions that have been made to the Committee around better record keeping and better data systems. 

Those would help improve again both what we know about colleges 

and universities and they would improve the accuracy of accountability determinations. 

But we think it is very clear that the data exists right now is 

highly reliable and sufficient to create the beginnings of an accountability systems, particularly, for 4-year colleges. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiener follows:]

Statement of Ross Wiener, Policy Director, The Education Trust, 

Washington, DC 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding college graduation rates and 

their implications for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Since its establishment in 1991, The Education Trust has worked to improve the academic success of America’s young people—especially low-income students and students of 

color—from kindergarten through college. As many of you know, the Education 

Trust has recently published a report on this topic by Senior Policy Analyst Kevin 

Carey, who is with me here today, and I have brought additional copies of the report 

for Members of the Committee. 

18

Higher education in America has been and continues to be a tremendous success 

story. Collectively, our colleges and universities are unparalleled, attracting students and scholars from all over the world. Higher education has long been one of 

the main drivers of opportunity, social mobility and economic progress in our society. And that promise has been supported through federal policy—through tax-exempt status, establishment of land-grant institutions in the 19th Century, the G.I. 

Bill after World War II, and Pell Grants since 1972. Our historical national commitment to education has paid fantastic dividends; the United States has long had the 

best-educated, most productive workforce in the world. 

But that tremendous success has allowed us to overlook a serious and deep-rooted 

problem in higher education: far too many students who enter our higher education 

system fail to earn a degree. Overall, only 63 percent of students who begin fulltime at a four-year college get a bachelor’s degree within six years, according to the 

U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Survey. Graduation rates 

are even worse for BA-bound students who begin in a 2-year college. Moreover, in 

both types of institutions, completion rates are substantially lower for minority students and students from low-income families. 

While approximately two-thirds of White freshmen in 4-year colleges (66.8%) obtain a degree within six years, fewer than half of African–Americans (45.7%) and 

Latinos (47.3%) do so. There are also significant differences in completion between 

students in terms of family income: 77 percent of students from high-income families graduate, compared to only 54 percent for students from low-income families—

a 23 percentage point difference. It is important to keep in mind that these figures 

represent the outcomes only of students who began as first-time, degree-seeking 

freshmen in 4-year institutions—that is, the students who are most likely to persist 

and graduate. 

To put these completion rates into perspective, consider that in fall 1995, over 1.1 

million students enrolled as first-time freshmen in a four-year college or university. 

That means that more than 400,000 students were accepted into baccalaureategranting institutions intending to get a four-year degree, but still had not graduated 

six years later. When we take into account the growth in college enrollment since 

then—first-time freshman enrollment now exceeds 1.4 million annually—and consider the additional students who begin their college career in community college 

with the intention of transferring and earning a bachelor’s degree, we can say this 

with confidence: if current trends continue, over half a million students will enroll 

in college for the first time in fall 2004, try to earn a degree, and not succeed (at 

least, not within six years). 

Because the number of students entering the nation’s colleges and universities 

has been rising overall, not much attention has been paid to these low completion 

rates. The percentage of high school graduates going on to two-year or four-year colleges and universities increased from less than half in 1975 to almost two-thirds in 

2001. But graduation rates among first-time, full-time students in 4-year colleges 

have remained stagnant for decades—we are successfully getting more young people 

to college, but not getting proportionally any more of them through college. 

While these disturbing patterns—low overall graduation rates and big gaps between groups—have remained stubbornly consistent, the consequences of not graduating have changed drastically. People with a four-year degree or higher now earn 

much more relative to high school graduates than they did 30 years ago, and the 

gap increases with the level of the degree. By contrast, those who enroll in college 

but fail to graduate or get an associate degree have made only slight gains. 

Unless we change current trends, we will become a society that is even more polarized by class distinctions. Consider this: only 7% of young people from the poorest 

one-quarter of American families earn a bachelors degree by age 26, while 60% of 

young people from the top quartile of family income do so. College degrees may be 

the best route out of poverty, but they are a route now for only 7 of every 100 

youngsters born to a low-income family. 

Beyond the dire negative consequences to the young people themselves, though, 

these college completion patterns have worrisome implications for our national future—especially as other countries emulate, and even surpass, the United States’ 

success in higher education access and attainment. In contrast to almost all other 

industrialized nations, the US alone has remained relatively stagnant in the percent 

of working-age citizens with a college degree. Our dominance in college graduates 

is waning just as globalization is exerting relentless pressure on the U.S. labor market. 

Higher education has an increasingly important role in our future prosperity. As 

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noted recently: ‘‘By the time that the 

United States entered World War II, the median level of education for a 17-year old 

was a high-school diploma—an accomplishment that set us apart from other counVerDate 0ct 09 2002 20:14 Oct 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\94792 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
19

tries...We need to be forward-looking in order to adapt our educational system to 

the evolving needs of the economy and the realities of our changing society...More 

broadly, our system of higher education bears an important responsibility for ensuring that our workforce is prepared for the demands of economic change.’’

PREPARATION, AFFORDABILITY, PRACTICE: SHARED RESPONSIBILITY IN STUDENT

SUCCESS

Three areas on which federally policy is focused play significant roles in student 

success: preparation, ability to pay, and institutional policies and practices. 

Student Preparation 

Student preparation has a major impact on subsequent success in college. A largescale transcript analysis conducted by the U.S. Department of Education revealed 

that the rigor of a student’s high school curriculum was the single most significant 

predictor of college success, overriding the significance of race and socioeconomic 

status. Yet, while these patterns are clear in national data, few states have truly 

aligned their requirements and standards for high school students with expectations 

for incoming college freshmen. In practical terms, this means that too many high 

school students proceed through high school believing that they are being prepared 

for postsecondary education, only to find they need significant remediation before 

they can take credit-earning courses. 

This lack of clear articulation between K–12 and higher education disproportionately impacts low-income students and students of color, who are less likely to be 

enrolled in the college prep curriculum and less likely to get clear information on 

the devastating impact this has on their college aspirations: the data is very clear 

that students who need remediation in college are much less likely to graduate. 

Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act provides Congress with several opportunities to promote better preparation for college and for life. First, Congress 

should support state efforts to align the standards for high school exit with those 

for beginning post-secondary study. With a relatively small investment, Congress 

could help link K–12 and higher education data systems which would allow states 

to significantly advance alignment and articulation activities. What should states 

have to do to receive these funds? Quite simple: 

- K–12 and higher education systems need to agree on common definitions of the 

knowledge and skills required to begin postsecondary work. 

- K–12 systems need to review state standards and course requirements required 

for a high school diploma and develop a process to bring them into alignment 

with the skills and knowledge required to begin postsecondary work. 

- K–12 and higher education together need to agree on common assessments for 

measuring whether students possess the skills they need, and a curriculum that 

prepares students adequately for the challenges of postsecondary education. 

- States willing to make this curriculum the default curriculum for all students 

should receive additional federal financial assistance to provide the professional 

development that will be required. 

In addition, Congress can provide extra encouragement to low-income students to 

prepare for success in postsecondary education by providing additional financial aid 

to low-income students who have completed the college prep curriculum. 

Money Matters 

Providing financial incentives for students to complete a more rigorous college 

prep curriculum would begin to address another contributor to low graduation 

rates—the cost of attending college. But this step alone is by no means sufficient. 

The financial burden of paying for college is a huge barrier for many young people. 

Low income young people are particularly hard hit, because the relative value of 

Pell Grants has diminished by 50% since the late 1970s. Whereas Pell Grants used 

to cover 84% of the average fixed cost at a public, four-year institution, in 2001–

02 they covered only 42% of these costs. It is hugely important that you act to restore educational opportunities for our most vulnerable young people. 

- Congress should commit to a five-year trajectory to recoup the buying power of 

Pell Grants. 

Beyond providing more help to low-income students, though, it is important for 

Congress to consider how it might provide stronger incentives to colleges to enroll 

low-income students. As college-going increases, colleges often have less incentive to 

educate more low-income students. Despite the unique importance of higher education in breaking the cycle of poverty for students from low-income families, increases in student financial aid over the last ten years—at the federal, state, and 

institutional levels—have disproportionately benefited upper-middle and middleclass students. So even as the dollars for financial aid have grown, truly low-income 

20

students have been asked to shoulder more of the burden of paying for college 

through loans. And institutions of higher education should be eligible for supplemental financial assistance for enrolling and graduating low-income students. 

- Both federal grants to individuals as well federal aid to institutions should be 

designed to better serve the federal priority of increasing the access and success 

of low-income students. 

In addition, the process of simply arranging college financing presents a daunting 

morass of confusing, sometimes duplicative, programs. In some instances, the federal government is providing rich subsidies to private lenders without commensurate benefits to the low-income students the programs were established to serve. Indeed, the President’s budget proposal makes the case that ‘‘significantly lower Direct 

Loan subsidy rates call into question the cost effectiveness of the FFEL [guaranteed 

student loan] program structure, including the appropriate level of lender subsidies’’ 

and cites ‘‘evidence of significant cost inefficiencies’’ in the FFEL program. These 

subsidies should be limited and the savings should be redirected to as need-based 

aid for low-income students. 

- Congress should eliminate excessive subsidies and directly administer a greater 

portion of federally guaranteed student financial assistance, such as has been 

proposed by Congressmen Petri and Miller. 

What Institutions Do Matters, Too 

Preparation and ability to pay are important, but they do not tell the whole story. 

What is becoming increasingly clear is the critical role institutions themselves play 

in securing the success of their students. How do we know? Because right now, institutions that serve similar students with similar preparation and similar family 

incomes have widely divergent graduation rates. Our recent report focusing on this 

issue revealed that some colleges and universities are doing much better than others 

in graduating their students, even once we account for student characteristics. 

This is the first year that institution-level graduation rate statistics have been released to the public, disaggregated by student gender and race/ethnicity. Examining 

the numbers closely, we find that some institutions stand out—even after controlling for factors such as institution size, resources, mission, degree programs, and the 

financial and academic background of their entering students. Some colleges and 

universities have much higher graduation rates than other, very similar institutions. 

These exceptional higher education institutions range from Elizabeth City State 

University, a historically Black institution in North Carolina whose student body is 

predominantly low-income, to Miami of Ohio, a highly selective public university, to 

the University of California at Riverside, which serves a highly diverse mix of 

White, Black, Asian, and Latino students, to the University of Northern Iowa, a 

mid-sized comprehensive institution. 

These institutions are different in many ways—their size, location, mission, selectivity, and students vary tremendously. But they’re similar in one fundamental respect—they consistently and significantly outperform their peers in graduating students. 

And the data reveal that high performance doesn’t have to be for some students 

at the expense of others—institutions like East Carolina University in North Carolina and Binghamton University in New York outperform their peers without gaps 

in graduation rates between white students and students of color. We even know 

that rapid improvement is possible, thanks to the example of the University of Florida, Louisiana Tech, and others that have upped graduation rates for five years running. 

This newly available data establishes that what institutions do makes a very big 

difference when it comes to student success. This fall, the Education Trust will be 

making all of this data publicly available through an interactive database on our 

website. Visitors to our website will be able to select a given institution and see how 

it compares to similar, peer institutions in graduating students. We will be happy 

to provide Members of Congress and their staffs with information and analysis from 

this database. 

Even as individual institutions have distinguished themselves, our higher education system has, collectively, made virtually no progress in improving graduation 

rates over the last three decades. That must change—both for the students and for 

our country. Institutions of higher education must be accountable for doing what 

they can to enable the success of the students they admit. 

Leaders in many states are beginning to step up to this responsibility: 

• For example, The University System of Georgia, led by Chancellor Tom Meredith, has begun to study the graduation rates of its 34 colleges and universities, 

21

with the aim of setting graduation rate goals, both overall and for student subgroups, for which campus presidents will be held accountable. • In Massachusetts, a graduation rate task force has been appointed to find out 

why the number of undergraduate degrees awarded by 24 state and community 

colleges has dropped steadily since 1997, particularly in economically depressed 

areas served by the schools. Spurred by upcoming implementation of a new 

state performance funding system, the task force is expected to outline a series 

of concrete recommendations by December. • And it is no coincidence that two of the unusually high-performing institutions 

I mentioned earlier are from North Carolina. Some years ago, the UNC system 

began publishing graduation rates and holding campus presidents accountable 

for these numbers. 

The traditional state role in regulating and funding higher education suggests 

that states are currently in the best position to create robust accountability systems 

that hold institutions appropriately responsible for the success of their students. But 

given the national interest in tackling this problem, Congress should ask states to 

design and implement goals and accountability systems for higher education access 

and outcomes. While the quality of currently available data and the limited knowledge of best practices advise against a uniform system nationally, it is important 

that states and systems of higher education begin to see accountability as a responsibility, not a choice. 

- Congress should require states to put in place an accountability system for 4-

year colleges and universities. 

States should have broad discretion in designing systems that meet the particular 

needs and characteristics of their institutions, and that fit with systems that have 

already been established. But each system should share several common characteristics: (1) accurate, publicly available graduation rates that are disaggregated by 

student gender, race/ethnicity, and income status; (2) specific goals for improvement 

at each institution, including both overall improvement and closing gaps between 

groups; and (3) public reporting of institutional success in meeting graduation-rate 

goals. And states should develop plans to integrate 2-year institutions into their accountability system, once appropriate measure are developed that account for the 

diverse missions those institutions pursue. 

Some states are already well on the way to developing graduation-rate measures 

that improve on the federally-collected data, by taking into account student mobility 

between institutions. These states should be allowed to use these fuller measures 

as they implement accountability systems. States that have not yet made the investment in the data systems they need should use the federally-collected measures in 

the meantime. 

Accountability for higher education should also incorporate measures of access 

and quality of learning, to ensure that increasing student completion doesn’t come 

at the expense of academic standards or education opportunities for low-income students. Measures of institutional success must include both the institution’s performance in graduating traditionally underserved students, and it’s success in recruiting 

and admitting such students. Too often, success in higher education is measured in 

terms of increasing the so-called ‘‘quality’’ of the students institutions enroll, which 

can come at the expense of serving the students whose need for an accessible, affordable, high-quality post-secondary education is greatest. Congress must help to 

counterbalance those pressures by recognizing and encouraging those who give access and success equal attention. 

BUILDING EVEN BETTER DATA SYSTEMS

We recognize that the institutional graduation rate statistics currently gathered 

by the Department of Education aren’t perfect, because they don’t fully account for 

students who transfer from one institution to another. This is less of a problem than 

is sometimes suggested, though. Less than a quarter of beginning 4-year students 

transfer, and only a third of those students who transfer end up graduating within 

six years. As a result, 80% of all students who start college at a 4-year institution 

and earn a B.A. finish where they began. The current graduation rate statistics are 

more than enough to know that some institutions are doing much better than others, and we should act on that information now. 

But we can and must do better. The U.S. Department of Education should be directed to work with states to develop a next generation of graduation rate statistics 

that appropriately account for mobility and other factors. Higher education institutions currently submit an array of detailed, time-consuming survey forms to the federal government on a variety of subjects. All of this data is important, and needs 

to be collected in the future. But by moving to a more streamlined, powerful data 

22

collection system that allows the tracking of student success at multiple higher education institutions, we could increase the efficiency and utility of the data collection 

process while reducing the expense in the long run. We can also answer vital questions that currently lie beyond the scope of the data system, such as: what are the 

graduation rates of low-income students and students receiving federal financial 

aid? How does the success of students seeking different academic majors compare? 

How successful are institutions in graduating students, after taking into account 

those who transfer? 

Such a system would also give us much more information about the pipeline of 

students between 2-year and 4-year colleges. We currently know even less about the 

success of our community colleges than our baccalaureate and graduate institutions, 

despite the fact that 2-year colleges represent a growing sector of higher education, 

particularly for low-income, minority, and non-traditional students. A more integrated, powerful data system will change this, providing a more clear picture of success across higher education sectors. 

With this new data in hand, Congress can help promote public scrutiny of higher 

education outcomes by disseminating and drawing public attention to a free, easyto-understand, uniformly-comparable public information system. Such a system 

would allow students, parents, and policymakers to better understand how different 

colleges and universities compare on crucial performance benchmarks, including access, affordability, and graduation rates, as well available information regarding 

academics and safety. Honest, objective, reliable information about the success of individual institutions of higher education needs to become more easily accessible and 

this data needs to permeate discussions of institutional quality. 

Moving forward, we need to know much more about which institutions are doing 

better, and then we need to learn more about what these institutions are doing. 

Gathering much richer data about student progress and success is an important 

component of any strategy to improve outcomes in higher education. Better data will 

help researchers and higher education leaders identify high performers and learn 

from them. There are some promising initiatives underway in this regard, such as 

NSSE, the National Survey of Student Engagement developed at Indiana University. NSSE and similar projects are exploring the connections between institutional 

practices and student success. But in-depth ‘‘best practices’’ studies whose results 

are transferable from one college or university to another are far too rare in higher 

education, in part because there hasn’t been enough good data to reliably know who 

the ‘‘high performers’’ really are, and in part because neither tradition nor policy 

have created sufficient demand for such studies. 

Congress can advance the conversation on both of these issues through the HEA 

reauthorization. 

- Better data systems should be developed to more accurately identify the most 

successful institutions and research should be supported to discern the policies 

and practices that distinguish these institutions from their peers. 

- To spur interest in the colleges and universities that truly stand out in their 

service to their students, Congress should establish a program akin to the Blue 

Ribbon schools in the K–12 context. 

The federal government should very publicly recognize and reward the colleges 

and universities that are serving the greatest number of low-income and minority 

students and demonstrating the greatest success in graduating these students. Our 

initial research suggests that these institutions come from all sectors of post-secondary education, from large research universities to small private colleges to minority-serving institutions. By very publicly identifying the best of the best, and rewarding them for their success, Congress could set a standard against which all 

other institutions would be measured. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important subject. I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

[An attachment to Mr. Wiener’s statement has been retained in 

the Committee’s official files.] 

Chairman BOEHNER. Dr. Law. 

23

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM D. LAW, PRESIDENT, TALLAHASSEE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY 

COLLEGES 

Dr. LAW. Good morning, Chairman Boehner. Ranking Member 

Miller, Members ofthe Committee. 

My name is Dr. William law, and I am President of Tallahassee 

Community College in Florida. I am here today representing the 

American Association of Community Colleges, which commends the 

Committee for convening this hearing to address the important 

issue of student graduation rates. 

Attainment of an associate degree results in significantly increased earnings compared to those who only hold a high school diploma. It opens up job opportunities and provides further educational opportunities, as well. For these reasons community colleges place an emphasis on graduation. 

At the same time, we recognize that not all community college 

students will receive a degree. Some student goals will be met by 

attaining a skill certification in fields such as information technology or bio-manufacturing, important support for local employers. 

Others will leave school once they have been able to get or keep 

the right job. 

Some students who may have been encouraged to attend college 

by our open door, may have transferred to another institution before graduation. And some may have withdrawn because they have 

found their nonacademic responsibilities overwhelming, or simply 

could not finance college. 

We believe that our investment in all of the students is worthwhile. Like many other community colleges, Tallahassee Community College has an aggressive program designed to encourage 

graduation. We monitor students closely along their entire educational course. This begins with a strong comprehensive diagnostic 

testing, strong orientation before course selection begins. This early 

intervention helps us to accurately place students often into remedial courses. As students move through their program, we intervene intensively. If they withdraw from more than one course, the 

pattern of withdrawal correlates highly with persistence. 

Little things matter. At Tallahassee Community College we 

found out that with very little effort, we can put the students picture on the class roster. They will get an ID card, we simply crosswalk that to our class rosters. Faculty members have name and 

student picture on the first day of classes. 

Tallahassee Community College is also involved with an ambitious Lumina Foundation grant targeted at colleges with high numbers of minority and/or low income students. The grants’ goal is to 

identify the optimal services to help students graduate. 

There’s a strong emphasis on institutional change, integration 

with existing state policy, and a widespread dissemination of results. The American Association of Community Colleges also partners with the American Association of State Colleges and Universities on a similar Lumina Foundation grant called Access to the 

Baccalaureate Degree. 

Congress too, has a critical role to play in helping college students graduate by providing adequate amounts of need-based stuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 20:14 Oct 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\94792 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
24

dent aid. Federal student aid represents more than 70 percent of 

all aid available, and there is no substitute. The growing disparity 

in graduation rates between low income students and more affluent 

ones is to a large degree financial. The relatively low graduation 

rates of certain ethnic minorities reflect their economic status. We 

urge Congress to do its part to help students. 

Mr. Chairman and Members ofthe Committee, let me indicate 

that I have been a president for—I am approaching my 16th year 

as a president, 8 years as a senior vice president. I have never had 

a discussion with a board of trustees that said let’s raise our graduation rates because we can get more Pell Grant support for students. Our focus is in—has always been on the lowest tuition rate 

so that the most students could access our systems. 

Let me add that good data on how students progress through the 

higher education system is lacking. Better tracking is needed, and 

we urge Congress to explore this option. 

Congress could also help 2-year and certainly 4-year colleges develop more articulation programs, Florida being a model in this 

area. And we would suggest that these articulation programs along 

the lines of legislation introduced by Representative Wu, could be 

very helpful. 

H.R. 4283 does not do as much as it should to enhance college 

graduation. Setting aside whether increased authorization ceilings 

could lead to aid, the bill does not support institutions in providing 

services for at-risk students to stay in school. 

I am a firm believer that a community college student who says 

‘‘I would like to go to college’’ is often saying, ‘‘I hope I can afford 

to go to college.’’ In fact, the legislation would at times reduce ability to help our students through the inclusion of the single definition of ‘‘institution of higher education.’’ For community colleges 

this is highly important. Therefore, we look forward to working 

with the Committee to improve the bill. whether in this year or 

next year’s Congress. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify, and I’m 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Law follows:]

Statement of William D. Law, Jr., President, Tallahassee Community College, Tallahassee, Florida on Behalf of the American Association of Community Colleges 

Good morning Chairman Boehner, Ranking Member Miller and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Dr. William Law and I am President of Tallahassee Community College in Florida. I am pleased to be here today to represent the views of 

the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) on ‘‘Increasing Graduation 

Rates and Improving Student Outcomes.’’ AACC is the national voice for the nation’s 1,173 community, junior and technical colleges. 

Before I begin my testimony, let me provide a few statistics. Community colleges 

enroll more than 6 million credit and 5.5 million non-credit students each year. This 

includes 45.9% of all undergraduate African American students in American higher 

education, and 56% of all Hispanic–American students. The colleges enroll 48.6% of 

all first generation college students. We proudly think of ourselves as being the 

‘‘Ellis Island’’ of higher education. However, our colleges are undergoing a difficult 

period of sharp budget cuts coupled with dramatic enrollment increases. In the last 

budget cycle, state funding, which represents 41% of total revenues, decreased overall by 2.1%. At the same time, over the last 3 years, our credit enrollments have 

exploded, by about 20%. 

AACC commends the Education Trust for its Report, ‘‘A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four–Year Colleges and Universities.’’ Overall, the reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 20:14 Oct 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\94792 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
25

port is a balanced and thoughtful examination of the causes and consequence of college students not completing their studies. We regret the report’s inattention to 

community colleges and its general de-emphasis of the value of the associate degree. 

Ignoring our more than six million college students is akin to evaluating the U.S. 

military and neglecting to study the Army; but, in general, the report treats a number of complex and interlocking issues incisively. 

We note that those community college students who transfer to four-year colleges 

on average perform as well or better than students who originally enroll at a fouryear school. We also note that, before conclusions about graduation rates are drawn, 

better data about them needs to be generated. This topic is outside the purview of 

AACC’s testimony, but it should be an ongoing focus of the Committee. 

WHY GRADUATION MATTERS—WHY SOME STUDENTS DON’T

Community colleges fully appreciate the importance of getting students to graduate. Attainment of a certificate or associate degree results, on average, in significantly greater earnings compared to those who hold just a high school diploma. The 

differential earnings are more than $350,000 over a lifetime. Success at a community college also creates opportunities for transfer to a four-year college. Graduation 

also results in substantially enhanced self-esteem, as anyone who has attended a 

community college graduation ceremony knows viscerally. 

It is commonplace for community college students to leave programs before completion because good jobs are readily available, oftentimes with the very employers 

who have helped sponsor a technical training program. In fact, many students enroll 

in our institutions with no intention of attaining a degree. With the completion of 

a few courses they may have gotten the skills and competencies they need to get 

or keep a desired job. However, while this behavior may be financially instrumental 

in the short-term, it is not always conducive to a student’s long-term benefit, because, over time, degree attainment does matter. It matters because it provides a 

helpful credential valuable for its own sake and also because it often indicates that 

a student has gained broader skills that can help him or her learn on the job. In 

addition, the possession of an associate or particularly baccalaureate degree may 

‘‘signal’’ to potential employers that, in the absence of other information on which 

to make a hiring decision, the simple attainment of a degree suggests that an individual is responsible, persistent, and dedicated, and would make a good employee. 

Community colleges recognize that some students will not graduate. This occurs 

for many reasons. One, perhaps not popular in today’s environment of accountability, is that the broad ‘‘open door’’ provided for community college students also 

allows for an easy exit. Community colleges have an average tuition of just $1,905. 

(In contrast, average tuition at two year proprietary schools averages $10,619.) The 

low community college price tag is designed to encourage people who otherwise 

might not enroll in higher education to attend, regardless of whether substantial 

student aid is available. Such students include recent immigrants with little English 

proficiency, those needing large amounts of remedial coursework, high school dropouts of long ago, or those who simply have been intimidated from staying in the 

classroom. 

Serving educationally at-risk students is a central part of community colleges’ 

mission and we embrace it. Do we consider those students who enroll but do not 

attain a degree ‘‘failures’’? As a rule we do not, because we know that these students 

have tangibly benefited from the education and training they received at our colleges for starters, they earn considerably more, on average, than high school graduates. Obviously, these students’ economic prospects have been enhanced by graduation, but the beauty of the community college is that it will be easy for them to enroll if and when they decide they are ready for more study. 

In some respects, higher education is a victim of its success in dramatically increasing the percentage of high school graduates and others now enrolling in postsecondary education. These new students tend to be ‘‘non-traditional’’ students. By 

definition, they are older than traditional students, and more likely to work, live off 

campus, and have family responsibilities. Common sense and extensive research 

suggest that all these factors make it less likely that these individuals will graduate, in comparison to the ‘‘traditional’’ student. Part-time enrollment is particularly 

correlated with lack of degree attainment, and, of necessity, nearly two-thirds of all 

community college students attend on a part-time basis. In addition, more than 80 

percent of all community college students work at least part-time. Almost 30 percent 

of full-time students also work full-time. For many of these students, their job must 

come first. 

26

Often lost in the discussion of institutional graduation rates is a focus on individual students. These students are agents their own destiny, and know best whether they are committed to doing whatever is necessary to graduate from college. 

TALLAHASSEE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACTIVITY

Tallahassee Community College is dedicated to encouraging college completion. 

Our college has designed and implemented a comprehensive system to realize this 

goal. Students are tracked continuously from before the time they begin their 

coursework, when diagnostic tests are administered. If a student begins to show 

signs of potential failure, appropriate intervention is undertaken. We become particularly concerned, and actively engaged, when students drop more than one course 

during a term. This pattern is highly correlated with a subsequent withdrawal from 

college. Alternatively, students who do not drop courses are extremely likely to persist. 

Also, the Federal Title IV ‘‘standards of satisfactory academic progress’’ play an 

important and positive role in focusing our college on the educational progress our 

students are making. 

SOME COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO FOSTER GRADUATION

Helping Community College Students Attain the Baccalaureate Through More Seamless Systems 

With important support from state and local government and other sources, community colleges across the country are striving to help their graduates enroll in 

four-year colleges. Florida has an elaborate common course-numbering system that 

includes four-year colleges and proprietary schools. Courses must undergo an extensive evaluation and approval process before they are assigned to a particular category. Wyoming, Connecticut, and Colorado also have common course number systems. These systems facilitate easy movement between institutions. A number of 

other states have guaranteed articulation between two- to four-year colleges. 

State-wide systems such as those just described would be more common if institutional ‘‘turf’’ considerations did not at times impede progress. Transfer is also impeded because generating large-scale, cross-institutional cooperative academic efforts is very time-consuming and, hence, expensive. Hundreds of man-hours are involved. Consequently, institution-by-institution articulation agreements are more 

common. Many examples could be given; two include the direct transfer guarantee 

that Lord Fairfax, and Rappahannock, VA, students get to enroll in Mary Washington College, and a similar arrangement between the Community College of Baltimore County and the University of Baltimore. 

With support from the Lumina Foundation for Education, AACC has been pleased 

to partner with the American Association of State Colleges and Universities 

(AASCU) on the ‘‘Access to the Baccalaureate’’ Initiative. These two organizations 

represent the vast majority of public postsecondary educational institutions. The 18-

month initiative is designed to identify and suggest remedies to non-financial barriers to attendance and persistence in college, with a focus on enhancing transfer 

between two- and four-year institutions. The final recommendations will be mailed 

to institutions, state systems, and policymakers soon. We will provide a copy of the 

findings to the Committee. 

Increasing the Graduation Rate of Low–Income Students 

Also with the support of the Lumina Foundation, AACC, along with a number of 

other partners, is in the midst of a major new initiative called ‘‘Achieving the 

Dream: Community Colleges Count.’’ The initiative has a goal of increasing success 

for the growing number of students for whom community colleges are the point of 

entry into higher education, particularly low-income students and students of color. 

Eligible colleges had to have at least 33 percent minority enrollment, or at least 

50 percent first-time, first-year Pell Grant recipients, and be located in Florida, New 

Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, or Virginia. States were selected on the basis of a 

central commitment to achieving the goals of the initiative. TCC is one of the colleges that has been selected to participate. 

The goals of Achieving the Dream are ambitious; after four years, it is expected 

that colleges will show improved success rates for low-income students and students 

of color, and that those success rates will continue to increase over time. An increased percentage of low-income students and students of color will hopefully: • Successfully complete the courses they take, 

• Advance from remedial to credit-bearing courses, 

• Enroll in and successfully complete gateway courses, 

• Re-enroll from one semester to the next, 

27

• Earn degrees and certificates. 

Achieving the Dream funders and partners believe that data analysis is fundamental for effective institutional decision-making. Although colleges collect and report a wide-range of data for institutional management, as well as to meet the requirements of state and federal governments, and accreditation agencies, too often 

these data are disconnected and underused. Achieving the Dream colleges will use 

data on student outcomes to diagnose areas that need improvement, generate the 

institutional will for change, and assess the impact of the changes on students. College teams will develop a ‘‘culture of evidence,’’ using data to mobilize broad participation, to guide and assess their actions, and to shape policies and practices that 

support students’ successful academic and career attainment. 

Achieving the Dream expects to foster change within institutions and in state policy. The initiative also seeks to increase knowledge about policies, programs, structures, and services that increase student success and to increase public support for 

raising postsecondary attainment levels. We do agree with the Trust report, however, that many of the necessary tools are known, lacking only the will and necessary resources to be implemented. 

WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO TO INCREASE GRADUATION RATES

In additional to state and institutional actions, the Federal government has a critical role in helping more students graduate. The Federal government should: 

1)Provide More Student Financial Aid. Probably the most important thing that 

Congress or any party can do to help more students graduate is provide larger 

amounts of student financial assistance. The Committee is well aware of the lingering disparity in college access and a growing disparity in degree attainment between students from lower and those from more affluent income backgrounds. These 

stark disparities are morally unacceptable and represent a severe impediment to the 

nation’s continued economic vitality. Federal student financial aid represents over 

70% of all student aid and there is no substitute for it. 

Congress appears poised to freeze the Pell Grant maximum for the third consecutive year at a time when tuitions have risen dramatically. (No matter what is asserted, these increases are primarily due to state budget cuts, at least at community 

colleges.) We categorically reject suggestions that increased need-based student financial aid in any way contributes to increased community college tuitions. In fact, 

federal student aid represents no more than 7% of community college revenues. We 

urge this Committee to send a strong signal to appropriators and other policymakers that funding for need-based student aid must be increased. 

We commend the Trust report for pointing out that, in higher education, there 

is a strong overlap of students coming from low-income and underrepresented minority backgrounds. Colleges are often criticized for the low graduation rates of minority students when in fact the experience of these students simply reflects the college graduation rates of students coming from comparable income and educational 

backgrounds. 

2) Encourage Better Tracking of Students. Although we agree with the Trust that 

a federally mandated tracking system for the entire postsecondary education system 

is not called for at this time, Congress should examine options by which the postsecondary education system might better monitor the educational course of students 

over their college careers. This would include transfer between institutions, concurrent enrollment at two or more institutions, enrollment in a community college after 

attainment of a baccalaureate degree, etc. We believe that the Trust report underemphasizes the inadequacy of current data reporting systems. In some states, community colleges know immediately when their students transfer to a four-year college. In other cases, they hear nothing. This patchwork system of tracking students 

is a major impediment to fully understanding how the postsecondary system is operating. It also makes our colleges appear much less effective than they are in fact. 

3) Help Support Transfer Between Two- and Four–Year Colleges. Along with the 

American Council on Education, the National Association of Independent Colleges 

and Universities, and other associations, AACC has asked Congress to create a new 

program in the HEA that would provide assistance to institutions and states that 

would like to develop articulation frameworks, primarily between two- and four-year 

colleges. Development of these agreements is a time-consuming and expensive process, and federal assistance would be beneficial. While these frameworks have already been generated in some states, they probably won’t be widespread without 

Federal support. AACC was pleased to see the introduction of H.R. 1871 by Representative Wu, and supports its passage, with modifications. 

28

DOCUMENTING EDUCATION AND EARNINGS—AN IMPORTANT STATE ROLE

One of the exciting ways in which states are helping our colleges better evaluate 

their effectiveness is in anonymously matching state unemployment insurance wage 

data records with student identifiers, so that ‘‘before and after’’ comparisons can be 

made about the economic returns of participation in higher education. Such systems 

have been established with differing degrees of comprehensiveness in Florida, Maryland, Illinois, Texas, North Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, and California. While 

there are limitations on the utility of this data, they remain an enormously rich and 

cost-effective way of shedding light on the effectiveness of various college programs. 

This activity gained momentum when the 1998 Workforce Investment Act required 

states to make available UI wage data records in order to enable institutions to better track job training program performance. Regrettably, this framework has not 

taken hold across the country, in part because of what we believe are unfounded 

privacy concerns. These delays are a major source of frustration for many of our colleges. Nevertheless, we expect this trend to continue. 

In summary, while community colleges will continue to strive to meet their missions by serving many of the hardest-to-serve student populations, they are acutely 

aware of the need to achieve higher graduation rates. That is why AACC is actively 

involved in two major initiatives to achieve these ends. And we ask Congress to do 

its part, as well. 

Thank you for your attention to these comments. I look forward to responding to 

any questions that you may have. 

Chairman BOEHNER. We thank all of the witnesses for excellent 

testimony. And I may also thank my colleagues for their willingness to show up, and to learn more about this graduation gap that 

we have been American colleges and universities. 

Mr. Wiener, you made a pretty compelling case that there is a 

problem in graduation—the graduation gap between institutions. 

You didn’t spend a lot of time talking about why. 

Why is it that some institutions, as you pointed out about four 

of them, have high graduation rates and others don’t. Is there a 

single factor? 

Mr. WIENER. I don’t think there is a single factor, and I think 

that we need to distinguish between factors that are within the 

control of institutions, or that we would want them to control, and 

factors that are not. 

Some institutions serve a—are more selective about the students 

that they accept. They have a lower percentage of students with financial strains. Those institutions, by and large, have high graduation rates. What we have looked at is comparing institutions that 

serve very similar students, and have noticed that some institutions distinguished themselves. 

I think one of the things that we know is, frankly, right now we 

don’t know enough about what those institutions do differently. 

That’s in part because we haven’t had enough good data to really 

know which institutions are doing a lot better. But is also because 

the culture of higher education, both in policy and in tradition, has 

not really prioritized knowing which institutions those are, and 

learning from them. 

There are some promising practices under way, I would point to 

NSSE, the National Survey of Student Engagement, which is looking at studying the connection between institutions that have higher graduation rate, and what those institutions are doing. And 

what they are finding, is those institutions have more engagement 

between students and faculty, as Miami of Ohio suggested, has 

been important in their success. As well as, more engagement in 

the community of the college, generally. More writing assignments, 

29

more collaborative assignments involving multiple students. A 

number of factors that get students more engaged in their learning. 

And I just wanted to sort of preemptively, there’s been a suggestion that to focus on graduation rates would encourage institutions 

to lower their academic standards. I don’t think that there’s any indication that the institutions that we’ve identified, who have distinguished themselves, have done that. And the surveys, the research 

that there is, suggest that institutions are doing better, are in fact 

doing it by focusing on teaching and learning. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Dr. Lingenfelter. What do you think the difference is between schools and this big difference in graduation 

gaps? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I’m very impressed with Education Trust’s 

work on this issue. I think many of institutional factors that they 

talk about must make a significant difference. My guess is that 

there is probably some other issues involved. There are some colleges that are legitimately stretched for resources, and it is very 

difficult to improve when that is the case. 

But, by and large, I think the whole culture of higher education 

in our generation has shifted from one that emphasizes selection 

as a means of determining quality, to one where we really understand the need to get a much larger portion of our people educated 

to a higher standard. That takes a change of mind set, and it’s 

going to take some changes in the way that we do business. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Dr. Nault, what are the factors in Miami’s 

success, in terms of this high graduation rate was the engagement 

of full-time faculty in actually teaching. Are there other factors 

that you believe make Miami successful? 

Dr. NAULT. We have been—at Indiana University—Indiana University’s trying to fill in some of these gaps in knowledge that we 

have. They have selected 20 institutions across the country that 

have this really very effective consequences for their students. 

And one thing that really strikes me about that study is that the 

institutions are very, very different. In other words, you have small 

Catholic institutions, you have large research institutions, their 

very different. But somehow, within their traditional mission, they 

have found a way with their community, and with their students, 

to be more effective. And the study is trying to unravel that, and 

it is very complex because they are very different sorts of places. 

I would say, we have said that our bread-and-butter, what we 

need to focus on is the education of undergraduates. And sometimes I think that some institutions become too broad and their 

purposes and their missions. And we have said, we need to stick 

to our bread-and-butter. That works for us. That works with clientele that comes from us. 

And we try to do a lot of things. You’ve been on our campus, and 

as you know, the scale of our campus is very different than many 

campuses. Even in building of buildings, we’ve tried to keep them 

small, to put the student at the center of the experience. And that 

is a decision that is related to that fundamental commitment. But 

what fits Miami doesn’t fit all institutions. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Mr. Wiener, one last question. In your testimony, you talk about accountability by institutions should be seen 

30

as a responsibility not a choice. You want to elaborate on that for 

a moment? 

Mr. WIENER. Well, I think it goes back to my remarks and to the 

remarks of Dr. Lingenfelter about we really do need to have a 

change in culture. There needs to be an acceptance of the responsibility that institutions have a responsibility to students that they 

admit to do what they can, to support those students and to help 

those students graduate. 

And it’s very important to those individual students themselves, 

many of whom will have taken on a debt burden that they are then 

expecting the rewards of a college degree will help them pay off. 

But it’s critically important for society as a whole, as well. We 

need more college graduates. We will need more in the future as 

our population ages, and as we will need to support more retirees, 

and more jobs that we will want to have in this economy will require that education. 

You know, one of the things of that we found is that several 

high-performing institutions showed up in North Carolina. I don’t 

think it’s a coincidence that North Carolina has for a number of 

years publicly published graduation rates, and has had a system 

for holding campus presidents accountable for those graduation 

rates. 

I think we need to began to—that needs to be something on 

which we judge the quality of institutions. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

I, too, would like to thank you, Mr. Wiener, and Education Trust, 

for your report. 

A lot of people have written a lot of words, and discussed at great 

length, the question of when accountability that we now see at elementary and secondary education, was going to arrive at the door 

step of the institutions of higher education—and may have just arrived there with your report. So we can consider this day one. 

I think it’s very important that we consider this question. We 

have been considering it in the discussions about the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We have discussed it in very different ways on both sides of the aisles. But, I think, perhaps your 

report points out some directions that we should go in and makes 

a critical distinction of holding institutions accountable for those 

things which they control, and those things that they don’t. 

And, I also hope that the majority will read—all of your report, 

including the recommendations about some things that should be 

done because then that would bring us very close together on part 

of the bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman BOEHNER. Hey, it’s your hearing. 

Mr. MILLER. Now, let me point out a couple of things. One is, I 

think that you have got to back up, because there is another gap 

that’s been discussed. And again, Education Trust has been a leader in the discussion of this gap, and that is those students who 

graduate from high school and want to go to college, and who are 

in fact prepared to go to college. And there is a huge gap there. 

You have been a proponent, I know that in our state, of trying 

to suggest that a college preparatory only curriculum be available 

31

in our high schools and that we get everybody ready to go to community college, 2-year, 4-year, 6-year degrees, wherever they are 

headed. 

It’s hard for me to think that we should be surprised by low 

graduation rates when 35 or 40 percent of the kids showing up at 

the state college system in California need remedial math and 

reading and writing skills. I don’t know what our expectations 

would be about that class. I know we think that if we apply enough 

talent to that pool of people we get them all through graduation. 

But that’s not the pool that you’d like to show up with on opening 

day in college, it would seem to me. 

And so, we better continue to address that gap, because it’s unfair again, to suggest that the colleges can correct all those problems with that pool of students, whether it’s at community college 

level or not. I think that in California now we’re pushing those kids 

back into the community colleges and saying you remediate these 

kids, and then send them to us when they are ready. 

Well, what about the community colleges? They’re going to be 

held responsible for graduation rates. Who remediates those kids 

before they get there—and that’s called elementary, secondary education. So I think that point in your paper is very important, as 

are your other recommendations dealing with—recouping the buying power of the Pell Grant. As you know, that continues to be frozen, and I think it’s about $700 less than where it was 30 years 

ago. 

Also there is the question of excessive subsidies in the Federal 

Guaranteed Student Loan Program. And to make sure that we’re 

designing those assets, as Dr. Nault testified to target those students who in fact need that financial assistance—how do we do 

that? 

So I think those are very good recommendations that I hope that 

the Committee will consider next year in its reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act. 

Dr. Lingenfelter, let me ask you. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. At the end of the day, your report is telling us that 

from 1991 to 2003 there was a 2-percent increase in the total support for students in higher education combining tuition and state 

aid, even with the offset that you provide internally. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. That is correct. With enormous variation 

among the states. 

Mr. MILLER. With enormous variations, enormous variations. 

One of those states where there is great variance is Maryland. 

I guess I just have trouble thinking that you’re going to solve all 

these problems with a 2 percent increase over a 12 year period of 

time, most of which a disproportionate share is being borne by students. And students—some with that one set of problems I talked 

about, whether they’re college prepared—we know that most students are working longer to try and stay in school because they are 

borrowing more. 

I mean this just doesn’t sound like a formula for success. And 

we’re asking apparently with the states, as you talked about on a 

roller coaster through recessions and recoveries. But the end of the 

32

day, as Mr. Kildee pointed out, students are still been as to absorb 

a larger share of the cost of running those institutions. 

One of the things we try to do in our legislation was to try and 

see if there was some incentives to get the state to stay in the higher education game, in terms of state support instead of what 

they’re doing now. 

Most of them have obligations to deal with Medicaid—healthcare programs and elementary secondary education, so they cut 

higher education because they can lay it off onto the families, and 

they think that the families have decided, well, that’s just part of 

the fee structure. 

I don’t get how you can build this institution that is going to 

have this high levels of graduation rates across that general board, 

all the variances across the country, with that kind of increase in 

resources. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I would never argued that resources are, and 

that additional resources, are not required to get where we need to 

be as a nation in higher education. I think the Congress, the states, 

and institutions all need to think hard about their spending priorities, their investment priorities, for these goals. 

I would also follow that by saying we need to use the money we 

have more effectively in order to get to these goals. There will 

never be enough money to make it easy unless the change some 

things in the way we do our work. 

I would like to make just one other comment on state accountability, if I could. Our association established a National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education, because the states 

have had—had been working on this issue for more than a dozen 

years. 

The Commission is chaired by Former Secretary Riley and the 

Former Governor of Oklahoma, Frank Keating, and includes several legislators. I won’t take more time telling you about it, but I 

just want to flag that report and it will be available in November, 

probably. And we hope that will be useful to the Congress as you 

sort through some of these issues. 

Mr. MILLER. Just one final point. Dr. Nault, you mentioned, you 

know, that your lower division undergraduates are all taught by 

full-time professors. I don’t know if we’ve would, in fact, even be 

capable of doing that in California with the current economic support we have for higher education. We have basically outsourced 

those jobs to teaching assistants. And to recover that ability at our 

big state institutions, the universities and State colleges, I assume 

would cost a fortune. 

Dr. NAULT. Yes, that would be very expensive. 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t relish, I don’t like this practice at all. But, 

that’s what has happened. 

Dr. NAULT. And I think that practice does have some consequences and that we would lose some students that we would 

prefer not to lose. 

I think again, and I want to make the point that how we choose 

to do it can’t fit everyone. And I realize—

Mr. MILLER. No, I understand that and I am not holding you responsible for that burden. I just think as we continue this discussion, just as Dr. Lingenfelter pointed out, there are these huge 

33

variances in financial support, there’s huge variances in the types 

of institutions, and the student bodies of those institutions—

Dr. NAULT. Absolutely. 

Mr. MILLER.—and missions of those institutions. And I’m a big 

fan of accountability and I am delighted that this report was 

issued. But I think it’s going to be the implementation of the kinds 

of suggestions that would be helpful. 

At the end of the day, and I know my republican colleagues hate 

to hear this, but at the end of the day in some of these institutions 

somebody is going to say, it’s going to require substantial additional resources, if in fact you’re really going to provide that kind 

of educational opportunity. 

And, when you say over the last 12 years we have had a 2 percent increase, when you throw everything in, I don’t know many 

of institutions of quality that have survived on a 2 percent increase 

over last 12 years, elsewhere in society. Or many businesses that 

have been able to do that. Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here today, and this is such an important issue about graduation rates. I worked on this in the state 

Senate for seventeen and a half years. And was constantly, as we 

were approving, members of boards of trustees of public colleges 

and universities, it was always an impetus I had to ask them as 

to a commitment for a 4-year graduation rate, hopefully, for undergraduates. 

And so I share the interest of the Congressman from Michigan, 

Mr. Kildee. I announced to my children that it was a 4-year institution experience. And I in May completed my third on that, and I 

have one more to go. 

But then there is graduate school. I didn’t think of this. But I’m 

really proud of them. And a 4-year rate is so important to me to 

try and achieve. For the young people it’s more fulfilling when you 

have a 4-year experience, I believe. Additionally, it’s so crucial for 

families, the financial side of it. They hope that their young people 

will be fully participating in society. Additionally for the institutions. 

I am delighted and I wanted to congratulate Dr. Nault and in the 

University of Miami. How extraordinary, 81 percent graduation 

rate. And I’ve seen too often, seemingly an emphasis on FTE, fulltime equivalent students and less emphasis on assisting people to 

graduate. 

And Mr. Wiener, I want to thank you for your study, and in particular to indicate—your report indicates that even when controlling full variety of factors such as mission, financial resources, test 

scores, and degree programs, some institutions significantly outperform others. And you have already referenced to a degree, the 

sister State of North Carolina, which has some requirements. 

What do you attribute the success of the high performing institutions? 

Mr. WIENER. Again, I think that it is likely a combination of factors. I think part of it derives from seeing graduation rates as a 

responsibility and a priority. 

34

I mean, when you talk about institutions having outsourced a 

fair amount of the undergraduate teaching to teaching assistants, 

what that does is free up full professors for their independent research. I think that we want to value that independent research. 

But, that has been valued over the responsibility to help undergraduate students to be engaged in the university, and to persist, 

and to graduate. And so we have got to find a better balance between those things. 

So I think, No. 1, we just simply need to make more explicit our 

commitment, the commitment of society. But the commitment, in 

particular, of systems of higher education to helping students persist and graduate. And I think part of that will then drive a number of different reforms. 

It will get higher education more engaged in making sure that 

students get the preparation that they need before they get higher 

education, which congressman Miller pointed out, is certainly continues to be a challenge that we absolutely have to continue to 

focus on. 

Mr. WILSON. Another resource that I have really relied on and 

found so helpful are guidance counselors. And in your study what 

has been done to promote guidance counseling, where you have 

people who are very familiar with course availability, with the requirements of degrees? 

Possibly—and there are so many new opportunities now, with career counseling, where people can find their niche, not in their junior year, hopefully sooner, so that they can indeed be fulfilling in 

society. 

And so guidance counselors really is—is there an emphasis on 

that now. 

Mr. WIENER. Yes, we have worked very hard at the Education 

Trust through an initiative called the Transforming School Counseling, to try and—we have worked both with practicing counselors 

as well as higher education programs that trained counselors 

around, again really transforming counselors to make sure that 

they are in working with students, to make sure that students understand what kind of academic preparation they’re going to need 

to pursue their dreams and their goals. And then to serve as advocates within the education system to make sure that those opportunities are available. 

A large-scale transcript study by the Department of Education 

established that course taking, the rigor of a student’s high school 

curriculum is the single most significant predictor of college success. More significant than race or socioeconomic status toward 

predicting college success. 

And yet, that counseling is not in place in all schools. And indeed, even the opportunities themselves to adequately prepare for 

college are not there in all schools. So is a challenge that we definitely still need to work on, and counselors can play a big role in 

that. 

Mr. WILSON. It’s been terrific at the high school level. But additionally, once you arrive, to me it is so important to have a guidance counselor, not just a professor assigned, who would pro-actively give advice. And I just want, it has been my experience, very 

positively the guidance counselors have made a difference. 

35

And I yield the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

New Jersey, Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the witnesses for their outstanding testimony this morning on such 

an important topic. 

I was really stunned by the fact, compelled by the fact that lowincome students who start college, 46 percent of them do not graduate within 6 years. African-American students who start college, 

54 percent do not graduate within 6 years. Hispanic students 53 

percent do not graduate within 6 years. 

And I know that dollars are not the only cause of that problem. 

But, I think that it is important that we understand the extent to 

which dollars are a cause of that problem for low-income students. 

And Dr. Lingenfelter, I wanted to go back and look at the report 

that your organization has discussed, and you have discussed 

today. I’m not quite sure I understand your conclusion based upon 

your own data. 

On page two of you testimony, you say that despite contractions 

during economic downturns, since 1970, state support nationally 

has kept pace with substantial enrollment growth and inflation as 

measured by CPI. This is an impressive achievement when one 

considers the amount of enrollment growth, et cetera. 

If I understand the basic point is that state aid has been keeping 

up, generally keeping up. Is that a fair paraphrase of what you 

said? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. If you look at the national picture, the states 

in the aggregate, have provided resources that kept pace with inflation, measured by the CPI, which underestimates by about a percentage point a year, real inflation in higher education. 

Mr. ANDREWS. OK. If I read those aggregate data in your report, 

you tell us first of all, that full-time enrollment, or enrollment at 

least is up 18.7 percent during that period, right? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. That’s right. 

Mr. ANDREWS. So there is nearly 20 percent more people attending these state institutions. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. That’s correct. 

Mr. ANDREWS. And then you tell us that the spending per FTE, 

in real dollars, is up 2.1 percent. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. In the aggregate, yes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. In the aggregate. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. And that—

Mr. ANDREWS. Again, I understand that we’re talking about aggregates here. This would tell me then that you would need about 

20 percent more money to run to run your institution. If you got 

18 percent more people, and you’re spending 2 percent more per 

person. If you do the math, it’s about 20.3 percent more money you 

need to run the institution. Is that right? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Yes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. All right. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. The—

Mr. ANDREWS. And then you tell us that state support is down 

7 percent during that time. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Right. 

36

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, it seems to me, if your costs are up by 20 

percent, and one of your revenue sources is down by 7 percent, that 

the only choice that you got left is to make it up in a large way 

from somewhere else, right? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Sure. 

Mr. ANDREWS. There are two somewhere elses. The first would 

be, and because we have already accounted for cross-subsidization 

aid institutionally, right? You have already baked and into the 

cake. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Yes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. So the only two places here would be the Federal 

Government to the Pell program, or from the student him or herself. 

Now, the Pell program as we know is not seen significant growth. 

It is my understanding that in 1975 the Pell Grant covered like 79 

percent of the average cost of a 4-year public institution. Today it 

is down to 40 percent. So Pell at best is sort of struggle to keep 

pace, which tells me that the somewhere else that’s institution has 

reached to the students. Not surprisingly, your own report shows 

that net tuition has gone up by 28 percent, right? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. That’s correct. 

Mr. ANDREWS. So it seems that your own data say that in real 

dollar terms, it costs a student almost 30 percent more in tuition 

to go to school than it did in the beginning of your study. Don’t you 

think that would be a pretty compelling reason to explain why low 

income people wouldn’t be finishing as much? 

I don’t understand how you draw the conclusion that state aid 

has been constant, when it’s gone down by 7 percent. When the 

need to run the institution has gone up by 20 percent, not surprisingly, you have a 28 percent tuition increase. So, isn’t your conclusion wrong? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I’m not drawing inferences. I’m just giving 

you what the numbers show, sir. And it is clear that tuition has 

gone up, as the data show. It’s gone up more in some states than 

others. It hasn’t gone up in every state. And it is also clear that 

the states have continued to make higher education a high priority. 

Some states have been able to do a better job of that—

Mr. ANDREWS. But it is not an inference that we’re talking about, 

it’s a statement, an explicit statement. 

In your testimony, you say—

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Right. 

Mr. ANDREWS.—that state aid has kept constant. But your numbers drawn from your testimony say the costs in the aggregate 

have gone up by about 20 percent. And the states’ support has gone 

down by 7 percent. How does that measure up to keeping pace? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. The testimony and the numbers used two 

timeframes, sir. The first was from 1970 to 2003. And the point 

that we were trying to make, was that in the long run, states tended to regain what they loss in recessions. There’s no question that 

in the past three or 4 years particularly, in enrollment growth has 

been enormous. We’ve had 9 percent in enrollment growth in the 

last 3 years. And the states had not kept up with that. That’s what 

the—

37

Mr. ANDREWS. But all the numbers I’ve used from your testimony are from 1991 to 2003. I’m reading from the appendix to your 

testimony. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. That is correct. During that time period. 

Mr. ANDREWS. OK. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. The point that we were trying to make, 

frankly, was that there are those that say that the states don’t care 

about higher education, and that the states are pulling away from 

it. And the point that we—we look at the numbers and we said, 

you know, there’s a pattern here. When you have a recession you 

get a spike in enrollment. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. And you get a shrinking state budget. 

Mr. ANDREWS. My time is up, but I would just close by saying 

that I think there is a pattern here. That you need 20 percent more 

to run your institution. You’re getting 7 percent less from the state 

government. I’m not saying that states don’t care, but I think it 

means—I agree with your numbers, but not your words. 

Chairman BOEHNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen 

all, for being here today and for your statements and for your answers to our questions. 

The problem that were struggling with all the time, as you know 

very well, in this Committee how to get access for more students 

to attend higher education. And then once they get there how does 

it see that they successfully complete that education. And whether 

it is a 2-year institution, and I have some of those in my district, 

or a 4-year and I have some of those as well, I am proud to say, 

in the district. I would like to take just a minute, Dr. Nault, and 

talk to you, because you have, it seems to me, have a pretty good 

story to tell. 

And you mentioned several things in your testimony that you 

have, for example, 65 percent, I think you said full-time faculty 

during the teaching. And I remember, it is a distant past now, as 

each year goes by, that in my days in college we had, sort of a pejorative term, I think we call them ‘‘labbies’’ who did an awful lot of 

the teaching. 

So it seems to me that you’re looking at some residents involvement, some mentoring and some other things that appear to be 

paying off in a better than average graduation rate. 

You specifically mentioned that you develop several programs 

that seek to improve graduation rates, focus directly at minority 

students, at the gap that we’re talking about. Could you just sort 

of run through those again, the things that you’re doing to help improve that graduation rate among the minority students? 

Dr. NAULT. Absolutely. And let me suggest a framework for that. 

I think it is not sufficient to have access, particularly for students 

that traditionally have been under- represented in higher education. I think you have to have a climate at the institution that 

once they are there, they feel it is their institution, and that they 

are going to graduate at the same rates. 

And I think most of our institutions, I think none of us are proud 

of this, most of our institutions have graduation rates of students 

38

of color, first-generation goers, are somewhat lower. And I think 

that one of the struggles in higher education is to try to get that 

gap to decrease. 

We have chosen to do it with several ways. We opened a center 

for American world cultures that brings together all of our curricular emphasis on diversity on campus. We have all students 

take a course on American culture that focuses on pluralism in our 

society. 

One of the ways we’re trying to educate students across the campus, particularly students, White students, who may have not encountered difference in their backgrounds. To make that an environment that is truly welcoming. 

So I think you’re making an important point, it’s not just access, 

but what is the climate students are going to have once they are 

there. And I think that means programs of, you know, Latino studies to African-American studies, and so forth, that really ensure 

that students feel that this is my place. This is my institution. 

Mr. KLINE. And so the personal emphasis that you are placing 

through mentors, through resident monitors, I’m not sure of this 

right word, but attention where students live and where they work, 

is something that seems to be working for you. The increased use 

of faculty to teaching class, are some things. And those apply sort 

of across-the-board. 

Let me flip the other side here, and I don’t want this to be a sort 

of a war between institutions, and I understand that I am running 

that risk. But some other institutions have traditionally low graduation rates. And can you address why, what in your view, what 

are the things that are causing that. 

Dr. NAULT. I want to be extraordinarily careful, because I think 

it is—

Mr. KLINE. As you should, sir. And as should I. But, so—

Dr. NAULT. I think is difficult to say. I would say that sometimes 

in higher education we have all chased issues of status, and often 

that is defined on research and successful programs. I think sometimes we have lost the focus on undergraduates. So for me, which 

strikes me about the reports that we have, is that the institutions 

that seem to be successful, at least in my view, is they have run 

very good graduate programs, and they have had an emphasis on 

scholarly research. And we need that for our society. But they have 

also said that we’re not going to build that on the back of undergraduates, we are going to have that as something that complements the undergraduate experience. 

And I think, you know, there is not one size that fits all. I think 

various institutions have done that in different ways. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. If I could, just one more question. There 

seems to be general agreement among all of you that we need more 

and better data. Is there one of you that has a particular, a particular idea in mind for that more and better data? And I’ll take 

it from anyone of you who is ready to jump out there. Do you have 

something specific in mind that would help us to address that problem. 

Dr. LAW. I’ll make one quick comment. The challenge is that students move among institutions. And we lose track of them. 

39

And all the data we have, have an individual institution perspective. Some of the states have develop student unit record systems, 

and they have protected privacy by basically put in a screen so that 

you’re only look at groups of students. And that kind of the system 

is more efficient and gives you better quality data than the ways 

that we have worked in the past. 

It’s got some challenges, they have got to be dealt with very carefully. But that helps. 

Chairman BOEHNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Question for Dr. Law. One of the first higher education bills introduced in this Congress was a bill that some of us called ‘‘price 

controls on tuition.’’ Do you believe, or is there in your opinion, a 

relationship between increases in student aid and higher tuition? 

Dr. LAW. I think that probably data can be shown, there’s always 

some relationship. I think we understand that. A great number of 

students do get aid. And in a large measure community college, 

certainly, that assists a great deal. 

Go back to the point I made. I have now made almost 25 recommendations annually to boards of trustees for tuition. I have 

never been party to a discussion that said, we can raise it because 

our students are—Pell will take care of this, or those kinds of 

issues. 

I will tell you, Mr. Kildee, in Florida for the first time though 

we’re seeing that discussion, because we have 800,000 students on 

the Florida prepaid program. And indeed the only brakes on the 

system. I’m giving you my own personal view. The significant 

brake on the system of ever higher tuition, is that it will break the 

back of that system. They can no longer project. Your child is born, 

and you pay a certain amount, and you get guaranteed tuition 

when that son and daughter is ready for college. So we’re seeing 

a variety of intersections. 

For community colleges the reality is low tuition makes the difference. And if at our institution some 7500 of 12,000 students get 

Pell aid. I would no more make the recommendation that we could 

raise tuition because Pell would pay for everybody, that’s just not 

simply what I would do. 

We’re mindful though the 7500 of our students must get aid to 

cover any increase that we make. So, I’m sorry. For community colleges it is not quite as direct as I think it probably could be elsewhere. 

Mr. KILDEE. On the other side of that coin, is there a relationship 

between state funding cuts and tuition increases? 

Dr. LAW. If you will, my experience is different. I was in three 

different states over the period covered by that study. 

In Florida is very clear. After September 11, with the very significant downturn in our tourist economy, all of us struggled to try 

and keep a modicum of finance support under students. And we 

did, in fact, shift some costs from the state to the students. I will 

tell that for a community colleges in the budget the just started 

July 1, due to the leadership of our Governor, we turned that down 

for the first time now and some 5 years. But there is. We clearly 

40

went from students paying about 25 percent of their education, to 

students paying about 34 percent of their education. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Lingenfelter, your report predicts that funding for higher 

education will recover in the future. What about certain structural 

forces that out there, such as the underfunding of K–12 education, 

particularly with ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ which puts a heavy demand upon state government. Medicaid which is putting a terrible 

burden on state government now. 

The fact that state tax systems are generally not keeping pace 

with growing demands. How do you feel that the higher education 

will recover in the future with those structural factors. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I think those are serious issues. And our report didn’t make any predictions about the future. We observed 

that it has recovered in the past. I think it is important that states 

find a way to have it recover in the future, because of the priorities 

we have been talking about today. 

Mr. KILDEE. And the issues that you mentioned are very real. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. They are real. 

Mr. KILDEE. We have probably not passed a more intrusive K–

12 bill in the history of the country, because you really reach into 

individual schools, and require the states to restructure and reconstitute schools. K–12 education is going to be a heavy financial burden, alone. 

So if your report is correct, there are certainly some ominous 

signs from the past that will affect the future as to the legislature 

being able to fund higher education. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I would say, sir, that the intent of our efforts 

to improve education performance is urgent, and we need to find 

a way to do that with accountability mechanisms that are sort of 

tailored to good educational practice. 

I don’t think we have solved that problem in the Nation yet. I 

think we’re still working on it. The Commission that I mentioned 

earlier is going to try to sort of draw from the experience of the 

states, and make some recommendations that I hope this Committee and others in the Congress will find useful to deal with that 

very issue. 

Chairman BOEHNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’ve been in this Committee now for almost a couple of years. 

And one of the things I have discovered is that all solutions involve 

money. In fact, it seems that money solves every problem in America today. But I have some questions that I think don’t involve 

money. 

I have a son who is a teacher and a coach, and I also taught high 

school, seniors in high school and Sunday school for 22 years. I’ve 

seen lots of kids come and go, all kinds of kids, and I have talked 

to them a lot. And they have frustrations with the universities that 

they go to in Austin. It’s not one or two, it’s all of them. 

One of the frustrations that kids run into is that they were all 

degreed. We’re talking about—and my dad told me it is 4 years or 

die, and I graduate in 4 years. Even though at that time everybody 

41

said it was four and a half years to graduate. Now we’re in numbers of 6 years to graduate on a 4-year plan. 

Well, one of the questions that I hear from kids constantly at the 

junior and senior level in college is I have requirements that have 

to take that are not offered. I can’t get the sections to be offered. 

So I don’t have any choice. I have to continue school for another 

semester or two semesters because they’re not offering the sections 

that I need that are required for my degree plan. To me that’s 

something that we ought to be talking about the universities are 

doing to solved that kind of problem. 

And the second tier of that problem is, and when I go to seek 

help there is a section in my university which is involved in helping me, and I get to stand in line for about 8 hours to get to see 

that counselor. And that’s not acceptable to them. And a lot of 

these kids, especially if they’re struggling, borrowing the money, 

need to go to work, they just say I’m dropping out this semester, 

and I’m going to work, and they never get back. And I can name 

at least a half a dozen that I taught in Sunday school, and that 

is exactly what happened to them. They got frustrated with the 

system. They said, why should I hang around and take courses 

that I don’t need just to stay in school. I’ll drop out and get a job 

and come back, and they never get back. 

It seems to me that the students are your customers. You’re in 

the business of educating undergraduate students. None of the universities, the 4-year universities would—six-year universities, 

would exist today as graduate student schools only. Now as you 

say, the undergraduate students should be the target first, and 

then the graduate schools. 

So what can we do to encourage universities to take care of making sure that offer what kids need so that they can, if they are industrious, and graduate within a reasonable length of time. 

And the second question that I have is, we seem to be coming 

more and more to the government, the Federal Government, seeking us to create accountability. I understand and I am for accountability, very much so for accountability. And we have imposed accountability on our elementary schools, and our high schools, and 

we’re continuing to impose that. 

But these folks, you people are, they’re paying you money, you’re 

their customers. Why should we have to impose accountability on 

you. Why shouldn’t you impose that accountability in order to keep 

your customers, and if you don’t why shouldn’t there be something 

put out that this university won’t help you. And the kids won’t go 

there, and you will go broke. Because somehow, I don’t want to be 

on the school board of every major university in the entire country, 

sitting up here in Washington. I would like for the schools to be 

responsible to these kids. 

So there’s my speech and my questions. Does somebody want to 

answer them? Dr. Nault. 

Dr. NAULT. If I could, let me start. I think for students to not 

get courses that they need is unconscionable. I think you’re absolutely right. I think sometimes that occurs when students don’t 

make very good plans. But I think if a student, in good faith, 

makes good plans with counselors, that should be available. So I 

don’t have no disagreement with you there. 

42

I think what is happening is there is a trend nationally. I think 

students or parents look to colleges and they look at how difficult 

it is to get into the institution. That often determines prestige. But 

now, as my colleagues here have mentioned, we’re looking more 

and more and saying, we need to be more public, more open. 

And I think it has to be data that is understandable to parents. 

I think that we can drown parents with lots of data and lots of statistics. I think it has to be fairly clear. But now, we’re more saying, 

what is exactly happening to the student when he is there. She is 

there. 

Mr. CARTER. And one of my concerns is it’s frustrating to a kid 

who comes from a background, that background you say that generally succeeds, they get frustrated and dropped out. The kid that 

is a first-generation student, and maybe a minority student, that 

frustration multiplies 10 times for the student. 

This is a new world they’ve gone into in which they are trying 

to actually function at a level which their economic resources don’t 

allow them to function with other kids there, and that’s a matter 

of dollars. And then to run into stumbling blocks put up by the universities, which many parents think is to create more money for 

the universities. Because the more that they go there, the more 

they pay you. And that’s something that we have got to get past 

because it’s harming our kids and they are dropping out of school. 

I’m firmly believe that. 

Chairman BOEHNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bishop. He 

might know a little bit about this, based upon his background. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Everything that I always learned about student retention and 

graduation rates suggested that retention, in and of itself, ought 

not to be the goal. That the goal ought to be improved institutional 

effectiveness, and that if institutions were more effective, improved 

retention would be a by-product of that. And certainly, Dr. Nault, 

your testimony in the experience at Miami of Ohio speaks to that. 

But within that, we know from Mr. Wiener’s data, income and 

therefore need, is a determinant of student success is measured by 

graduation rates. Correct? 

Mr. WIENER. It correlates with graduation rates. I’m not sure, it’s 

not a determinant, in that we have chosen in this country to distribute educational opportunities at the elementary and secondary 

level according to—

Mr. BISHOP. But if affluent students are more likely to graduate—

Mr. WIENER. There is no question—

Mr. BISHOP.—then non-affluent students, certainly that suggests 

that student need, and therefore the availability of student financial aid, is going to help students graduate. Correct? 

Mr. WIENER. Yes, certainly. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So one imperative, it seems to me, that before 

us as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act is to see to it that 

sufficient financial aid resources are available to support students 

aspirations, correct? 

Mr. WIENER. Yes, again, I agree with that. 

43

Mr. BISHOP. All right. So, if we take that as a given, as we now 

go to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, how can—what is the 

role of the Federal Government, or what is the role that the Federal Government can best play in encouraging or in enhancing institutional effectiveness in areas that go beyond proper support of 

student financial aid programs. Let me start with you, Dr. Nault. 

Dr. NAULT. I would say the directions that you’re already considering, and that making it fairly clear to parents and consumers, 

students as consumers also, what is the success of the institution 

given the resources that they have. 

Mr. BISHOP. See, that’s not the question that I’m asking. That’s 

the end result. I mean, that’s letting market forces determine 

whether or not students chose those schools. 

Where I am going is how can we help encourage schools to do 

a better job of providing the educational services that they are in 

effect obligated to provide. Such as what you have already done. Is 

there a role for the Federal Government? 

Dr. NAULT. First of all, I described these institutions as black 

boxes. And we know very little about what actually is happening 

internally. So I think the funding for research has to illuminate 

that, and also makes that assessable to institutions of higher education would be a useful source. So I would say I would start with 

that part. 

I know people get frustrated when they say we don’t have simple 

answers. And unfortunately, higher education is complex. And I 

know that we have a responsibility to make a better. But part of 

it is that we have to understand more what is happening inside 

that black box. That is why I encourage certain studies now that 

are going on, to say, if you look at those exceptional institutions, 

what’s happening and then try to translate that to the administrators of those universities. 

And I don’t think that’s the Federal Government, I don’t think 

that’s your job to tell us to do that. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. 

Dr. NAULT. But I think it is to saying, this is an expectation we 

have, but can you use the best research that is available to improve. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I would just add that the data that the Federal Government collects, in fact, the changes you made in 1992, 

to help us to define and struggle with graduation rates, make a 

real positive contribution. Institutions need a way to compare 

themselves with others. And so the data collection activities of the 

Federal Government are very important in improving education. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Wiener. 

Mr. WIENER. I think one important contribution Federal policy 

could make is to recognize and celebrate the achievements of those 

institutions that are doing better. And through that, bring more 

prominence due to the fact that some institutions are doing better 

than others. I think that would create an interest in learning more 

about them, and it would begin a conversation within institutions, 

and within systems about why aren’t we doing, why aren’t we seeing the success that they are. 

Mr. BISHOP. Dr. Law. 

44

Dr. LAW. I would suggest that, as I was preparing for this testimony, the areas that I think that are most helpful to me, is to pay 

careful attention to the standards of progress for Federal financial 

aid eligibility. That is if you asked me who will not be at Tallahassee Community College in the future, I would look to that eroding 

progress in a student’s plan to project who won’t make it to graduation. Much more than grade-point average, I might add. 

The only people with low grade-points, which generally trigger 

interventions to help, are those who haven’t figured out the drop 

policy. Because if you know the drop policy, there’s no reason to 

have a low GPA. 

Mr. BISHOP. I learned that. I guess, many of us ought to be giving testimony on that. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. LAW. The answer, however, the interventions need to be refocused on students who aren’t making progress, who are in fact 

dropping out of courses. It’s a particular problem for community 

colleges. We are easy to get into, and we’re easy to get out of. 

The other that I would simply add, that I don’t know is a Federal 

mandate, the thing that frustrates the daylight out of me, as a 

community college person, is what I call the insurance majors. The 

students who are there full-time so that they can stay on dad’s insurance. And they’re not prepared to take a full load, so they start 

dropping courses, and then we see the pattern that leads to nongraduation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Mr. Osborne. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here today. 

I have had a little bit of experience with graduation rates, and 

I think that just recently that you have tried to come with some 

graduation rates on a national basis. And intercollegiate athletics 

it’s been about 15 years ago that somebody came up with the idea 

that we’re going to publish graduation rates. And so it was in the 

early or middle ’80’s that we started. And then, at the end of 6 

years, we had to publish those rates. 

And I am in accordance with some of the things that Dr. Nault 

said. What I have found, the amount of attention you pay an undergraduate, the amount of counseling that you give them, makes 

a huge difference. And so generally speaking, we were able to find 

that our student athletes would graduated about 15 to 20 percent 

higher than the student body. And in some places that wasn’t true. 

But we basically said, look if you want to play on Saturday, you 

go to class. And these things are going to happen, and you going 

to see your counselor, and so on. 

So I think that a lot depends on the mission of a university. If 

the mission is research, if the mission is the faculty needs to publish, and undergraduate graduation is a distant third, you’re going 

to get that. 

If, on the other hand, if the mission is to educate the undergraduates, that is probably what you’re going to get. And so, you 

know, I’ve really been concerned because I think the most expensive thing that can happen in higher education is not to graduate 

students. I mean that if you have somebody go there and they eat 

45

up a Pell Grant, and they have student loans, and their own family 

resources, and they are there for two or 3 years and they do not 

graduate, that’s a horribly expensive proposition. 

So, I was somewhat interested in some of things that Dr. 

Lingenfelter said. And you’re saying that Congress should begin to 

make some requirements. Of course, we are seen the popularity of 

No Child Left Behind, where we have made some requirements. 

But the publication of graduation rates, I think, is one thing you 

mentioned was being important. And then having specific goals for 

improvement was important. 

One thing that is going to happen now in athletics, I think, is 

that you’re going to find that to some degree, schools are going to 

be rewarded for graduation. In other words the number of scholarships they can give out. 

Would something like this, where you say, OK, we see they were 

getting more bang for the buck from Pell grants for schools that are 

graduating 70 percent as opposed to 40 percent, assuming then the 

same peer group. In other words, there are similar types of institution. 

What would your reaction, any of you, be to say, OK, we will tie 

Federal money to performance. I know that would start a 

firestorm, and it would be very, very unpopular. 

But my guess is that in intercollegiate athletics, if they start 

tying the number of scholarships you can give to how many kids 

graduate, you’re going to see a heck of a lot of difference in terms 

of performance. You’re going to see a lot of schools that have been 

paid a whole lot of attention, really start paying attention to this. 

So anyway, just being interested in your thoughts. It’s pretty far 

out, maybe. But the Pell Grant thing bothers me, because I know 

that we’ve doubled the program in the last, what 10 to 15 years—

15 years, may be. But the cost of education has been going up 

about 8 percent a year. So, you know, it’s far outpacing inflation, 

therefore the Pell Grant can’t catch up. 

And so, anyway, back to my original question, what do you think 

about tying Federal aid to performance. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I would like to suggest that states that had 

a lot of experience trying to do that at the state level, and it gets—

usually end up with some unintended consequences. 

You have to do that fundamentally, but when you do it on a formula basis it creates a lot of problems. And I really don’t have 

enough time to get into the details of that. But, it’s tough to do at 

the state level. And I think that at the Federal level, given the differences among institutions and states, it would be even harder to 

get into sort of specific incentives and sanctions for institutions. 

I think that there’s a better way to deal with this issue, but it’s 

a little more complicated than that. 

Mr. WIENER. I would echo the caution about unintended consequences. A very important priority of the Federal investment in 

higher education has been around access, and making sure that 

more low-income students, and previously under-served students 

are able to get to college. And that should continue to be a very 

strong priority. And you would want to be very careful that consequences for institutions didn’t undermine students access to 

higher education. 

46

Something that I found very interesting when we were preparing 

this report, and then preparing for today, was to realize that when 

Pell Grants were initially authorized, there was a program to provide institutional aid to the institutions that served students eligible for Pell grants. And that it seems to me there could be a way 

to both ‘‘incentivize’’ institutions to educate more low-income students, and also to tie those incentives to making sure that those 

students persisted and actually graduated. That could be a very 

constructive Federal investment. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you. My time is up. I just want to add one 

other thing. That is that we did find that our African-American 

graduation rate, in many cases, was very equal to, and in some 

years exceeded. But again, it was a focus. It was part of the mission. And you certainly can ‘‘incentivize’’ that, as well. 

And so with that, I yield back. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, before I ask my questions I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from Representative Jim McGovern regarding the needs of foster care youth 

relevant to the access to post-secondary education. 

And in addition, I asked that the attached report by the Casey 

Family Foundation program be kept on file. 

Chairman BOEHNER. No objection. So ordered. 

[The material to be provided follows:]

Letter from Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Massachusetts, Submitted for the Record 

June 21, 2004

The Honorable Howard ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, Chairman 

Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 

Education and the Workforce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Dale Kildee, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 

Education and the Workforce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Kildee,

On Tuesday, June 22nd, your subcommittee will be hearing testimony on access 

to college and a higher education. As you review the information and material presented to your subcommittee and prepare to incorporate your findings and conclusions into the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA), I ask that you 

focus serious consideration on how to increase access for help and funding from existing programs and incorporate into any new programs the needs of foster care 

youth in their pursuit of postsecondary education. I also ask that this letter, along 

with the recent report, Higher Education Reform: Incorporating the Needs of Foster 

Youth, issued by the Casey Family Programs, be entered into the record of the June 

22nd hearing on college access. 

As you and your subcommittee colleagues are aware, approximately 20,000 teens 

are ‘‘emancipated’’ or ‘‘age-out’’ of the foster care system each year. These young people have the same limitless potential and the same dreams of pursuing a higher 

education as their non-foster care peers. Sadly, foster care alumni are statistically 

more likely than the general population to face such challenges as homelessness, incarceration, and lower lifetime earning potential, especially without a college degree 

or vocational specialty. Youth in foster care are less likely to be enrolled in classes 

that prepare students for college, even when they have similar test scores and 

grades as non-foster care students. They are significantly underrepresented in postVerDate 0ct 09 2002 20:14 Oct 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\94792 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
47

secondary programs, and they are more than twice as likely as other students to 

have dropped out of high school. For these reasons and others, it is critical that the 

HEA reauthorization pay special attention to addressing and correcting current deficiencies that limit access to a higher education for foster care youth. 

Because of their tumultuous lives and special needs, a large number of foster care 

youth fail to earn a high school diploma. So, first and foremost, the HEA reauthorization needs to specifically recognize the needs of these students and ensure that 

TRIO and GEAR–UP resources are appropriately targeted at this disadvantaged 

population. Neither of these programs currently recognizes foster care students as 

a priority population, and because these young people are often moved from one 

school system to another, services are often interrupted or discontinued. Further, 

the HEA should include a study, perhaps conducted by the General Accounting Office, to study how to expand the concept of ‘‘ability to benefit’’ from a higher education to increase the number and access of young people who are aging out of the 

foster care system who are struggling to develop the skills and education required 

to earn their own independent living. 

Foster care youth are also particularly disadvantaged in seeking student financial 

aid to help finance a college or postsecondary education. It would be very helpful, 

therefore, for the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance to provide 

recommendations for expanding access to foster care youth to federal student financial aid. Such recommendations need to consider guidelines for high school counselors and social workers on how to better disseminate information on student financial aid to foster care students and how to improve the current financial aid system so that it is more sensitive to the unique and difficult ‘‘home’’ situation confronting foster care youth. 

I believe it would also be helpful if the subcommittee could recommend improved 

coordination between the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and 

Education in advising high school counselors, TRIO program coordinators, financial 

aid counselors and other relevant officials about HHS Chafee Education Vouchers 

and how this program might benefit students in foster care in financing their college 

education. 

Education and the Workforce Committee Ranking Member George Miller has introduced legislation, H.R. 4003, the Foster Opportunities for Success Through Higher Education Reform (FOSTER Act), which provides straight-forward, cost-effective 

remedies for many of the issues raised in this letter. I urge the subcommittee to 

include its provisions in the HEA reauthorization in order to improve the ability of 

foster care youth to attend and succeed in higher education. 

More than most Members of Congress, you and your subcommittee colleagues 

know ‘how important a college education is for achieving life-time economic success 

and social stability. I hope you will keep these modest proposals in mind as your 

subcommittee deliberates on how to decrease the disparities that limit access to college, including those that limit access for foster care youth.

Sincerely,

James P. McGovern 

Member of Congress 

[An Attachment, ‘‘Higher Education Reform: Incorporating the 

Needs of Foster Youth, Casey Family Programs, the Casey Foundation’’, has been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Lingenfelter, on your report when you talk about tuitions and 

the effect of states with them, did you study also fees? Do you 

count them as part of the tuition or as a separate matter, or take 

it into account at all on those? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Our definition included all mandatory fees. It 

wouldn’t include things like optional healthcare, or dorm fees. But 

any mandatory fees is included in that definition. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So, if you had an instance where tuition monies 

went back to the state government coffers, but fees were kept on 

campus. And as things went on you found campuses increasing the 

fees but letting tuition stay the same or go down, that is factored 

into your report? 

48

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Yes. We considered both. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Good. Thank you. 

You talk, in the course of your testimony, about a higher education cost index. And I would like you, if you would, you offered 

to go into a little more into the question and answer, and I would 

like you to do that, if you would. 

How does that differ from inflationary figures, the regular costof-living index and things of that nature. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. The biggest expense higher education has is 

hiring talented people. And so, we have constructed the higher education cost adjustment using two factors. One the Federal Employment Cost Index for white-collar workers, for 75 percent of the cost, 

which is what higher education spends on people. And 25 percent, 

the gross domestic product implicit price deflator, which is just sort 

of a general measure of inflation for non-personnel costs. 

Between 1990 and 2002, the CPI went up 40 percent. The current, the per capita income, in the country, went up 58 percent, 

which shows that people were making more money and we had to 

pay more. The higher education cost adjustment figure we had 

went up 49 percent, which is basically substantially more than the 

CPI, but didn’t reflect the total gains in per capita income during 

that very prosperous period. Just to give you an example of how 

it works. 

Mr. TIERNEY. In addition, to the costs for employment, did you 

also take into account the educational institution’s need for security costs? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. We can’t get to that level of detail, and so the 

answer is we did not. 

Mr. TIERNEY. All right. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. We basically, it’s a very—it’s a simple formula. It could be fine-tuned, but the answer is, no, we don’t have 

any estimate of security costs. 

Mr. TIERNEY. But the reason that I press on that, and Dr. Law 

you may want to add on this, too. 

It seems to me that if we just use the regular inflation index, we 

are really putting institutions at a disadvantage, in that they have 

a number of other issues. The costs of employment being one, security being another, the high cost of energy being yet another, that 

may not be factored into the regular household index. 

Are we going to be able to have any type of a system where we 

give incentives or penalize institutions, unless we can get the right 

adjustment on that. If we just tied into the cost of living, I think 

that we are doing them a disservice. But can we actually do the 

work to determine what the differences are in the higher education 

level. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I don’t think that there is a perfect index out 

there, and I can’t imagine how you would get one. I think this is 

the kind of issue that you just have to be debated. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Dr. Law, you have any feelings on that? 

Dr. LAW. Mr. Tierney, I think you get to the sort of unintended 

consequences. As those of us at the top have to present a budget, 

what we do is we balance the interest. 

So we’re back now to the mix of full-time permanent instructors, 

and part-time instructors. My costs will go up the same. My mix 

49

of those two critical factors will change based upon the available 

funds or projected funds. 

So you see what I’m saying, I don’t know that we can get to that 

level and make a prediction. But I will tell you that’s what’s happening below the scene. In many cases when budgets get tight is 

we shift that mix. 

Mr. TIERNEY. OK. Dr. Lingenfelter, did you do any studies, as 

your group the State Higher Education Executive Officers, have 

you done any studies about the effect of costs on state institutions 

and the shift in full-time faculty to adjunct faculty? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. We have not done a study on that issue. I 

have read others, and I know that it is a national trend. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So it’s more than just anecdotal itself, that we 

could easily document. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I couldn’t easily document it. But I know 

there are states out there that have documented that issue, yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. I noticed that my time is up. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Thank you. 

I get a little frustrated with this whole issue of graduation rates. 

I was on the school board for a number of years, and it was a problem at the high school level, because kids would leave and go to 

another school. And we didn’t ever really know—really get a handle on dropout rate. And I don’t know how you are measuring graduation rates. 

How do you measure graduation rate in your school, Dr. Nault? 

Dr. NAULT. We measure it in a very straightforward fashion, did 

the student arrive in the fall? You know, then 6 years later did he 

or she graduate. So it is—

Chairman BOEHNER. So you keep track on an individual student 

basis? 

Dr. NAULT. Yes. 

Chairman BOEHNER. So, some way your track every student, and 

your report is, if they graduate within 6 years. 

Dr. NAULT. Yes. 

Chairman BOEHNER. And in my case were it took 30 years, what 

happens? 

Dr. NAULT. As long as you finish, that’s the major thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman BOEHNER. How do you keep track of your graduation 

rates, Dr. Law? 

Dr. LAW. I need to say, I think we do it looking backwards, to 

say of those who graduated what was the pattern that got them to 

graduation. The student presents at the front door, and quite 

frankly, for many community college students, they simply don’t—

they have no familiarity or background. If you’re on the school 

board, you understand this very well, as to what their hopes and 

dreams really are. They know they have to be in college. You know, 

I’m frustrated. The first thing that we say to them is do you want 

an AA or an AS degree? And what they want is to get their basics 

taken care of. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to be flippant. It’s very difficult 

at community colleges. I think that the only way that I can measure success is does the student pass every course therein. If they 

50

do that the pattern at the end will be much better. And I can bring 

resources to bear to make sure that a student succeeds in a course 

that he or she is in. I can recruit faculty, and I can recruit staff 

to help. But I will tell you trying to project with a graduation rate 

is, I don’t know that I can do that. I can only do the sub-pieces to 

it. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Dr. Lingenfelter. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I’m not at the institutional level. So I don’t 

have a direct answer to your question. 

Chairman BOEHNER. But the schools that you—

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Basically—

Chairman BOEHNER.—leaders of the schools that you represent? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. The schools that we represent are all over the 

country. And so anything that happens—what I would say is, 

would be the best way, would be if we had a system that would 

identify when a student entered school, and could tell what happened to them, no matter what institutions they went to, over a period of time in-state, would be one big step forward. 

We also have cross-state migration, which is one other issue that 

I would—I would settle if we could, within the states, find out what 

happened to a student, you know, and find out which institutions 

contributed to that student’s success on the way. Because in many 

cases, the data we have from smaller studies is it’s often three or 

four institutions. 

Chairman BOEHNER. I have a son who has just graduated from 

college, and he went to four institutions. And it took some years 

for him to do it, but he did it. And my mother took 30 years. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Well, I know that there are also students 

that come, especially in community college, who don’t even plan on 

graduating. They come to take a class, or they come to learn about 

a subject. And they might do very well in that, and then move on. 

And they might be a great success, because that’s what they wanted to achieve. 

So, I am not sure we should be beating ourselves with, switches, 

if we don’t graduate every single student. I understand that if they 

don’t graduate there is a financial loss to them, or if they do graduate there is a financial gain to them. 

But, you know, I’m not sure that everything in his life should be 

measured financially. It seems like that is what we do. But, I’m not 

sure that’s the best, that’s totally the best measurement. 

Chairman BOEHNER. I guess we could give everybody a number, 

kind of like, maybe a Social Security Number, and then we could 

track them by that. But I know that we have people that have 

great concerns about being tracked, though we are all tracked. And 

there are no, I guess, there really isn’t much privacy around anymore. 

But, if that’s a measurement, we could probably come to that. I 

guess there are lots of different ways, though, to measure effectiveness. But it really comes back to individual teachers, in individual 

classrooms. It’s very interesting, the discussion that we’ve had 

today, of teachers in the classroom that are not teachers. They are 

grad students or somebody filling in. But the actual professors, I 

guess in many places, are not teaching. 

51

And I started to remembering back to my education, which was 

a long time ago. And about every class that I had was taught by 

the teacher of the class. I guess we’ve come a long ways, or maybe 

that’s not what we want to do. 

I’m sure that in the community colleges, you’re taught by the 

teachers. 

Dr. LAW. And we pride ourselves on that. 

There is a benefit in many of our associate or workforce programs to have, to bring in practitioners to assist in the development of curriculum. But it becomes particularly problematic if 

those ratios fall, certainly below the levels that we’re talking about, 

65/35. You simply can’t do the kind of quality-control that leads to 

stronger graduates and more well-placed employees. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Thank you. Ms. McCarthy. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the 

panel, it’s been very interesting. And I think each and everyone of 

you, at one point, have talked about those students when they first 

go off to college, whether it’s a community college or whether it’s 

a 4-year university, on how many of them certainly are unprepared. Certainly those are coming from the minority schools. 

I have a school back in, unfortunately, I have several schools in 

my district that historically have never done well, to the point of 

where one school has actually been taken over by the state a number of years ago, and the school still did not improve. 

So, I basically am going to go a little bit differently, because I 

started working with a program called Project Grad. And it is a 

private-public institution where we ask our businesses, basically to 

get involved into the school, guarantee these kids a scholarship. 

But more importantly, give these kids hope. But more importantly 

than that, go to the basics. 

We started this program 3 years ago. I have gone on what they 

call, Walk for Success, meaning that I go door-to-door. I talked to 

the parents and say, they have to get involved and their student’s 

education. 

But here’s the great thing about it. The program has only been 

around for a few years, but Grad has been able to have 135,000 

students, this is nationwide, in 217 schools across the country. And 

the group of schools where the program has been in place the longest, the number of high school graduates has increased by 85 percent. And the number of students going on to college has increased 

by more than six times. But I think, what is impressive to me is 

these students have gone on to earn college degrees at a rate 89 

percent above the national level. 

So what, hopefully, we can talk about college education, and we 

should talk about access for those, certainly those in the minority 

communities. But, I think that if we don’t do a better job, and 

Project Grad to me is a program that does work, to prepare them 

so that when they get to you, you’re not going to have to spend the 

first year or so on remedial classes. That is not, or shouldn’t be, 

certainly, your area or expertise. I know a lot of that money goes 

there. 

I am hoping that as we go through this process here in this Committee, that we will be able to get money for Project Grad, because 

I think it is a program that does work. It’s proven. 

52

And have any of you heard about the program, Project Grad? Nobody? 

Mr. WIENER. I certainly have heard of it. But don’t know enough 

to—I don’t think this is going to add to your—what you said about 

it. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. I am just curious, because I think the higher 

education community should be getting involved in these programs. 

Because each and everyone of you, and I don’t care where your college is, we are going to have a community that will have minorities 

in it, or underachieving schools. 

And I think our job, more importantly here, right now, is to 

make sure that these kids have an opportunity to get to college. Or 

whether it’s a training school, or a career school, it doesn’t matter. 

Because these are the future workers, and we’re going to need 

every one of them. If we are going to have the competition that 

were going to be looking at, whether it’s China, whether it’s India, 

which by the way are spending more money on education that we 

are in this nation, and I think that’s a disgrace. So, not that money 

means everything, but in certain communities, it’s the only chance 

these kids have. 

And I hope that we can call out to the universities to support us 

on this Committee when we start looking for the money to help 

those kids. Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Thank you. Mr. Holt. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tierney referred to some of the factors that might be considered in this discussion, if we are going to take a good look at it. 

But I think Mr. McKeon really got to the heart of it, which is 

the subject of today’s hearing, is based on questionable numbers. 

We don’t have good numbers on retention rates, it sounds to me. 

Let me ask you, Dr. Nault, if you know how this would be handled. I have a staff member, actually a very good young woman, 

who attended Miami a half a dozen years ago. And then left and 

reappeared at another Ohio institution. 

Now, it is my understanding, that most states actually don’t have 

the capacity to track in-state student transfers. Does Ohio? Do you? 

Are we—I mean is this young woman lost to the system, or counted 

as a dropout for Miami? 

Dr. NAULT. I can only speak for institution, and I am not fully 

knowledgeable about the entire Ohio system. I would say we do 

exit interviews to find out why a student leaves. But I think that 

you raised an important point, then they pretty much disappear to 

the institution. And I think that’s lost information which is important, you know. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I actually think that the State of Ohio can do 

that, but it is one of the—every state can’t, they have a system that 

can do that. 

Mr. HOLT. Is it true that most states cannot? 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. Most cannot. But there is more, I mean, it’s 

like five or ten can’t. Yeah, so—

Mr. HOLT. So, among the other considerations, Dr. Nault, you in 

your prepared testimony pointed out that many of the freshman 

classes are taught by full-time faculty, 65 percent you say, which 

sounds good. 

53

But I’m sure there are a lot of other relevant statistics that you 

might have included in your testimony. For example, what is the 

percentage of this minority student population in the freshman 

year? For example, who are institution wide? 

Dr. NAULT. At our campus it’s about 10 percent. 

Mr. HOLT. About 10 percent. And I think that is, you know, perhaps another factor. 

Well, let me ask all of you. Yes, some of us keep coming back to 

money. Because I know, anecdotally, that many of my constituents 

have gone in and out of college, and different colleges for financial 

reasons. And I wish we could get the numbers, meaningful numbers, so we could understand it better. 

But let me just ask you, in general, if we’re going to, if the bill 

that we are considering here is intended to be budget neutral. Or, 

more specifically, if the bill that we are considering here would 

freeze the maximum Pell Grant for the next, not quite decade. 

What affects would that have on graduation rates as you look at 

things? 

Chairman BOEHNER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HOLT. Yes. 

Chairman BOEHNER. The bill that we have under consideration 

would maintain the authorization level of the Pell at $5,800 per 

year. 

Mr. HOLT. Which is well above what is currently available—

Chairman BOEHNER. The Chairman realizes that the current 

maximum Pell Grant award, as appropriated, is $4050. 

Mr. HOLT. Yes. 

Chairman BOEHNER. As the gentleman well knows, I’m not into 

this game they gets played around here of authorizing ridiculous 

amounts of money, knowing that it is never going to be appropriated. 

And I don’t think we are in jeopardy over the next 5 years of reaching the $5,800, considering that every $100 increase in the 

Pell Grant, maximum award, translates into a cost to the government of about $400 million. 

Now, I want to see the Pell Grant increased just like the gentleman does. But I don’t want to mislead people into increasing the 

authorization level to six, or seven, or eight, I don’t know, what is 

it that Mr. Andrews believed, $8,000. 

Mr. HOLT. Well—

Chairman BOEHNER. Knowing that we’re never going to get 

there. 

Mr. HOLT. Yes. Well, reclaiming my time, let me rephrase the 

question then to say that, if we were to continue what has been 

proposed for the coming year, which freezes the Pell Grant at the 

current level, the current average award, and not even the maximum authorized award, what would be the effect on the graduation rates? 

And we can just go right down the panel, although I suppose 

time has expired. So whoever wants to answer—

Chairman BOEHNER. Well, the gentleman can continue. 

Mr. HOLT.—is most welcome. 

Chairman BOEHNER. I used up some of your time. Go right 

ahead. 

54

Mr. WIENER. Well, again, I think it’s a complex relationship of 

many factors that will affect graduation rates. I think it’s clear that 

financial ability to pay right now affects many student’s persistence 

and success in higher education. 

And I think it’s reasonable to expect that costs and tuition will 

continue to increase at some pace. So if Pell doesn’t keep pace with 

those other increases, then the likelihood that low-income students 

will be able to succeed in graduate from college becomes less likely. 

I would point out, the last time, Pell has been losing ground for 

a number of years. The last time it was appropriated at its fully 

authorized amount is 1979. And that it paid in much higher percentage of students’ fixed costs, at that time. 

But there has been another development in both Federal, state 

and institution policy, which is to take increases in the investment 

and to target them more toward middle and upper middle class 

students, through tax credits and through merit-based, as opposed 

to need-based aid. 

And I think it would behoove the Congress to look at the options 

for really redirecting that policy shift and making sure that new investments really do benefit the access and the success rates of low 

income students, as Pell grants do. 

Dr. LINGENFELTER. I would comment that the research that I 

have seen is pretty clear that students who work more than 15 

hours a week are at risk of not graduating. So I think student aid 

is enormously important. 

I am not sure whether some students are working more hours 

than they should. Whether they need to or not. And I think we 

need to look at institutional practices to deal with that issue. 

But the states, the institutions, the Federal Government all have 

to take financial aid for needy students very seriously every want 

to get better educational attainment. 

Mr. HOLT. And actually just for the record, since I didn’t ask the 

question of Dr. Law. What is the minority population in your institution? 

Dr. LAW. We are in the mid-30 percent of African-American population. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHNER. Let me thank our witnesses for your willingness to come in and testify. And to those of you in the audience 

who have come in to show your interest. I think this is just another 

step in the overall effort to come to some agreement on the Higher 

Education Act reauthorization. 

Unfortunately, the time allotted to us this year, considering everything else that is going on, is not as long as it could be, or 

should be. But I do think that these hearings are serving a very 

useful purpose in terms of getting us prepared to move quickly on 

this bill early next year. 

And so with that, let me thank all of you, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

55

Statement of Hon. George Miller, Ranking Member, Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you at today’s hearing on the 

Higher Education Act reauthorization. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the College Access and Opportunity Act (H.R. 4283) 

and college graduation rates. Increasing college persistence and completion is crucial to our economic success, national security and the country’s overall well-being. 

Unfortunately, several key provisions in H.R. 4283 will actually make it more difficult for students to graduate from college—particularly low-income and minority 

students. 

H.R. 4283 freezes the current maximum authorized Pell Grant award at $5,800 

through 2011 despite the fact that the 2002–03 maximum Pell award was worth 

nearly $700 less, in real terms, than it was 30 years ago; 

The Republican’s higher education bill eliminates a student’s ability to choose to 

lock in a low-fixed interest rate on his or her student loans, forcing the typical student borrower to pay $5,500 more for his college loans. 

H.R. 4283 also raises interest rates on all student loans, pushing hundreds of dollars in additional costs onto student borrowers. 

H.R. 4283 also eliminates the ‘base guarantee’ in the campus based aid programs 

without significantly increasing funding for work-study, supplemental educational 

opportunity grants and Perkins loans. 

As a result, instead of increasing overall access the bill merely shifts college aid 

from one student with financial need to another student with need. 

In addition, the bill fails to provide any meaningful relief from rising tuition. 

According to a recent report from the State Higher Education Executive Officers, 

net tuition at public colleges has risen by almost 30 percent since 1991, largely due 

to cuts in state spending for higher education. 

Rather than ease the burden of growing debt, long work hours and rising tuition, 

these provisions fly in the face of numerous studies which show that the costs of 

college are a key barrier towards entry and completion of college for millions of students. 

Today, 63 percent of students who begin college as full-time freshman receive 

their bachelor’s degree after six years. 

Graduation rates for low-income and minority students are even worse: only 54 

percent of low-income, and less than half of Latino and African–American students 

earn their bachelor’s degrees within six years. 

These rates do not include the scores of students who never even make it college, 

due to financial barriers and a lack of preparation. 

In addition to have access to adequate financial aid, an integral component to college success and completion is preparation in the K–12 years. 

Unfortunately, just as critical services and programs are being put in place and 

educators are being asked to do more than ever before, the Bush Administration 

and Congressional Republicans have broken their promise to fully fund No Child 

Left Behind. 

As a result, states, school districts and students do not have the resources that 

they need to significantly increase their performance and to increase high school 

graduation rates—despite that public high school graduation rates for Latinos and 

African–Americans are just above 50 percent. 

Both the Republican’s failure to fully fund No Child Left Behind and H.R. 4283 

will actually make it harder for millions of students to successfully graduate from 

high school and college. 

In addition to resources, we must also address limitations of the current federal 

graduation tracking system—which largely fails to include part-time and transfer 

students. 

As a result, we don’t have accurate graduation data for a significant portion of 

college students. 

I support increasing accountability and using innovation solutions to boost college 

graduation rates. 

However, we must ensure that colleges, states and students have the resources 

necessary to meet increased standards-otherwise our efforts to close the achievement gap and raise graduation rates will amount to empty promises. 

Unfortunately, the College Access and Opportunity Act won’t improve college 

graduation rates. 

Instead, it makes college more expensive for millions of low and middle-income 

students and their families just as they continue to struggle to cover rising college 

costs. 

56

We need to increase college graduation rates and accountability for student persistence; however we can’t afford to take the path of this bill, as it won’t boost graduation rates. 

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill as it is presently drafted. 

Statement of Hon. Charlie Norwood, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Georgia 

Mr. Chairman I thank you for holding today’s hearing to examine the issues regarding college graduation rates and the recent report, ‘‘A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four Year Colleges and Universities,’’ conducted by the 

Education Trust. As this Committee continues to develop policy to strengthen education accountability at every level, and as we continue to debate the merits of H.R. 

4283 in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, it is clear that Congress must take 

a closer look at the nitty-gritty details regarding graduation and higher education. 

After all, we all know that more students are seeking out higher education opportunities every year (including a 66% increase at two and four year institutions since 

1975); but too many of these students fall through the cracks and fail to stay the 

course. In fact, a recent report conducted by the Education Trust in May of 2004 

found that only 63% of American students enrolled at four year universities graduate within six years. And while many of my colleagues are probably stunned to 

learn that it takes six years for nearly 2/3 of college students to graduate, it is more 

shocking to hear that 37% of students don’t even graduate at all! 

Yet the bad news doesn’t stop there: minority and low income students are particularly at risk to fall through the cracks. According to the Education Trust, ‘‘only 

46% of African American, 47% of Latino and 54% of low-income/full-time freshmen 

are graduating within six years.’’ Mr. Chairman, these figures are unacceptable. Too 

many of these students are the first in their family to attend an institution of higher 

learning, and too many come from economically under-developed regions of the 

country. In short, they are the kids that will most benefit from completing their college education and receiving a degree. 

As this Committee continues to consider the College Access and Opportunity Act 

it is imperative that Members do not ignore these facts. Mr. Chairman, we must 

face the music, realize that our policies of the past are not serving the best interests 

of American students and refocus federal higher education policy to boost these dismal graduation rates. 

If, as the State Higher Education Executive Officers’ (SHEEO) report entitled 

‘‘State Higher Education Finance: fiscal year 2003’’ is correct, the federal government and our nation’s state governments have continued to invest substantial taxpayer dollars in support of higher education even in the worst of financial times. 

Despite the fact that enrollment continues to rise and the strain on state budgets 

is tighter than ever before, government commitment to higher education remains 

steadfast. But what do we have to show for this investment? Why have graduation 

rates failed to keep pace? 

Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee need answers to these very poignant 

questions. While there are certainly institutions throughout the country that are 

maintaining or even improving upon an already high standard when it comes to 

graduation rates—and I take particular pride in the good work that universities in 

my home state of Georgia have accomplished in this regard—the overall picture is 

very disturbing. Congress must address this basic breakdown in accountability and 

achievement before proceeding ahead with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and I look forward to hearing our witness’ thoughts on how Congress 

can achieve this worthy goal. 

I thank you again Mr. Chairman for your attention to this matter, and respectfully yield back the remainder of my time. 

Statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Nevada 

Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing on H.R. 4283, 

the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2004. As we continue the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act with a focus on access and accountability, the 

measure of achievement is of the highest importance. I thank all of our witnesses 

today, and look forward to their comments and insight into this important aspect 

of our federal higher education policy. 

The reforms that we seek to make to this policy highlight the need for access and 

accountability. We must not forget the importance of student achievement when 

57

tackling these issues. Discrepancies in achievement between different economic and 

ethnic groups require that we examine closely the data collected since 1990 and reevaluate the means with which we encourage student achievement in traditional 

four year colleges. 

We must also seek to incorporate the growing number of non-traditional students 

in our assessments of success in higher education. As more students seek out postsecondary education while still remaining in the workforce, the Graduation Rate 

Survey, one of the most important indicators of a schools’ success, should reflect the 

current student population. 

In southern Nevada, we have experienced strong job creation over the past year. 

This dictates that a larger portion of our population is engaged in the workforce. 

This does not, however, change the percentage of the population seeking higher education. By providing access to more flexible post-secondary schools, we can create 

a better educated, more productive workforce in Las Vegas and its surroundings. 

As the federal government spends money on post-secondary education, it requires 

that centers of learning be accountable for the achievement of their students. Incorporating a broader spectrum of schools in this accountability equation will allow for 

greater federal aid for a broader spectrum of the student population. Through examining our current accountability standards, I hope that we can create a balanced 

and encompassing standard that will take into account the realities of our dynamic 

student body and modern workforce. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for providing the opportunity to discuss and 

explore this important aspect of the federal government’s higher education policy. 

I also thank and welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their testimony. 

Statement of Steven J. Uhlfelder 

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to share with the committee the actions taken 

by Florida and the State University System on some vital policy challenges facing 

higher education. 

The State University System of Florida has taken concrete steps to address improvements in the important areas of graduation and progression, and in student 

learning outcomes. Florida hopes to become a leader in these important areas, because, unlike other states, Florida has a tremendous access challenge—we must 

turn away qualified students from our universities every year. 

Florida’s initiatives include the following: 

Stipulation of Credit Hours to Degree 

The State University System has reduced all baccalaureate programs to 120 credit 

hours to degree, with exceptions granted only by the system’s governing body, the 

Florida Board of Governors. Significantly, this reduction included all teacher-preparation programs, many of which had increased haphazardly either through the desires of faculty or through increased requirements set by the Florida Legislature via 

the Florida Department of Education. 

In all, hundreds of programs were reduced throughout the State University System for a total reduction of more than 1,800 credit hours. A result of this process 

was an honest and thoughtful review of all curricula by faculty. In the past nine 

years, Exceptions to the 120-credit-hour limitation are few, as Florida is rigorous 

in maintaining this standard of efficiency. 

Standardization of Prerequisites to the Major 

Florida has stipulated that prerequisite coursework taken in the first two years 

of the postsecondary experience must be standardized per discipline across Florida’s 

universities and 28 community colleges. Therefore, a student who intended to major 

in, for example, Chemistry, is assured that courses taken as prerequisites, irrespective of the institution, meet the requirements. This is a powerful tool in a state such 

as Florida, which relies on a strong two-plus-two model of transfer from lower-level 

community colleges to upper-division universities. 

Standardization of General Education Hours 

Florida has stipulated that General Education must be a maximum of 36 credit 

hours at all state universities and community colleges. This resulted in a reduction 

of credit hours associated with General Education at many institutions. Institutions 

were required by law to provide coursework in five traditional subject-areas; the 

State did not attempt to dictate the General Education curriculum. 

58

Recent Efforts in Accountability and Performance Funding 

The Florida Board of Governors has adopted a new Accountability and Performance model. The model is predicated on these principles: 

1. The Board will focus on eight of the most meaningful measures as opposed to 

the universe of potential measures. 

2. The Board will provide recommendations to the Legislature, per its direction, 

as to how up to 10 percent of university funding can be tied to these measures. 

3. The measures will be a combination of proficiency indicators and quality-assurance indicators, weighted for priority and balance. Special attention will be 

paid to student learning. 

The Board of Governors measures include indicators of: 

• Degree productivity at all levels. 

• Degree productivity in specific academic areas of critical importance to Florida. 

• Higher education access to underserved populations. 

• Graduation rates. 

• Passage rates on critical licensure examinations. 

• Research productivity. 

• Creation of Academic Learning Compacts. 

Recent Efforts in Student Learning Outcomes: Academic Learning Compacts 

This year, the Board of Governors recommended that our state universities adopt 

Academic Learning Compacts for every baccalaureate degree. In this way, our universities can establish simple, clear expectations and determine whether students 

meet standards with respect to content-area knowledge, critical thinking and communication skills before graduation. 

The 11 institutions of the State University System are now developing the Academic Learning Compacts, following Board of Governors guidelines. Under this 

model, each student will know his or her performance goals and, from the start of 

their first semesters, can begin to build the catalog of knowledge needed to fulfill 

the requirements. 

Through the Academic Learning Compacts, faculty members in each department 

will be able to better articulate their program’s goals. They, too, will be held accountable if their students, after four years’ study, fail to meet the fair and honest 

criteria for success spelled out in the compacts that they helped devise. 

Student performance will be judged in a variety of ways. Assessment measures 

could include essays, portfolios, internship assessments, licensure exams, employer 

surveys, graduate-school admission exams, senior projects or other methods. Each 

university, and each department, will determine what measures best reflect their 

fields of study. With the Academic Learning Compacts, this is easily accomplished—

one size does not have to fit all. 

As you can see, accountability and performance outcomes are important to Florida 

and its colleges and universities. Our state is working hard to broaden opportunities 

to a college degree by making our institutions as productive and efficient as possible. The Florida Board of Governors is determined to continue this progress. 

I thank you for this opportunity to relate these achievements to the committee, 

and I look forward to your comments. 

Steven J. Uhlfelder, is a member of the Board of Governors for the Florida University System (appointed by Governor Jeb Bush) and former Chair of the Florida 

Board of Regents (appointed by Governor Lawton Chiles).

Æ