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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–427 PDF 2014

KEEPING COLLEGE WITHIN REACH: 

ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY FOR 

STUDENTS, FAMILIES AND TAXPAYERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 24, 2013 

Serial No. 113–15 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas, 

Ranking Minority Member 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 24, 2013 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher Education 

and Workforce Training ............................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Garrido, Alex, student, Keiser University ...................................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Heller, Dr. Donald E., dean, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI .................................................................................. 7 

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

Hurd, Dr. Nicole Farmer, founder and executive director, National College Advising Corps ...................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Reindl, Travis, program director, postsecondary education, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices .............................................. 30 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

Additional Submissions: 

Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon, ‘‘Information Matters,’’ by the Education Conservancy, Internet address to ................................................................................................ 55 

Mrs. Foxx, questions submitted for the record to Dr. Hurd ......................... 58 

Dr. Heller, response to questions submitted for the record .......................... 57 

Hudson, Hon. Richard, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, questions submitted for the record to Dr. Heller ....... 57 

Dr. Hurd, response to questions submitted for the record ............................ 59 

Mr. Kline, questions submitted for the record to Dr. Heller ........................ 57 

Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce, prepared statement of the National College Access 

Network ......................................................................................................... 55 

(1) 

KEEPING COLLEGE WITHIN REACH: 

ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY FOR 

STUDENTS, FAMILIES AND TAXPAYERS 

Wednesday, April 24, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foxx, Thompson, Walberg, Brooks, 

Hudson, Bishop, Bonamici, McCarthy, and Davis. 

Also present: Representative Kline. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary; 

James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; 

Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services 

Policy; Amy Raaf Jones, Education Policy Counsel and Senior Advisor; Brian Melnyk, Professional Staff Member; Krisann Pearce, 

General Counsel; Nicole Sizemore, Deputy Press Secretary; Emily 

Slack, Legislative Assistant; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Meg Benner, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy 

Associate; Tiffany Edwards, Minority Press Secretary for Education; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of Education Policy; Brian 

Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; 

Rich Williams, Minority Education Policy Advisor; and Michael 

Zola, Minority Deputy Staff Director. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Good morning, everyone. A quorum being 

present, the subcommittee will come to order. Welcome to today’s 

subcommittee hearing. I would like thank our panel of witnesses 

for joining this important discussion on higher education transparency. 

Receiving a college acceptance letter can be one of the most joyous moments in a student’s academic career, but for many families, 

that moment is often followed with the question: can we afford it? 

In January the New York Times detailed the exhaustive research 

many prospective students and parents conduct when choosing a 

college. After their son was accepted into college, the Ewell family 

of Chicago tried to navigate the federally-mandated college cost calVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\113TH\HEWT\113-15\80427.TXT DICK
2 

culators to better understand the financial investment, but it 

wasn’t as easy as they had expected. 

Quote—‘‘We didn’t have a lot of confidence that those were real 

numbers,’’ Ms. Ewell said. ‘‘They are all so different, and it seemed 

like there were such wide ranges and so many caveats that it really didn’t feel apples-to-apples’’—end quote. 

In recent years, the federal government has taken steps to improve data collection and transparency in the higher education system. Under Republican leadership, the 2008 reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act included several provisions to help provide 

families with the data needed to make informed decisions about 

their postsecondary opportunities. 

First, the law directed the Secretary of Education to collect and 

report 26 different pieces of information about institutions including the percentage of students receiving different types of financial 

aid, average cost of tuition and fees, and the percent change in 

total tuition and fees. This data is compiled in the College Navigator, which provides information for approximately 7,000 colleges 

and universities. 

Second, the law required all colleges participating in federal student aid programs to post net-price calculators on their websites. 

These calculators are supposed to help families understand the 

price of attendance at an institution, factoring in any grant or 

scholarship aid to give a more realistic estimate. However, as the 

Ewell family quickly realized, the calculators can be hard to use 

and are often difficult to find on college websites. 

Finally, the 2008 HEA reauthorization required the Department 

of Education to develop a model financial aid award letter to help 

students better understand their aid packages. This Financial Aid 

Shopping Sheet is now used by more than 500 colleges and universities, but some higher education leaders have concerns that the 

shopping sheets are overly cumbersome and lack flexibility for institutions to present information in a way that makes the most 

sense. 

President Obama recently took another step to enhance transparency, releasing an online tool known as the College Scorecard 

in an effort to highlight key information about higher education institutions, including costs, completion rate, and average student 

loan debt. According to the Center for American Progress, however, 

college-bound high school students struggle to understand the 

scorecard. Additionally, the scorecard has come under fire for using 

different methodologies to calculate data, creating more confusion 

for students who are trying to access accurate information about 

their postsecondary options. 

Clearly there are areas for improvement in higher education 

data. However, as we discuss opportunities to provide more useful 

information to students and families, we must also bear in mind 

the significant investment colleges and universities already make 

to comply with existing reporting requirements. 

Data collection is a time-consuming endeavor that leads to higher 

costs for many institutions. During the 2012-2013 academic year, 

institutions spent an estimated 850,320 hours and almost $31 million to fill out required federal surveys. This is in addition to the 

time and money spent complying with reporting requirements from 

3 

states and regional, national, or programmatic accrediting agencies. 

As we approach reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we 

must discuss ways to improve data without placing additional burdens on institutions or creating more confusion for students and 

families. We should also explore opportunities to better align federal transparency initiatives with state and accreditors’ reporting 

requirements. I am confident our panel of witnesses will provide 

valuable insight into these issues, and I look forward to their testimony. 

With that, I now yield to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Bishop, 

for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s subcommittee hearing. I’d like to thank our 

panel of witnesses for joining this important discussion on higher education transparency. 

Receiving a college acceptance letter can be one of the most joyous moments in 

a student’s academic career. But for many families, that moment is often followed 

with the question: can we afford it? 

In January the New York Times detailed the exhaustive research many prospective students and parents conduct when choosing a college. After their son was accepted into college, the Ewell family of Chicago tried to navigate the federally-mandated college cost calculators to better understand the financial investment—but it 

wasn’t as easy as they had expected. 

‘‘We didn’t have a lot of confidence that those were real numbers,’’ Ms. Ewell said. 

‘‘They’re all so different, and it seemed like there were such wide ranges and so 

many caveats that it really didn’t feel apples-to-apples.’’ 

In recent years, the federal government has taken steps to improve data collection 

and transparency in the higher education system. Under Republican leadership, the 

2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act included several provisions to 

help provide families with the data needed to make informed decisions about their 

postsecondary opportunities. 

First, the law directed the Secretary of Education to collect and report 26 different 

pieces of information about institutions including the percentage of students receiving different types of financial aid, average cost of tuition and fees, and the percent 

change in total tuition and fees. This data is compiled in the College Navigator, 

which provides information for approximately 7,000 colleges and universities. 

Second, the law required all colleges participating in federal student aid programs 

to post net-price calculators on their websites. These calculators are supposed to 

help families understand the price of attendance at an institution, factoring in any 

grant or scholarship aid to give a more realistic estimate. However—as the Ewell 

family quickly realized—the calculators can be hard to use and are often difficult 

to find on college websites. 

Finally, the 2008 HEA reauthorization required the Department of Education to 

develop a model financial aid award letter to help students better understand their 

aid packages. This Financial Aid Shopping Sheet is now used by more than 500 colleges and universities, but some higher education leaders have concerns that the 

shopping sheets are overly cumbersome and lack flexibility for institutions to 

present information in a way that makes the most sense. 

President Obama recently took another step to enhance transparency, releasing 

an online tool known as the College Scorecard in an effort to highlight key information about higher education institutions, including costs, completion rate, and average student loan debt. According to the Center for American Progress, however, college-bound high school students struggle to understand the scorecard. Additionally, 

the scorecard has come under fire for using different methodologies to calculate 

data, creating more confusion for students who are trying to access accurate information about their postsecondary options. 

Clearly there are areas for improvement in higher education data. However, as 

we discuss opportunities to provide more useful information to students and families, we must also bear in mind the significant investment colleges and universities 

already make to comply with existing reporting requirements. 

4 

Data collection is a time-consuming endeavor that leads to higher costs for many 

institutions. During the 2012-13 academic year, institutions spent an estimated 

850,320 hours and almost $31 million to fill out required federal surveys. This is 

in addition to the time and money spent complying with reporting requirements 

from states and regional, national, or programmatic accrediting agencies. 

As we approach reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must discuss 

ways to improve data without placing additional burdens on institutions or creating 

more confusion for students and families. We should also explore opportunities to 

better align federal transparency initiatives with state and accreditors’ reporting requirements. I’m confident our panel of witnesses will provide valuable insight into 

these issues, and I look forward to their testimony. With that, I will now yield to 

my distinguished colleague, Mr. Tim Bishop, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Foxx. 

First of all, let me thank our distinguished panel for being here 

with us this morning. I look forward to hearing your testimony and 

exploring in detail the many suggestions that you will offer today. 

I would also like to take a second to thank the majority for holding this hearing. Although our two sides may differ on many of the 

policies contained within the HEA reauthorization, the majority is 

to be commended for its willingness to consistently invite nonpartisan experts on higher education to testify on reauthorization. 

I would be remiss, however, if I did not also briefly discuss the 

impact of the fiscal year 2014 Republican budget on higher education. By eliminating the mandatory funding elements of the Pell 

Grants program, shifting Pell to a program funded entirely by discretionary appropriations, rolling back Pell eligibility expansions 

for low-income students, freezing the maximum Pell Grant for 10 

years, exposing federal work-study and SEOG to massive cuts 

through sequestration and discretionary spending caps and allowing certain student loan interest rates to double on July 1, we must 

recognize that such a budget, were it ever to become law, would 

have a disproportionately negative impact on students. 

We have reached a critical point for the future of higher education in this nation. As we all know, college tuition continues to 

rise, state appropriations continue to fall, and our students are now 

responsible for shouldering more of the burden than ever before. 

With student loan debt recently surpassing $1 trillion and sequestration inflicting significant cuts to programs like the College 

Work Study and SEOG, it is imperative that Congress promotes 

sustainable policies that encourage college access, affordability, and 

completion for our students. 

Enrolling in college is a lifetime investment. Studies universally 

indicate that a college graduate will earn significantly more over 

his or her lifetime than a non-graduate. While the national unemployment rates for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher currently sits at 3.8 percent, for those with a high school degree or 

lower, the national unemployment rate stands at 8.5 percent. 

At the same time, a study released by Georgetown University 

notes that the gap between the supply of workers with postsecondary credentials and available job openings requiring those credentials may be as wide as 3 million people by 2018. 

And yet, research shows that the United States has fallen from 

first to 16th in the world in the percentage of 25-to 34-year-olds 

with a college degree. In fact, the United States is the only country 

in the world in which degree attainment levels for those just enterVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\HEWT\113-15\80427.TXT DICK
5 

ing the labor market, at 39 percent, is actually lower than those 

preparing to retire and leave the labor market, at 41 percent. In 

order to maintain global competitiveness and our perch as the 

world’s top economy, we must continue to support our students by 

investing in federal financial aid programs that encourage college 

access and affordability. 

We must do a better job of providing students and their families 

with clear, useful, and timely information about college costs and 

financial aid options to help them make the right decision. Given 

the variety of ways students attend college and the growing reliance on federal financial aid dollars, the federal government is in 

a unique position to help collect such information so that students 

and their families can make a direct comparison across institutions. 

Although Congress, the Obama administration, and the Department of Education have jointly issued a number of initiatives 

aimed at introducing transparency into the system, we must revisit 

these decisions in order to tweak, update, and ensure that these 

measures are helping our students make the most informed decisions possible. 

We must also work with the states to ensure that they are doing 

everything in their power to preserve, not eliminate, programs that 

enable families to afford college. State governments have played a 

vital role in the higher education triad since passage of the first 

Higher Education Act in 1965. Though we understand the difficult 

financial circumstances facing many of the states, balancing budgets on the backs of students and families is simply the wrong prescription for fixing these problems. 

As we look to reauthorize the Higher Education Act in the coming months, we must address these issues and many more with 

clear vision and an eye towards the future. 

I look forward to having a productive conversation with my colleagues and our distinguished panel. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of New York 

Thank you very much, Chairwoman Foxx. 

First of all, I’d like to thank our distinguished panel for being here with us this 

morning. I look forward to hearing your testimony and exploring in detail the many 

suggestions that you will offer us today. 

I would also like to take a second to thank the majority for holding this hearing. 

Although our two sides may differ on many of the policies contained within HEA 

reauthorization, the majority should be commended for its willingness to consistently invite nonpartisan experts on higher education to testify on reauthorization. 

However, I would be remiss if I did not also briefly discuss the impact of the 

FY2014 Republican budget on higher education. By eliminating the mandatory 

funding elements of the Pell Grants program, shifting Pell to a program funded entirely by discretionary appropriations, rolling back Pell eligibility expansions for 

low-income students, freezing the maximum Pell Grant for 10 years, and allowing 

certain student loan interest rates to double on July 1, we must recognize that such 

a budget—were it ever to become law—would have a disproportionately negative impact on students. 

We have reached a critical point for the future of higher education in this nation. 

As we all know, college tuition continues to rise, state appropriations continue to 

fall, and our students are now responsible for shouldering more of the burden than 

ever before. With student loan debt recently surpassing $1 trillion and sequestration 

6 

inflicting significant cuts to programs like Federal Work-Study and SEOG, it is imperative that Congress promotes sustainable policies that encourage college access, 

affordability, and completion for our students. 

Enrolling in college is a lifetime investment. Studies universally indicate that a 

college graduate will earn significantly more over his or her lifetime than a nongraduate. While national unemployment rates for those with a bachelor’s degree or 

higher currently sits at 3.8 percent, for those with a high school degree or lower 

the national unemployment rate stands at 8.5 percent. 

At the same time, a study released by Georgetown University notes that the gap 

between the supply of workers with postsecondary credentials and available job 

openings requiring those credentials may be as wide as 3 million by 2018. 

And yet, research shows that the United States has fallen from first to sixteenth 

in the world in the percentage of 25-to-34 year olds with a college degree. In fact, 

the United States is the only country in the world in which degree attainment levels 

for those just entering the labor market—at 39 percent—is actually lower than 

those preparing to retire and leave the labor market—at 41 percent. In order to 

maintain global competitiveness and our perch as the world’s top economy, we must 

continue to support our students by investing in federal financial aid programs that 

encourage college access and affordability. 

We must do a better job of providing students and their families with clear, useful, and timely information about college costs and financial aid options to help 

them make the right decision. Given the variety of ways students attend college and 

the growing reliance on federal financial aid dollars, the federal government is in 

a unique position to help collect such information so that students and their families 

can make a direct comparison across institutions. 

Although Congress, the Obama Administration, and the Department of Education 

have jointly issued a number of initiatives aimed at introducing transparency into 

the system, we must revisit these decisions in order to tweak, update, and ensure 

that these measures are helping our students make the most informed decisions 

possible. 

We must also work with the States to ensure that they are doing everything in 

their power to preserve—not eliminate—programs that enable families to afford college. State governments have played a vital role in the higher education ‘triad’ since 

passage of the first Higher Education Act in 1965. Though we understand the difficult financial circumstances facing many of the states, balancing budgets on the 

backs of students and their families is simply the wrong prescription for fixing these 

problems. 

As we look to reauthorize the Higher Education Act in the coming months, we 

must address these issues and many more with clear vision and an eye towards the 

future. I look forward to having a productive conversation with my colleagues and 

our distinguished panel and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will 

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record. 

And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 

14 days to allow statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 

the official hearing record. 

Before introducing our panel of witnesses, I would like to recognize the fact that we have in the audience with us today seven parliamentarians from the country of Turkey, the Republic of Turkey, 

and we are very pleased to have them with us. 

They are accompanied by some other folks. They are visiting the 

United States, spending several days here in the Congress observing our work, and I am very honored that they chose to attend our 

hearing today. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. Dr. Donald Heller is Dean of the College of Education and 

a professor in the Department of Education Administration at 

Michigan State University. 

7 

Prior to his appointment in January 2012, he was director of the 

Center for the Study of Higher Education and professor of education and senior scientist at the Pennsylvania State University. 

Mr. Alex Garrido is currently a student attending Keiser University in Miami where he is studying criminal justice. Prior to enrolling at Kaiser, he served as a combat engineer in the Navy. 

Dr. Nicole Hurd is the founder and executive director of the National College Advising Corps, a consortium of 18 partner colleges 

and universities in 14 states that higher recent college graduates 

to serve as college advisors. 

Mr. Travis Reindl oversees the Education Division’s postsecondary education work area at the National Governors Association 

Center for Best Practices. He also led the 2010-2011 NGA Chair’s 

Initiative Complete to Compete, which focused on increasing college 

completion and productivity. 

Before I recognize you individually to provide your testimony, let 

me briefly explain our lighting system. You will have 5 minutes to 

present your testimony. 

When you begin, the light in front of you will turn green. When 

1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. When your time has expired, the light will turn red. 

At that point, I ask that you wrap up your remarks as best as 

you are able. After you have testified, members will each have 5 

minutes to ask questions of the panel. 

I now recognize Dr. Donald Heller for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD E. HELLER, DEAN, 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. HELLER. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Bishop, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you on today. 

I am speaking as a researcher on college access and not as a representative of Michigan State University this morning. 

As the price of college has risen over the last three decades, 

there has been much discussion of ways to ensure that students 

and their families have adequate information about the costs, programs, and benefits associated with attending college. 

We know that there are positive returns to investments in higher 

education, the college wage premium, the additional amount that 

someone earns after earning a bachelor’s degree as compared to 

those with only a high school diploma, has more than doubled in 

the last 35 years. 

In order for students to make appropriate choices about attending college however they need good information about postsecondary educational options. In thinking about ways to do this, it 

is important to realize a few key facts about where students attend 

college in our nation. 

Fifty-four percent of first-year students attend community colleges and the great majority of these are in their local regions. Another 14 percent are enrolled in proprietary schools where again, 

they are most likely attending one in their local communities. 

These proportions are even greater for adult students. 

8 

Over two thirds of first-year students are enrolled in an institution within 25 miles of home, and 81 percent are enrolled within 

50 miles of their home. 

What these data tell us is that the majority of perspective college 

enrollees are looking at a fairly limited choice set. Those institutions that are very close to home and primarily community colleges 

and proprietary institutions. 

For individuals who are thinking about attending college, there 

are a number of sources of information. One of the most important 

is a student’s family and peers. Research has shown that these are 

critical data sources particularly for students in the earlier parts 

of the college search process. 

There is much information available from colleges and universities themselves including admissions and financial aid websites, 

view books, college costs and financial aid calculators. 

Like any information provided by an organization selling a good 

or service, however, it is only fair that the information be consumed with a warning of caveat emptor. 

While I do not mean to imply that colleges and universities may 

intentionally mislead potential students, it is advisable to keep in 

mind that information is generally provided to maximize institutional rather than student interests. 

For students enrolled in high school guidance counselors are a 

valuable and critical resource. However, access to good college 

counseling in high schools is very inequitably distributed with 

schools serving high proportions of first-generation and poorer students least likely to provide access to good college counseling. 

The Department of Education has made a number of efforts some 

under congressional mandate to provide more consumer friendly information to students as Dr. Foxx mentioned. The IPEDS college 

navigator provides a single website with information about things 

like prices, enrollments, graduation rates, financial aid, etc. 

There are also a number of federal programs, most notably the 

TRIO and GEAR-UP programs, which have as an important part 

of their mission, providing information about colleges to their participants. 

There are also many private sources of information about college 

including college guidebooks and rankings. Other private sources 

include not-for-profit organizations devoted to improving college access such as the National College Access Network and its many 

state affiliates. 

There are also private college counselors who charge hourly or 

flat rate fees to parents to help their children choose colleges and 

prepare applications. These fees may run from a few hundred dollars to as much as $14,000 for a 4-day application boot camp. The 

states are also a source of information, but I will defer to Mr. 

Reindl on that topic. 

The Internet has greatly helped to democratize access to information. What has not done as well has been to help people access the 

right information at the right time to meet their needs. 

Let me turn now to a few recommendations to enhance higher 

education transparency. First, there is no substitute for access to 

knowledgeable information that could be tailored to the needs of individual students. 

9 

While local school districts and states have the main responsibility for funding high schools, the federal government could consider a highly targeted program to place more qualified college 

counselors in schools serving lower income students. 

Second, the Department of Education can improve the information about college and financial aid that it provides. Just as the Institute of Education Sciences’ What Works Clearinghouse provides 

access to educators on proven educational programs and practices, 

the department could develop a similar website on college access. 

Third, Congress should continue to support the existing Department of Ed programs, such as TRIO and GEAR-UP that provide information to students about college and how to pay for it. 

Fourth, there are some innovative experiments being conducted 

by researchers that are providing high-quality, low-cost information 

about college to students who desperately need it. One I highlighted in my written testimony is the Expanding College Opportunities Project. 

I would also like to add one cautionary note. There has been 

much focus recently on collecting better information about the salaries earned by graduates of specific colleges or in specific majors. 

While there are important vocational training components of 

many postsecondary programs, a college degree confers returns to 

the individual and society that cannot be valued only by the simple 

measurement of an individual’s wages in her first job after college. 

I will close by thanking you once again for the opportunity to address you today. I would be happy to take your questions after the 

remaining witnesses have testified. 

[The statement of Mr. Heller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Donald E. Heller, Dean, College of Education, 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 

CHAIRWOMAN FOXX, RANKING MEMBER HINOJOSA, AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Thank you for the opportunity to address you on today. I would like 

to offer a special greeting to Representative Walberg, from Michigan’s 7th District, 

right next to our campus, as well as Representative Thompson, with whom I have 

met in the past and who represents the district of my former employer, Pennsylvania State University. I come to you today as a researcher having conducted studies on college admissions and access for over fifteen years, and not as a representative of Michigan State University. 

As the price of college has risen over the last three decades, there has been much 

discussion of ways to ensure that students and their families have adequate information about the costs, programs, and benefits associated with attending postsecondary education. We are reasonably assured of the benefits of attending college; 

much has been written of the lifetime returns earned by those with a college degree 

as compared to those who enter the labor market with only a high school diploma. 

One example, from a recent book of mine, is shown in figure 1 on the next page. 

In 2008, the median income of men holding bachelor’s degrees was 105 percent 

greater than men holding only a high school diploma, and 204 percent greater than 

high school dropouts. More importantly, this college wage premium—the additional 

amount, on average, that someone with a bachelor’s degree earns over those with 

only a high school diploma or less education—has more than doubled over the last 

35 years. This increasing college wage premium is the primary reason that most analysts describe to explain why college enrollments have continued to rise, even in 

the face of price increases that have well exceeded inflation over the last three decades. 

It is important to note that earning a bachelor’s degree is not the only path toward achieving what we often have called a ‘‘middle class lifestyle.’’ However, it is 

clear that fewer and fewer jobs in our economy today, as well as into the future, 

will allow people to earn a decent wage if they don’t have some form of postsecondary training. 

10 

1 Bell, A. D., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Perna, L. W. (2009). College Knowledge of 9th and 11th 

Grade Students: Variation by School and State Context. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 

663-685. 

It is clear that it is a national imperative to ensure that we have good information 

available about postsecondary educational options for students and their families. 

In thinking about ways to do this, it is important to realize a few key facts about 

where students attend college (all data are the author’s calculations from the U.S. 

Department of Education’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Study of 2008): • 54 percent of all first-year students enrolling in postsecondary educational institutions attend community colleges, and the great majority of these are attending 

community colleges in their local regions. Another 14 percent of first-year students 

are enrolled in proprietary institutions, where again, they are most likely attending 

one in their local communities. • This proportion is even greater for independent students, those generally over 

the age of 24. Fifty-nine percent of these students attend community colleges, and 

another 22 percent attend proprietary institutions. • Over two-thirds of all first-year college students are enrolled in an institution 

within 25 miles of their home, and 81 percent are enrolled within fifty miles of their 

home. Again, these proportions are even greater for adults students—three-quarters 

and 90 percent, respectively. 

What these data tell us is that the vast majority of prospective college enrollees, 

both traditional-aged students as well as adults returning to college for the firsttime, are looking at a fairly limited choice set: those institutions that are very close 

to home, and primarily community colleges and proprietary institutions. 

This is not to say that given better information about postsecondary educational 

choices, more students would not choose to move farther from home to attend college, or more students could not be persuaded that a four-year public or not-for-profit institution would be a better option for them. But the reality is that for many 

students attending college for the first time, there are a very small number of the 

over 7,200 accredited, Title IV-participating institutions, that these students are 

considering. 

For high school students or adults who are thinking about attending college, there 

are a number of sources of information available: • Parents, families, and peers: One of the most important sources of information 

about college is a student’s parents (if a traditional-aged student), families, and 

peers. Research has shown that these are critical data sources, particularly for students in the earlier parts of the college search process, i.e., those in the early high 

school years.1 Students later in high school seek out and find additional sources of 

information, but family and friends are critical in the earlier stages. • The quantity, quality and reliability of information about college available from 

family and friends varies greatly by such characteristics as income and parental 

education. 


80427-11.eps
11 

2McDonough, P. M. (2006). Counseling and College Counseling in America’s High Schools. Arlington, VA: National Association for College Admission Counseling. 3 Hernandez College Consulting. (2013). ‘‘Application Boot Camp.’’ Retrieved April 21, 2013, 

from http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/application-bootcamp/ 

• Colleges and universities: There is lots of information from colleges and universities themselves, including admissions and financial aid websites, view books, and 

college cost and financial aid calculators. Most college also provide tours to prospective students who visit the campus, and send representatives to college fairs out in 

the community. Like any information provided by an organization selling a good or 

service, however, it is only fair that the information be consumed with the warning 

of caveat emptor. While I do not mean to imply that colleges and universities may 

intentionally mislead potential students, it is advisable to keep in mind that information is generally provided to maximize institutional, rather than student, interests. 

Many colleges, including my own, offer outreach programs that bring high school 

students to their campuses to give them an intensive experience of what it is like 

to be on a college campus, provide academic and test prep tutoring, and the like. 

These experiences may range from the relatively short-term (such as a weekend) to 

as long as four or more weeks in the summer. 

• Guidance counselors: For students still enrolled in high school, guidance counselors (as well as teachers and other school staff) can be a valuable resource. However, access to these kinds of resources—particularly guidance counselors, who are 

most likely to have the best and most up-to-date information about attending college—is very inequitably distributed. A study conducted for the National Association 

for College Admission Counseling found that high school guidance counselors can be 

critical in improving college access for racial minority and low socioeconomic status 

students, but these are exactly the populations who are likely to have the least access to good college counseling.2

• Federal government: In recent years, the Department of Education has made 

a number of efforts, some under Congressional mandate, to provide more consumerfriendly information to students. The IPEDS College Navigator, for example, provides a single website with basic data about every Title IV-participating institution 

in the country. This includes things like prices, enrollments, programs offered, financial aid available, and graduation rates. The Department has also worked with 

colleges to help them implement Net Price Calculators, mandated by Congress in 

the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. 

• There are also a number of federal programs, most notably the TRIO and 

GEAR-UP programs, which have as an important part of their mission providing information about colleges to their participants. 

• Private sources: There are also many private sources of information about college. This includes: 

• Publications, such as college guidebooks written by individuals or organizations, 

or rankings published by such organizations as U.S. News & World Reports, Barron’s, and The Princeton Review. This includes numerous books providing advice on 

how to pay for college. A simple search on Amazon for ‘‘college guides’’ returns over 

3,000 entries. 

• Information provided in written and other forms by not-for-profit organizations 

devoted to improving college access, most prominently the National College Access 

Network and its many state affiliates around the country. 

• Private college counselors, who charge hourly or flat rate fees to parents to help 

their children choose colleges. These fees may run from a few hundred dollars to 

as much as $14,000 for a four day ‘‘Application Boot Camp.’’ 3 As with access to 

guidance counselors in high schools, access to private college counseling is correlated 

with the income of the student’s parents. 

• States: Information from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, who control 

and provide funding to public colleges and universities that enroll 72 percent of all 

college students. I will not say much else about this, however, as I know that Mr. 

Reindl will be discussing this topic. 

I would argue that there is no issue with the volume of information available 

about college. As mentioned earlier, there are numerous guidebooks, websites, magazines, and other sources that are often freely accessible and available to most all 

prospective college students. As has been said by many, the Internet has greatly 

helped to democratize access to information. What it has not done as successfully, 

however, has been to help people get access to the right information to meet their 

needs. And it is critical that we help prospective students to get the right information in their hands at the necessary times. 

12 

4 Bell, A. D., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Perna, L. W. (2009). College Knowledge of 9th and 11th 

Grade Students: Variation by School and State Context. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 

663-685. 

Having provided you with this overview of the availability of information about 

college and how to fund it, let me turn now to a few recommendations regarding 

how we can improve the this information. 

Some of these are actions that the federal government can assist with; others are 

better suited for other levels of government or private sector actors. 

First, there is no adequate substitution for having access to objective, unbiased, 

and knowledgeable information that can be tailored to the needs of individual students. A couple of generations ago, when we had a much smaller proportion of high 

school students who transitioned into college (and adult students were few and far 

between in comparison to today), this role was fulfilled by the high school guidance 

counselor. Schools in upper-middle and upper-income communities were the ones 

sending a high percentage of students onto college, and these schools provided adequate access to college counseling. 

Today, we have a higher proportion of students who aspire to attend college, and 

they are distributed among a broader set of high schools than in the past. However, 

we have not provided access to good college counseling in the schools to many of 

these students who historically have been underrepresented in higher education, 

those predominantly from lower-income and racial minority families. Because these 

students tend to be clustered in lower-resourced schools, they are not provided with 

the same level of college counseling afforded to students from wealthier families. 

And for most of them, access to private college counseling—including the $14,000 

‘‘Application Boot Camp’’ mentioned earlier—is well beyond their means. 

While local school districts and states have the primary responsibility for funding 

and operating high schools, the federal government could consider a highly-targeted, 

federally-funded program to place more qualified college counselors in schools serving lower-income students. A complimentary approach would be for the federal government to partner with non-profits, such as the National College Advising Corps 

(NCAC), a largely privately-funded organization which works with colleges and universities to place recent college graduates into high schools serving high proportions 

of low-income and first-generation students. The NCAC representatives work oneon-one with these high school students to supplement guidance counselors who are 

often overwhelmed with high student-to-counselor ratios and many other demanding 

responsibilities. 

Students in predominantly low-income schools who have had been able to gain access to good college counseling from an individual report how important it has been 

to them. In one study, respondents described this person as being ‘‘almost ‘saviorlike’ ’’ (p. 674) in helping them gain good information about college.4

Second, the Department of Education can also continue to improve the information about college and financial aid that it provides to students and families. While 

as I noted earlier the Department has made great strides in recent years with its 

websites and other sources of data, the information that is provided is still focused 

on providing facts and figures. If a student wants to know what majors are offered 

at a particular institution, or what the tuition and fees and net price are, or what 

the six-year graduation rate is, the IPEDS College Navigator is a good place to go. 

But it is not a place to visit to help students understand if a college is the right 

‘‘fit’’ for them. I am not suggesting that the Department get into the college guide 

book business, but it could create a portal to objective information that could help 

students find a good college. Just as the Institute of Education Sciences’ What 

Works Clearinghouse provides access to educators on proven educational programs, 

products, practices, and policies, a similar website on college access could provide 

pointers to good, objective information about choosing colleges. 

Third, Congress should continue to support the existing Department of Education 

programs, such as the TRIO and GEAR-UP programs, that have as part of their design providing information to students about attending college and how to pay for 

it. 

Fourth, school districts and state governments need to step forward and ensure 

that high school students and their families are being provided access to high quality information about attending college and paying for it. One way of doing this is 

to ensure that schools are adequately funded so that students have access to good 

advice from school personnel. As described earlier, there is no good substitute for 

this level of personalized attention. Schools should be encouraged to work with private organizations, including local businesses and non-profits, that have as their 

mission getting more students enrolling in postsecondary education. 

13 

5 Hoxby, C., & Turner, S. (2013). Expanding College Opportunities for High-Achieving, Low 

Income Students. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University and the University of Virginia. 

As I described earlier, the great majority of students are interested in attending 

college very close to their local communities, and for many of these students, the 

local communities can offer at least one postsecondary option that is the right price, 

offers the program they want, and would be that proverbial ‘‘good fit.’’ Thus, providing good information about these local options should not be as daunting a task 

as trying to help students choose from among the over 7,000 accredited institutions 

across the country. 

Fifth, there are some innovative experiments being conducted by researchers that 

attempt to target information at those students who historically have been underrepresented in higher education and generally have poor access to good information 

about it. One I will highlight is the Expanding College Opportunities Project, being 

conducted by researchers Caroline Hoxby of Stanford University and Sarah Turner 

of the University of Virginia.5 This project has targeted high-achieving, low-income 

students, and provides them with very low-cost, highly-targeted information (via the 

mail and websites) about colleges, financial aid, and net prices. While the study is 

somewhat limited because the target population is those students who have relatively high levels of academic achievements, early results nevertheless show that 

the approach holds promise. 

I would also like to add one cautionary note. There has been much focus in the 

last year or two, particularly in some states, on collecting better information about 

the salaries earned by graduates of specific colleges and universities, including data 

on earnings by major. This issue has been framed not just as one of providing better 

information to prospective students, but also as one of institutional accountability. 

While this kind of information can be helpful, I think that it also can be used in 

a way that narrows the purpose of a postsecondary education. While there are important vocational training components of many postsecondary programs, a college 

education—whether it is one that leads to a bachelor’s degree or not—confers returns to the individual and society that cannot be valued only by the simple measurement of an individual’s wages in her first job after college. The true value of an 

education can only be seen five, 10, or even 20 years after the education is experienced, and in ways well beyond the size of the paycheck earned by the recipient of 

that education. 

In summary, we have made some good strides on getting more information to students about college. These efforts have been accomplished by the federal government, states, local districts, and private organizations. But we still have a long way 

to go to improve on these efforts if we are going to ensure that all students have 

the right information at the right time and tailored to their needs. 

I will close by thanking you once again for the opportunity to address you today. 

I would be happy to take your questions after the remaining witnesses have testified. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Garrido, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALEX GARRIDO, STUDENT, 

KEISER UNIVERSITY 

Mr. GARRIDO. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx and committee 

members. It is an honor to have been invited to testify before the 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training to 

share my story about college experience. 

As you said earlier, I was a military member from 2001 to 2006 

as a Sea Bee which is a combat engineer, civil engineer. 

During my time in service I went to countries such as Latvia, 

Lithuania, Estonia, Spain, Guam, Iraq, and Kuwait. I was medically discharged for my injuries sustained while in service and 

came back to Miami, where originally, where I was from. 

I found a job as an FAA—at a FAA repair station, which was as 

a jet engine mechanic. Unfortunately, as the economy plummeted, 

I found myself without a job in 2008. Unable to readily find work, 

14 

I chose to enroll in college so I could continue providing for my 

family. I began to search online for colleges and degree programs 

which were of interest to me. 

While doing my research, I looked at the Veterans’ Affairs 

website and I found out about the Post 9/11 benefits were available 

and could cover housing stipend, books, and tuition. This helped 

me with my decision and I knew it was time to go back to school. 

Although the VA was not involved with my search for schools, 

they did help me however, with the necessary forms for my education funding. 

Initially, I looked online at different schools in South Florida and 

I felt best—what would best meet my needs. I was looking for 

schools that had degree programs, which could be completed quickly, would not require a long commute to school, and that the student body that was serious about learning. 

The main information I was able to obtain online in these 

searches was what degree programs were often offered as well as 

the college locations. I was also able to use the website to get a feel 

for the schedule and plans for the various degree programs. 

For me, schedule was important seeing as how I was already in 

my thirties and had been out of school for a long time so the idea 

of focusing on three to four classes at once was a daunting task. 

After selecting the schools I was interested in, I began to visit 

the campuses and speak to admissions advisors. I wanted to get a 

feel for the environment of each individual school and then this 

had gauge slowly—from my—I couldn’t gauge this from the 

websites. 

The first school I visited had an admissions representative who 

spoke quickly and could not keep my attention. This did not take 

the time—she didn’t take the time to answer my questions and I 

was—she was forcing contracts my way. 

Another school I visited, I was informed I would need to take 

general education courses, which would have about thirty students 

per class. 

Class size was an important issue so I began speaking to my— 

with friends; and they informed me that classes would normally 

have between 50-100 students. Having been out of school for so 

many years I wanted more individualized attention so I ruled those 

colleges out. 

When I discussed my options with my girlfriend, she encouraged 

me to come up with a game plan. I went to see her friends at 

Keiser University where the admissions counselor, she knew. Arriving, he gave me a tour of the college, explained in detail the degree programs offered, along with taking and what to expect. 

After he got to know me, and the fact that I was a veteran, he 

took me to financial aid to see about my veteran’s benefits. I was 

not able—aware of any navigation tools from the Department of 

Education, which was why my decision was based mostly on my 

visit and the support of my friends and family. 

Unlike the experience to another college where I felt I was being 

pressured into signing paperwork and enrolling, this was not the 

case at Keiser because of the experience during my first visit, I returned a few days after knowing that I was going to—expected to 

take a test and then later to see if I was going to be admitted. 

15 

Keiser did everything they could to fund my education in conjunction with benefits from the VA and also the Yellow Ribbon 

Scholarship. Then Keiser matched whatever the Yellow Ribbon 

would offer. 

I filled out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, which 

is the FAFSA and obtained a Pell Grant. I was also eventually offered an academic scholarship because of my grades and a military 

scholarship for being a veteran. 

I have been at Keiser University since 2009 and I likely—and I 

like everything about the school from small classes, everyone being 

required to be in professional attire, and the fact that Keiser is a 

Level 6 accredited, a Level 6 SACS accredited school offering doctoral degrees. 

I am a firm believer in that the environment plays a role in the 

attitude of the students. Teachers are easily accessible whether you 

meet with them on campus or by email them after hours. 

My associate—I earned my associate’s degree in 2011 with a 

GPA of 3.6. I would never imagine that I would have graduated 

with such a high GPA with my associate’s. 

After graduating with my associate’s, I continued my education 

my bachelor’s, and I am proud to say I am going to graduate in 

September. 

For me, choosing a college was about the academics needed to 

come, and my decision was not lightly. I considered the graduation 

rates, the number of students in my class, and the length and degree of the program because my funding would not last indefinitely. 

I chose a career of criminal justice, and Madam Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speaking today about my experience and hoping the decision of transparency will help things 

a little easier for people like me, people with busy lives, children, 

and those who are veterans. I look forward to any questions that 

you might have for me. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Garrido follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Alex Garrido, Student, Keiser University 

Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx and Committee Members. It is an honor to have 

been invited to testify before the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training to share my story about my college experience. 

Let me begin by sharing a little of my history. I served in the United States Navy 

from 2001 to 2006 and I was a Sea Bee, which is a civil engineer. During my time 

in the service I went to countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Spain, Guam, 

Iraq, and Kuwait. I was medically discharged from injuries sustained while in service and came back to Miami, where I was originally from. I found a job at a FAA 

jet engine repair station. Unfortunately, as the economy plummeted, I found myself 

without a job in 2008. Unable to readily find work, I chose to enroll in college so 

that I could continue providing for my family. I began to search online for colleges 

and degree programs, which were of interest to me. 

While doing my research, I looked at the Veterans’ Affairs website and I found 

out that Post 9/11 benefits were available and could cover a housing stipend, books, 

and tuition. This helped with my decision and I knew it was time to go back to 

school. Although the VA was not involved in my search for schools, they did help 

me fill out the necessary forms to have my education funded. 

Initially, I looked online at different schools in South Florida I felt would best 

meet my needs. I was looking for a school that had degree programs, which could 

be completed quickly, would not require a long commute to the school, had a student 

body that was serious about learning, and classes that would interest me. The main 

information I was able to obtain online in these searches was what degree programs 

16 

were offered as well as the college locations. However, I was also able to use the 

websites to get a feel for the schedules and plans for the various degree programs. 

For me, the schedule was important seeing as how I was already in my thirties 

and had been out of school for a long time so the idea of focusing on three or four 

classes at once was daunting. After selecting the schools I was interested in, I began 

to visit the campuses and speak to admissions advisors. I wanted to get a feel for 

the environments of each individual school and this is hard to gauge solely from 

school websites. The first school I visited had an admissions representative who 

spoke too quickly and could not keep my attention. She did not take the time to 

answer my questions and was forcing contracts my way. At another school I visited 

I was informed I would need to take general education courses, which would have 

about thirty students per class. 

Class size was an important issue so I began speaking with friends; I was informed classes at a number of my other choices would have anywhere from 50-100 

students. Having been out of school for so many years I knew I wanted more individualized attention so I ruled out those colleges. When I discussed my options with 

my girlfriend, she encouraged me to come up with a game plan and move forward 

with my education. I went to see a friend of hers at Keiser University who was an 

admissions counselor. After arriving, he gave me a tour of the college, explained in 

detail the degree programs offered, how long they would take, and what to expect. 

After he got to know me, and the fact that I was a veteran, he then took me to 

financial aid to see about my veteran’s benefits. I was not aware of any navigation 

tools from the Department of Education which is why my decision was based mostly 

on my visits and the support of my friends and family. 

Unlike an experience at another college where I felt I was being pressured into 

signing paperwork and enrolling, this was not the case at Keiser. Because of the 

experience during my first visit, I returned a few days later to take my entrance 

exam and I already knew what to expect from the school if I was admitted. Keiser 

did everything they could to help fund my education in conjunction with benefits 

offered by the VA—the Yellow Ribbon Scholarship and a match by Keiser. I filled 

out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and obtained a Pell 

Grant. I was also eventually offered an academic scholarship because of my grades 

and a military scholarship for being a veteran. 

I have been at Keiser University since 2009 and I like everything about the school 

from the small classes, everyone being required to be in professional attire, and the 

fact that Keiser is a Level 6 SACS accredited school offering doctoral degrees. I am 

a firm believer that the environment plays a role in the attitude of the students. 

Teachers are easily accessible whether you meet with them on campus or email 

them after hours. I earned my Associate’s degree in 2011 with a 3.6 GPA and would 

never have imagined I could graduate with such a high GPA. I immediately continued my education and went on to obtain my Bachelor’s degree; I am happy to tell 

you I will graduate this coming September. The one class at a time structure allows 

me to absorb the information presented and with the way the information is continuously delivered over that month it helps me to retain what I have learned, having it become second nature. The University administration is always available to 

listen to the concerns of students and takes action on issues raised, which is greatly 

appreciated by the student body because it lets us know our voices are being heard 

and we are not just a number. 

For me, choosing a college was about my academic needs and I did not come by 

my decision lightly. I considered graduation rates, the number of students in my 

classes, the length of the degree program since I was receiving funding that would 

not last indefinitely, accreditation and placement rates. These things would all determine how successful I would be in my chosen career path of criminal justice; my 

goal from the start has been to be employable. I did not enroll with any unanswered 

questions and it has made the task of focusing on my studies that much easier. 

Madam Chair and Members, thank you again, for the opportunity to speak to you 

today about my experiences. My hope is that today’s discussion about transparency 

helps make things a little easier for people like me—people with a busy life, children, those who work and veterans. I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Garrido. 

I now recognize Dr. Nicole Hurd for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. NICOLE FARMER HURD, FOUNDER AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COLLEGE ADVISING CORPS 

Ms. HURD. Thank you for the honor of being here today. 

17 

As the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the National College Advising Corps, I am here representing 335 recent college 

graduates who are serving as college advisers to nearly 117,000 

students in 389 high schools across 14 states. 

Our program places these college graduates from our 18 partner 

universities into low income underserved high schools to help students navigate the path to college and earn meaningful credentials. 

We are an evidence-based, data-driven, high-impact program 

that has seen an increase of 8 to 12 percent college matriculation 

rates in these schools. And this morning, I have to share with you 

that the Department of Education data shows is that we have 

helped 36,000 students file their FAFSA forms this fall—or this 

spring. 

We—our mission is simple. We are to help every student, every 

student find the right match and fit so they enroll in schools that 

serve them well. 

My testimony is from the vantage point of these near peer advisors. They spend every day working alongside our guidance counselors, teachers, and principles making sure our students take advantage of educational opportunities and are ready to compete in 

the global economy. 

There are real barriers for our high school students today; the 

gap between what they think they know and what they need to 

know. If you ask an eighth-grade class in this country how many 

of them want to go to college, every head will go up. But we lose 

them. 

We lose them in the process. They are unaware of fee waivers. 

They are unaware of Pell grants. They are unaware of the net price 

calculators. They do not know to look for graduation rates and they 

don’t know how to make wise choices. 

In my home state of North Carolina and many of the other states 

represented here, 100 students will enroll in our public colleges 

and universities. Only 13 will graduate with a 2-year degree in 4 

years, and only 29 will graduate with a 4-year—from a 4-year institution within 8 years. 

We need to do better. There are real barriers. Our college guidance counselors—excuse me—our high school guidance counselor 

rate is way too high. The recommended ratio is 250 to 1. In California, it is 810 to 1. In Texas, it is 711 to 1. And in Michigan, it 

is 660 to 1. 

Our job in the National College Advising Corps is to bring these 

near peer graduates into the schools to help those guidance counselors make sure that all of our students find a match and go to 

a school where they will succeed. 

But there are very simple barriers; the barriers that you can help 

us fix. Information barriers that are also preventing our students 

from enrolling and completing higher education. There are certain 

activities that all high school students need. They need to go on 

college visits. They know college is good, but they have no idea 

what a vocational school, a community college, or a 4-year school 

can offer them. 

They need financial literacy. They do not know the difference between a grant or a loan. They have sticker shock. They have no difVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\HEWT\113-15\80427.TXT DICK
18 

ference between what the sticker price of the University is versus 

their actual net cost that they will pay. 

And my most heartbreaking example I want to share with you 

this morning as a family who did not want to take out a loan and 

take support from the federal government because they were too 

proud and thought that that was aid that they did not want to take 

and so instead, they put their tuition on a 15 percent credit card 

not realizing a credit card is actually a loan. 

We have a lack of timeline in knowledge in our schools as well. 

We need timelines for all students, the 9th through 12th grade, 

and they need to be posted in every classroom, not just in the guidance office. 

The students need to know when to register, when to take the 

SAT and ACT, when to start their scholarship searches, when to 

fill out their FASFA, priority deadlines, these are all things that 

can be really, really big barriers and they are really small, but we 

need to knock them down. 

I cannot tell you how many students we advise that did not take 

their SAT or ACT in their junior year, did not see a list of courses 

they needed until 12th grade and therefore were not college and career ready and did not realize that you file financial aid forms and 

when you do is important. 

You all have done some amazing things to help us and I want 

to thank you for that. We ask you to have universal adoption of the 

Financial Aid Shopping Sheet. It is so important that our families 

see things apples to apples. In order to have graduation rates 

there, those make a huge difference. 

Think about what choice you can make when you can actually 

see a school’s graduation rate, loan default rates, median borrowing, grants and scholarships, net costs so our families, especially our low income families can see what this is really going to 

cost them. 

As you know, reading financial award letters up until this time, 

you need an advanced degree for. They are full of jargon. They are 

hard to read, and they have been a barrier. Net price calculators; 

thank you for what you have done to make our higher institutions 

put those there. They need to be places where people can see them. 

They are so buried right now that our families, our students, our 

counselors, and our advisors can’t get to them. And again, we need 

to explain to people the difference between the sticker price and 

the net price. 

And finally, I want to thank you for what you have done with 

college navigator and all of the other things that are coming up to 

help people with families—and their families navigate the college 

process. 

I will say we still worry about how much predatory and wrong 

information is out on the Internet. People should not have to pay 

to fill out their FAFSA. People should not have to pay to get information from public domains. 

So my final comment is just to thank you all for this and again, 

on behalf of the 335 recent college graduates all who are part of 

this amazing advising corps, all who are part of major universities, 

I want to thank you. Every student in this country deserves to fulVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\HEWT\113-15\80427.TXT DICK
19 

fill their potential through education and this committee is leading 

the way. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Hurd follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Nicole Farmer Hurd, Founder and Executive 

Director, National College Advising Corps 

Chairwoman Foxx, Representative Hinojosa, and Members, thank you for the 

honor of providing this testimony to your committee. 

As the Founder and CEO of the National College Advising Corps, I represent 335 

recent college graduates who are serving as college advisers to nearly 117,000 students in 389 high schools across 14 states. Our program places these college graduates from 18 partner universities into low income and underserved high schools to 

help students navigate the path to college and earn meaningful credentials. 

Our partner universities, some from your states, schools such as the University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Georgia, the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, New York University, the University of Virginia, Franklin & Marshall College, Texas A&M, and Cal, Berkeley, are so committed to ensuring all of our students are college and career ready and have a 

meaningful postsecondary plan that they join us—with their dollars and talents— 

in placing their recent graduates in high schools. My testimony is from the vantage 

of these near peer advisers who spend every day, alongside guidance counselors, 

teachers, and principals, making sure our students take advantage of educational 

opportunities and are ready to compete in the global economy. 

There are real barriers for our high school students today. There is a gap between 

what students think they know and what they need to know. If you ask an 8th 

grade class how many of them want to go to college, 100% of the hands will go up— 

and yet as the years go by—we lose these students. They do not understand financial aid or what classes they need to take. They are unaware of fee waivers, Pell 

grants, and net price calculators. They do not know to look for graduation rates and 

how to make wise choices, so in North Carolina, and many of the other states represented here—100 students will enroll in our public colleges and universities, only 

13 will graduate with a 2 year degree within 4 years and only 29 will graduate from 

a 4 year institution within 8 years (http://www.completecollege.org/docs/North— 

Carolina—Feb28.pdf). 

There are structural barriers that prevent our student for achieving their full potential through education—our high school counselor to student ratio is too high. 

The America School Counselors’ Association recommends a ratio of 250:1, but recent 

Department of Education data shows the national average is 459:1—in California 

it is 810:1, in Texas it is 711:1, and in Michigan it is 660:1. 

The vast majority of our Education Schools which train our counselors, teachers, 

and school leadership do not include college and financial aid counseling in the curriculum. There is not enough human capital to serve our students well. 

The National College Advising Corps is helping to address this human capital 

issue by placing near peer advisers in our partner high school to work alongside our 

counselors and teachers and help make college and career dreams become reality. 

And yet there are simple barriers—information barriers—that are also preventing 

our students from enrolling and completing higher education. They are certain activities that all high school students need in their schools. 

College Visits 

Students think they know what college is, but many have never been to a campus. 

They do not understand how higher education works and may not see how they 

could be successful in college until they see it with their own eyes—research shows 

if they actually visit a college campus, their chances of matriculating increase. 

Financial Literacy 

They think they know how much college costs, but we have not educated many 

of them or their families on financial literacy. They do not know the difference between a grant and a loan. They do not know the difference between the college cost 

and the net price. My most heartbreaking example is a family, who did not want 

to take out a loan due to pride—refused their government backed aid—and instead 

put the tuition on a credit card with a 15% interest rate—not realizing a credit card 

is a loan. 

Lack of a Timeline and College Information throughout the School 

One of the most effective things we have seen is enhancing a school’s college-going 

culture. In one low-performing school in North Carolina, our adviser changed the 

20 

signs on the all the classroom doors—instead of reading ‘‘Mrs. Smith, History or Mr. 

Jones, Math’’, they read ‘‘Mrs. Smith, History, the UT Austin or Mr. Jones Math, 

the University of Georgia.’’ The principal called me to say he had never seen the 

aspirations and the conversation in a school change so quickly. These students 

thought they did not know anyone who went to college or anyone to ask for advice 

when the reality is they were surrounded by college graduates every day. We now 

do this across the country and refer to it as our ‘‘Diploma Doors’’ campaign. 

Timelines for all students—from 9-12th grades—need to be posted in every classroom, not just the in the guidance office. Students need to know when to register 

and take the SAT or ACT exams, when to start scholarship searches, when to fill 

out to the FAFSA, and priority deadlines for applications. These seem like small 

steps, but I cannot tell you how many students we advise who did not take the SAT/ 

ACT in their junior year, did not see a list of courses needed for college until 12th 

grade and then had the shock to learn that they are not college ready, did not realize that when you file your financial aid forms is of the utmost importance. 

And there are real barriers that can be knocked down by the work this Committee 

is doing: 

Universal adoption of the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet—This document is a 

game changer for our students. There are many key areas—graduation rate, loan 

default rate, median borrowing, grants and scholarships, net costs, options to pay 

net costs that this document provides in a clear and concise format. As you may 

know, reading financial aid award letters from many of our colleges and universities 

requires an advanced degree. They are full of jargon, hard to read, and do not allow 

consumers to make wise choices. We are excited that 600 college and universities 

have adopted the Sheet. Every institution should use this form—for the first time 

a student can compare apples to apples—they can look at their options and see real 

graduation rates, real net costs, and what the investment in their education will 

cost. Our college and universities need to honor this investment by providing clear 

information in this accessible form. 

Net price calculators—While we have made great advances in helping students 

and families understand net price vs. college costs, the sticker shock of the price 

of education is still discouraging too many of our students, especially our low-income 

students from pursuing higher education. A Century Foundation study found that 

at the most selective 146 colleges and universities, 74% of students come from the 

wealthiest socioeconomic quarter of the population, but just 3% from the poorest 

quarter. Yet the graduation rates at the most selective institutions are higher and 

these schools provide substantial aid. Our low income students do not realize they 

can afford to go to these institutions. And while it is great that net price calculators 

are now required on college websites, many of buried them deep within the content. 

The calculator needs to be where prospective students and families can find it. 

College information—in addition to College Navigator, there are many websites 

from credible sources that are assisting students and families with making wise 

choices. The College Board’s Big Future site, https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org, the 

Chronicle of Higher Education’s College Reality Check, launched this week, http:// 

collegerealitycheck.com/, and the Administration’s launch of the College Scorecard 

have made comparing college and accessing important data points a reality. Wage 

data is becoming another way to help empower students to make wise choices with 

sites such as College Measures that shows earnings by college and major in four 

states: Arkansas, Colorado, Tennessee, and Virginia. http:// 

www.collegemeasures.org/ Our concern is the level of misinformation still available 

on the web. Students and families need to have credible information and fall prey 

to sites that charge them for access to information and forms that are in the public 

domain. 

My final comment goes back to the human capital. As I mentioned in the opening, 

I represent 335 recent college graduates who are working daily to ensure our students have the information they need to access and persist in higher education. We 

do this work with great partners—high schools, non-profits, the National College Access Network, and other support networks. What makes our model unique is that 

higher education institutions help select, train, place, and pay for our advisers who 

serve in high schools. And they are not recruiting for the partner university, but 

rather for all forms of post-secondary education. I would encourage the committee 

to look at this engagement as a way to have higher education assist with our nation’s college access and information barriers. 

Each university has admissions professionals, financial aid professionals, recent 

graduates and others who can assist our high schools in helping students navigate 

the path to college and careers. In a global economy, where more of citizens will 

need a college education to compete, we must create a seamless and collaborative 

education pipeline that includes higher education working with K-12, and that emVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\113TH\HEWT\113-15\80427.TXT DICK
21 

powers our students. I am grateful for the leadership of this committee for their 

work to help our students navigate their post high schools plans and to fulfill their 

potential through education. 

ATTACHED: NATIONAL COLLEGE ADVISING CORPS OVERVIEW AND DATA


80427-1.eps
22 


80427-2.eps
23 


80427-3.eps
24 


80427-4.eps
25 


80427-5.eps
26 


80427-6.eps
27 


80427-7.eps
28 


80427-8.eps
29 


80427-9.eps
30 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Hurd. 

I will now recognize that Mr. Travis Reindl for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TRAVIS REINDL, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION CENTER FOR BEST PRACTICES 

Mr. REINDL. Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Bishop, members of the 

subcommittee, good morning. 

I am Travis Reindl, program director for postsecondary education 

at the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. I 

thank you for the opportunity to share a state-level perspective on 


80427-10.eps
31 

increasing transparency and higher education, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

States have an established track record when it comes to promoting transparency from their colleges and universities. And 

today, states face a combination of challenges that require even 

more transparency including a growing demand for a more educated workforce, significant and lasting fiscal constraints, even as 

revenues improve, and increasing enrollment by students from historically underrepresented and underserved populations. 

Governors are leading the call for better information about postsecondary outcomes recognizing that students and their families 

and taxpayers need more and better information about how our colleges and universities are doing at getting students to and through 

college, outcomes for those students, and the return on states’ and 

students’ investments in their education. 

In 2010, the National Governors Association launched Complete 

to Compete, an effort to improve how states measure and communicate the performance of their postsecondary institutions. That effort has produced metrics in two areas. 

The first is college completion. NGA has partnered with Complete College America in an effort to improve and build on the 

graduation rate as a performance measure. The result is the common completion metrics. 

These metrics cover one, student progress and this includes indicators in areas such as students taking remedial courses, course 

completion, credit accumulation, and retention; and two, student 

outcomes, which includes indicators such as the number of degrees 

awarded, graduation and transfer rates, and average time and 

credits to degree. 

Today, 32 states are collecting and publicly reporting these 

metrics and making real changes in policy. For example, Connecticut has adopted legislation designed to overhaul and eventually end remedial education as we know it statewide. 

The second area is efficiency and effectiveness. Governors are 

also interested in whether their state’s colleges and universities are 

producing graduates that can get jobs in today’s economy and participate in their communities and how efficient those institutions 

are in moving students to degrees and certificates. 

As a result, NGA is developing metrics in four areas; meeting 

workforce needs, completion relative to enrollment, return on investment, and student learning. 

States are currently working to adopt and use these metrics for 

public reporting and making policy decisions. I am pleased to report progress on both fronts. Public reporting is becoming more accessible and user-friendly. For example, a growing number of states 

including Arizona, Kentucky, and Washington are creating online 

interactive data dashboards that display state and campus level 

data in areas such as college readiness, student progress and success, research and economic development, and efficiency and innovation. 

States are also using the data to shape policy. Colorado is developing performance contracts with its colleges and universities that 

are based in part on indicators of student outcomes and institutional efficiencies. Tennessee now bases its general fund appropriaVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\HEWT\113-15\80427.TXT DICK
32 

tions to public colleges and universities on a range of progress, outcome, and efficiency measures. And Nevada’s governor has proposed a move in that direction as well. 

States experiences yielded several key lessons including, number 

one, focus on outcomes as well as inputs. States are focusing more 

on results when it comes to reporting postsecondary performance. 

As students and their families invest more in higher education, 

they are expecting more information on what kind of return they 

can expect from that investment. Federal data collection such as 

the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System or IPEDS 

should move in the same direction, perhaps drawing on the common completion metrics. 

States’ focus on outcomes is also one of several reasons why NGA 

does not support maintenance of effort requirements for participation in federal programs. 

Two: less is more. States are taking this lesson to heart and are 

striving to build data dashboards and performance funding formulas that are simpler and clearer than their predecessors, which 

didn’t last because they were too complicated. 

Simpler and clearer should also be a goal in federal efforts. Specifically, there should be review of all existing federal dashboards 

and data tools for postsecondary education to determine whether 

and how they are being used and if there is unnecessary duplication. 

Number three: craft policies for the long-term. As evidenced by 

NGA’s work, reform doesn’t happen overnight. Moreover, real sustained reform requires a long-lasting, stable, yet flexible framework 

to allow growth, exploration, and ongoing innovation. In this and 

other areas, NGA urges Congress to exercise legislative restraints 

and craft federal policies with an eye for the future. 

In short, increasing transparency in higher education has been 

and continues to be a priority for states. I thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Reindl follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Travis Reindl, Program Director, Postsecondary 

Education, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 

Madame Chairwoman, Mr. Hinojosa, members of the Subcommittee, good morning. I am Travis Reindl, program director for postsecondary education at the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. I thank you for the opportunity to share a state-level perspective on increasing transparency in higher education, and I look forward to your questions 

1. The Need for Greater Transparency 

States have an established track record when it comes to promoting transparency 

from their colleges and universities. More than three decades ago, Tennessee unveiled the first performance-based funding formula for its postsecondary institutions 

and in the years since every other state has engaged in efforts to increase accountability among its public colleges and universities. 

Today, states face a combination of challenges related to postsecondary education 

that call for even more transparency and more use of the data states and institutions gather: 

• Demand for a more educated workforce. The number of jobs requiring education 

after high school continues to rise in all states, and estimates show that our colleges 

and universities are not on track to meet expected labor market demand for educated workers. According to the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, the gap between the supply of workers with postsecondary credentials and available job openings requiring those credentials may be as wide as 3 million by 2018.1

33 

• Significant and lasting fiscal constraints. State revenues are recovering to prerecession levels, but the recovery is uneven across states. Moreover, there are a 

number of urgent demands competing for limited state resources, including health 

care and K-12 education.2 For colleges and universities, this may mean a slow and 

modest recovery of state investment. 

• Changes in who goes to college. The demographic make-up of states is changing, 

which means changes in the college-going population. The students who are increasingly heading for our colleges and universities—low-income students, working 

adults, students of color—are the same types of students who have historically faced 

greater hurdles in getting to and through certificate and degree programs.3 Identifying and overcoming these hurdles will be essential for states and their institutions 

to increase attainment and meet workforce needs. 

Given these challenges, governors, students and their families, and taxpayers 

need more and better information about how our colleges and universities are doing 

at getting students to and through college, outcomes for students, and the return 

on states’ and students’ investments in their education. This information is critical 

for making informed choices about how and where to invest scarce resources and 

in tracking progress toward meeting workforce needs. 

States are leading efforts to make higher education more transparent and more 

productive, and are learning important lessons along the way. The federal government can support these efforts, specifically by streamlining and coordinating regulations across federally funded programs to promote better accountability, transparency, and reduce redundancies and administrative costs. 

2. Gubernatorial Leadership on Transparency 

Governors have led the call for more transparency and more of a focus on outcomes in postsecondary education for years. A quarter century ago, former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander dedicated his year as chair of the National Governors Association (NGA) to an initiative called Time for Results, which raised 

awareness of the need for more and better data about colleges’ and universities’ performance. In the years that followed, states developed fact books and performance 

funding and budgeting policies, and the federal government enacted the Student 

Right to Know Act, which mandated the reporting of institutional graduation rates. 

Now, in the face of rising economic demand and limited public resources, governors are once again leading the call for better information about postsecondary 

outcomes, including return on investment. Under the leadership of former West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin and former Washington Governor Chris Gregoire, NGA 

launched Complete to Compete, an effort to improve how states measure and communicate the performance of their postsecondary education institutions. The effort 

has focused on two types of measures: 

Completion Metrics 

States and the federal government have used the graduation rate for years as a 

measure of student outcomes, but the graduation rate doesn’t tell the whole story 

about outcomes. It doesn’t, for example, cover part-time or transfer students, who 

represent a significant share of total enrollment. It also does not address questions 

such as where students are encountering the greatest roadblocks on the way to 

graduation, or how long it is taking students to get certificates and degrees. Given 

the trends outlined above, these are increasingly important questions. 

NGA partnered with Complete College America in an effort to answer those questions, and released the Common Completion Metrics in 2010.4 The metrics fall into 

two groups: 

Student Progress 

• Remedial education: How many students end up in remedial courses? How 

many of them pass the remedial course and go on to pass a course for credit? 

• Gatekeeper courses: How many students pass key first-year courses in subjects 

such as mathematics and English? 

• Credit accumulation: How many students complete a full load of courses in 

their first year? 

• Course completion: How many courses do students pass in relation to the number they attempt in a particular year? 

• Retention: How many students continue their enrollment from the first semester to the second semester or from the first year to the second year? 

Student Outcomes 

• Degrees awarded: How many students complete certificates and degrees each 

year? 

34 

• Graduation rate: What percentage of students graduates within normal time (2 

or 4 years) or extended time (3 or 6 years)? • Transfer rate: What percentage of students successfully moves from two-year 

institutions to four-year institutions? • Time and credits to degree: How long does it take for students to get certificates 

and degrees? 

NGA and Complete College America recommend these metrics because they are 

backed by research on what helps—and hurts—students complete certificates or degrees. For example, we know that students who enroll in remedial classes are less 

than half as likely to get a certificate or degree.5 Similarly, we know that students 

who don’t take and finish a full load of courses in their first year are more likely 

to lose momentum and drop out of college.6

What are states doing with these metrics? Today, 32 states are collecting and publicly reporting the metrics through Complete College America’s Alliance of States. 

For example, publishing data on remedial education has increased the pressure to 

do something about that issue and states are responding. Connecticut has adopted 

legislation designed to overhaul and eventually end remedial education statewide.7

Efficiency and Effectiveness Metrics 

Completion represents just one part of the transparency picture. Governors are 

also interested in answering the ‘‘what’’ and the ‘‘how’’ of completion—whether their 

state’s colleges and universities are producing graduates that can get jobs in today’s 

economy and how efficient those institutions are in moving students to degrees and 

certificates. 

As part of Complete to Compete, NGA also identified metrics designed to help 

states gauge the efficiency and effectiveness of postsecondary institutions and systems in four areas: 8

• Meeting workforce needs: Are institutions meeting the state’s need for an educated workforce? [Metrics: certificates and degrees awarded relative to the number 

of employed adults with a postsecondary credential; certificates and degrees awarded relative to the number of adults in the state with no postsecondary credential] • Student output relative to input: How many students are graduating relative 

to the number enrolled? [Metric: certificate and degree completions per 100 students 

enrolled] • Return on investment: What is the return on the state’s and students’ investment in terms of completed certificates and degrees? [Metric: certificate and degree 

completions per $100,000 of state appropriations and net tuition revenues] • Quality: How can colleges and universities increase efficiency without sacrificing student learning? [Metrics: learning assessments, licensure/certification exam 

pass rates, job placement rates] 

NGA has worked with and can point to a number of states that are taking significant steps toward increasing transparency, and more importantly, using data for 

making important policy decisions. 

Data Dashboards 

• Arizona. The Governor’s Office of Education Innovation has produced the Arizona Ready Report Card, an interactive online report that shows state and campuslevel progress toward goals in K-12 and postsecondary education and the workforce. 

Postsecondary and indicators include degrees awarded, transfers, cost of attendance, 

and credit accumulation.9

• Kentucky. The state’s Council on Postsecondary Education has developed an 

interactive online dashboard that displays statewide and campus performance on indicators in four categories: college readiness, student success, research and economic 

development, and efficiency and innovation.10

• Washington: Using the Common Completion Metrics and other key indicators, 

the Office of Financial Management (OFM) has developed an interactive online 

dashboard that covers the state’s six public universities and colleges. The dashboard 

provides statewide and campus-level data in three categories: enrollment, student 

progress, and degrees and graduates.11

Performance Contracts 

• Colorado: The Colorado Department of Higher Education is developing binding 

contracts with its public colleges and universities and systems that are based on a 

range of performance metrics, including student outcomes and institutional efficiency.12

Performance Funding 

• Tennessee: The state now allocates its general fund appropriations to public 

two-year and four-year institutions using performance metrics that include certifiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\113TH\HEWT\113-15\80427.TXT DICK
35 

cate and degree completions, transfers, success in remedial education, job placement, and degree completion relative to enrollment.13

• Nevada: The state is currently considering a complete overhaul of its postsecondary funding formula. If adopted, the new formula would allocate state general 

fund appropriations on outcomes: the majority on course completions and the remainder on a menu of other performance measures, including degree completion in 

priority areas and degree completion relative to enrollment.14

3. Lessons Learned 

As in many areas, states have been the laboratory for new thinking when it comes 

to transparency in higher education. Their experiences yield several lessons that 

have implications for federal action, including: 

• Focus on outcomes as well as inputs. States are focusing more on results when 

it comes to reporting postsecondary performance. As students and their families invest more in higher education, they are expecting more information on what kind 

of return they can expect from that investment. Inputs such as enrollments and revenue still matter, but they need to be accompanied by metrics on student success 

and efficiency. 

Federal data collections such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS) should move in the same direction, perhaps drawing on the Common Completion Metrics. 

States’ focus on outcomes is also one of several reasons why NGA does not support 

maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements for participation in federal programs. Demanding a fixed level of input (i.e. appropriations) without regard for outcomes runs 

counter to how states are increasingly looking at their higher education systems. 

• Less is more. One of the reasons why many of the accountability efforts of the 

1990s did not last is that they collapsed under their own weight. They had too many 

goals, too many measures, and policymakers and students were overwhelmed with 

data. States are taking this lesson to heart and are striving to build data dashboards and performance funding formulas that are simpler and clearer than their 

predecessors. 

Simpler and clearer should be a goal for federal efforts as well. The upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act provides a prime opportunity for the Congress to review all of the existing federal dashboards, report cards, and data tools 

for postsecondary education (e.g. College Navigator, College Scorecard, United 

States Education Dashboard) to determine whether and how they are being used, 

and if there are opportunities for streamlining or consolidation. 

Similarly, we encourage a thorough review of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), with the goal of identifying and eliminating surveys 

and survey items that are rarely used. This would provide needed relief for states 

and their colleges and universities. 

• Craft policies for the long term. As evidenced by NGA’s work, reform doesn’t 

happen overnight. Moreover, real, sustained reform requires a long-lasting, stable, 

yet flexible framework to allow growth, exploration, and ongoing innovation. If Congress were to craft a solution for success based on today’s knowledge, two things 

are likely to occur: (1) the federal policy will be outdated and obsolete before it’s 

even enacted; or (2) the law will inhibit state creativity and problem solving to help 

students. NGA’s work tells but a small story of the growing body of knowledge. In 

this and other areas, NGA urges Congress to exercise ‘‘legislative restraint’’ and 

craft federal policies with an eye for the future. 

4. Conclusion 

Increasing transparency in higher education has been and continues to be a priority for states. With leadership from governors and other policymakers, states have 

made more information about the performance of colleges and universities available 

to students, families, and taxpayers. They have learned important lessons along the 

way and are eager to share those lessons with the federal government as it seeks 

to improve the information provided to higher education’s funders and consumers. 

ENDNOTES

1 Carnevale, Anthony, with Nicole Smith and Jeff Strohl. Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs 

and Education Requirements Through 2018. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education and the 

Workforce, Georgetown University, 2010. 2 ‘‘Summary of Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Executive Budgets,’’ National Association of State 

Budget Officers, 23 March 2013. Accessed from: http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/pdf/ 

FY2014%20Proposed%20Budgets%20-%20Summary.pdf 3Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). Knocking at the College 

Door: Projections of High School Graduates. Boulder, Colo.: Author, 2012. 

36 

4 Reyna, Ryan. Common Completion Metrics. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices: 2010. 5 Complete College America. Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere. Washington, D.C.: Author, 2012. 6 Complete College America. Time Is the Enemy of Graduation. Washington, D.C.: Author, 

2011. 7Mangan, Katherine. ‘‘National Groups Call for Big Changes in Remedial Education,’’ The 

Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 December 2012. 8 Reindl, Travis and Ryan Reyna. From Information to Action: Revamping Higher Education 

Accountability Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2011. 9http://arizonaready.com/content/ 

10http://dataportal.cpe.ky.gov/sadashboard/dashboard—master.swf 11http://www.ofm.wa.gov/hied/dashboard/index.html 12http://highered.colorado.gov/Publications/General/StrategicPlanning/MasterPlan2012/ 

Master—Plan—Final.pdf 13http://www.state.tn.us/thec/Divisions/Fiscal/funding—formula/1- 

Outcomes%20Based%20Formula%20Narrative%20-%20for%20website.pdf 14http://system.nevada.edu/tasks/sites/Nshe/assets/File/Initiatives/2013legislative/ 

NSHE%20Formula%20Study.pdf 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you all again very much. 

I now recognize as the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Kline 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair for recognizing me for the 

hearing. 

I want to thank the panel for being here today; really excellent 

testimony. We are grappling with a problem that has been perplexing us for a very, very long time. 

And I want to start with Mr. Garrido because as I—you got both 

the Pell grant and the G.I. Bill to help you out, but you didn’t know 

about that by going to the department’s website or something like 

that. Correct? I mean that you—I think your testimony was you 

went personally and talked to advisors at different colleges. 

Mr. GARRIDO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KLINE. Is that right? 

Mr. GARRIDO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KLINE. And so I guess it is a little bit perplexing because we 

always talk about what information ought to be on these websites 

and how they ought to be user-friendly, but if you don’t even know 

they are there, it doesn’t help very much. It is a great website and 

really user-friendly. And so I think that is what your testimony is, 

right? 

Mr. GARRIDO. Yes, sir, the VA—in all actuality, the VA just let 

me know that there was a form for me to submit to be able to get 

my benefits that I paid into. 

When I got to Kaiser however, they were so versed in how to use 

and how to understand the system that they were able to help me, 

guide me, into the steps that I needed to take. 

In other words, they gave me like a checklist and on that checklist, meaning my DD 214, anything that I needed to have, they 

gave me all of those things that I needed to be able to submit to 

be able to go through the process. But it was very difficult. If an 

individual was having to do this on their own, I don’t think they 

can do it, honestly. 

Mr. KLINE. All right, okay. Thank you. I was pretty sure that 

was your testimony. I just wanted to understand it. You didn’t go 

to a terrific website, get all your answers, and then go make a decision. 

Mr. GARRIDO. It wasn’t just a one-stop, yes. 

37 

Mr. KLINE. You had to sort of wade through it the old-fashioned 

way. 

Mr. GARRIDO. Correct. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay, thank you very much. 

Dr. Heller, one of the things that we grappled with here I am 

sure way before I ever came on the committee but certainly since 

I’ve been here is reporting requirements that institutions have. We 

had a witness testify here a couple or 2 or 3 years ago and he 

brought in a whole stack of three ring binders for just things that 

the college, that the institution had to do and so I am interested 

in your suggestions, your thoughts about how we might be helpful 

in scaling back some of these requirements, but not harming the 

information that students like Mr. Garrido need to make informed 

decisions. 

Mr. HELLER. Congressman, I don’t think we need more data 

about college and college admissions and financial aid. We have 

lots of data from the sources that all four of us have talked about. 

What we need for prospective students and their families is better 

information. And that is where, you know, the role of college counselors come in, high school counselors. 

Dr. Hurd mentioned things like visiting colleges, getting a sense 

and Mr. Garrido mentioned that when he visited Keiser University 

he got a much better sense of what it was going to be like to be 

a student there. 

So I am a firm believer that there is not more data that we need. 

I think that some of the data the department—and that the Department of Education collects through the IPEDS system could be 

improved. 

We could have a conversation about that, but I certainly don’t 

think we need any more data, and I don’t think even though there 

are concerns about the burdensome requirements of the reporting, 

I think most colleges in this day and age with the data systems 

they have are able to report the kind of data that are necessary in 

IPEDS, that show up in the IPEDS college navigator and the net 

cost calculators and things like that without a lot of difficulty. 

So I wouldn’t recommend that we try to roll back on any of those 

data and those reporting requirements that we are talking about 

today. There may be other reporting requirements for colleges and 

universities that may be very different, but I think the ones we are 

talking about today are not frankly that burdensome on colleges. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. Thank you. I guess I would in my example of 

the witness who had the stack of three ring binders, it was all reporting requirements. 

Mr. HELLER. Correct. 

Mr. KLINE. But interesting, your perspective on this particular 

piece. 

And then finally, I see my time is about to run out but I am curious, Mr. Reindl, how do states determine what process to use? How 

do they determine at what to put on these dashboards? 

Mr. REINDL. Well, Chairman, we like to say in the governors association, ‘‘When you have seen one state, you have seen one state.’’ 

There is always a bit of a respect for state culture but it has always started from what you have. One of the things that we have 

encouraged at NGA in working with states and governors have 

38 

really picked up on this is to really take a look at what is and to 

look at how it has been used or when it has been used or where 

it has been used and if we add measures, we should be taking 

measures away. 

So it is a one in, one out kind of a philosophy. We are still working on that and trying to make some progress there but it is taking 

whatever a state has and try to help them to balance that so that 

we are not getting to the binders that you were mentioning with 

Dr. Heller. 

Thank you. I see my time is up, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I now recognize Mr. Bishop, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

And thank you for the testimony. I think it was very, very good; 

very insightful, and very helpful. 

I have three issues so I want to try to handle them quickly. I 

want to just pick up on Chairman Kline’s question. I will address 

it to Dr. Heller and Mr. Reindl. 

Are we currently collecting any information that is not particularly useful to either policymakers or students that we could do 

away with? Just real quick. Anything come to mind? 

Mr. HELLER. Within this realm that we are talking about in this 

hearing, Congressman, no, we could have a discussion about 

whether it is important for colleges to have on the College Navigator their enrollments by gender for example overall in the university, but again, frankly, given the burden of those kinds of reporting requirements, I don’t think that there is anything there 

that I would say we need to get rid of. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 

Mr. Reindl? 

Mr. REINDL. Mr. Bishop, I think governors look at this in difference between collection and reporting and I think Dr. Heller did 

a good job in describing the collection part. It is the reporting. 

There are things that we report that maybe aren’t as valuable and 

governors are really focused on outcomes. 

So it is taking the data and to Dr. Heller’s point, turning it into 

information, combining the outcomes with what we spend, the inputs, and putting that on the table for taxpayers and students and 

families. So I think it is less the collection issue than the reporting 

issue. 

Mr. BISHOP. And if I may then, if you could submit to the committee some things that you are currently reporting or that colleges 

are currently reporting that you, at least in the opinion of the governors, is not particularly useful. 

Mr. REINDL. Certainly, certainly. From our experience, we can 

send in that for the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Second issue, both Dr. Hurd and Dr. Heller, you talked about the 

concept of fit, which is I would imagine a particularly elusive concept and one that is intensely personal and it seems to me that the 

point that you are making particularly you, Dr. Hurd, with respect 

to fit, goes to the human element of the college selection process 

which in turn goes to the element of the college completion process. 

39 

I mean, one of the truisms of student retention issues if you want 

students to finish right, you have got to get them started right and 

one of the ways to get them started right is to make sure they pick 

the right school. 

So what I want to pursue with both of you is the suggestion you 

are making, Dr. Heller, about some federal role in helping particularly low income schools afford a better college counseling program. 

So could you talk about it from the perspective of what is in your 

head, and then Dr. Hurd, what your actual experience is? 

So Dr. Heller? 

Mr. HELLER. Sure, Congressman Bishop, I know there is not a 

lot of support in Washington today for new federal initiatives—— 

Mr. BISHOP. You have you have noticed that? [Laughter.] 

Mr. HELLER. Even up in Michigan we have noticed that. 

Nevertheless, I think there is a very good and strong history of 

the federal government supporting local school districts through 

Title I programs for example. 

And with respect to college counseling, I think that is another 

area where the federal government could step in to underresourced schools that are being strangled through local funding, 

local district funding, state funding, and one of the easy things to 

cut out are things like guidance counseling because they are not 

being tested about that and school districts are obviously concerned 

with complying with state testing needs. 

So I think this is a case where the federal government could step 

in, could help out these under-resourced schools to ensure that 

these schools and the students in them have an opportunity to get 

the kind of high touch need to figure out for students, help them 

decide what is the right fit in a postsecondary institution. 

Mr. BISHOP. But what you are talking about is some kind of either formula-driven or competitive grant program that would place 

college counselors in high need school districts? 

Mr. HELLER. Correct and I think most effectively if it is 

partnered with the states and local districts. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Dr. Hurd? 

Ms. HURD. And so that is actually what we do. So we have been 

fortunate enough to have federal funding and I am happy to tell 

you that not only is our federal funding being used wisely, it is actually matched 3:1. 

So we can get the school districts, we can get the private sector, 

and we can get our higher education institutions to coinvest on our 

federal dollars to make sure that we put really well-trained, really 

well-advised counselors by our guidance counselors and make sure 

that every young person has a pathway to a postsecondary plan. 

Mr. BISHOP. And the federal funding you receive is through 

AmeriCorps? 

Ms. HURD. It is through AmeriCorps and it is through the Social 

Innovation Fund, and it is also through Challenge Grant money 

through the Department of Ed, so we have competed for every dollar that we have got and what we have been matching that. 

Mr. BISHOP. And the match is from what source? 

Ms. HURD. So the match has been a couple places—so part of 

this is going back to the question about higher education instituVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\HEWT\113-15\80427.TXT DICK
40 

tions. I actually think it is higher education institutions that have 

to get in the game. 

They have to be part of the solution. So they actually match our 

dollars by going out and raising money with their donors. So corporations, foundations, alumns. Then the National Office also 

raises dollars. 

So like I said, for every dollar, we are matching at the National 

Office, and the higher ed institution is matching as well. So I think 

there is an incredible way to leverage these dollars and make sure 

again when things—again, I would like to congratulate you all for 

doing this especially the funding, that is evidenced-based, it is 

data-driven, and we have to show impact. 

And again, I think we can do that in a way that honors our students and allows us to have capacities in schools where frankly our 

low income students—I think you saw the statistics—out of 146 

most selective schools in this country, 3 percent of those students 

are from the lowest quarter economically; 3 percent. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. My time is up. Thank you very much. That 

is a fabulous program. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Walberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

And Dr. Heller, it is good to see Michigan State here and appreciate the work that you do. In the coming weeks they will be a lot 

of high school students in Michigan that will be looking at Michigan State and many this coming the fall will be matriculating into 

the school. 

We have talked about some generalities, but if you could give us 

some specifics on how many avenues the average Michigan student 

and parent have to access information about a college or university 

and also its associated costs. 

Mr. HELLER. Well, I described a number of those in my testimony. Depending upon what kind of high school they are in, they 

may have access to good college counselors. In other high schools, 

they might not have any kind of college counseling. 

Dr. Hurd has talked about some of the ratios, the student-counselor ratios around the country and she singled out Michigan as 

one where it has a very high ratio. They can go to college websites. 

They can go to the Department of Education. They can look for 

view books. 

So as I said earlier, there’s lots of sources of data out there. The 

problem is that we don’t have better information for the students 

and also giving them better information at the right time, which 

is early enough in the college search that they can make informed 

decisions about what they need to do themselves, what they need 

to do to prepare themselves both academically as well as financially. 

If a student starts a looking at college at the end of the junior 

year because they have got to decide what they are going to do 

after they graduate in 12 months, it is too late for a lot of students. 

So we have to have a focused effort to get better information not 

just data into students’ hands earlier in their careers; in the earliest years of high school or even middle school. 

41 

That is the reason why GEAR-UP for example starts working 

with students in middle school so they can start to work with students to prepare academically and they have plenty of time to do 

that before graduating from high school. 

Mr. WALBERG. Is there any information out there—speaking of 

reports and studies—is there any information showing any difference between students that come from academic experiences 

that were highly associated with choice schools, in the sense that 

they made their own choice. The parents worked together, they 

picked schools of choice, academies, charter schools, whatever else 

in comparison to those who just a general followed the local option? 

Mr. HELLER. With respect to where they attend college, Congressman? 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, no, specifically—yes. Ultimately the—where 

they attend college, the success in attending college, the good 

choices that are made, their preparation, having SAT, ACT tests 

taken. 

Just from the—I guess what I am getting at is if they have 

throughout the course of their academic career have made significant choices already, they have taken responsibility for making 

those choices because it has been afforded to them regardless of 

economic strata, are there any studies out there showing a difference in ultimate outcome? 

Mr. HELLER. Not that I am aware of and certainly not any studies that do a good job of controlling for background characteristics 

and what we call selectivity bias in terms of differences in the parental background, parental aspirations, and the kind of push that 

parents give. 

So I haven’t seen any studies that look at the difference between 

students who participate in choice programs like we have in Michigan in K-12 schools versus those who don’t. 

Mr. WALBERG. And I guess I would ask that of any others if you 

have seen that. 

Dr. Hurd, in relationship you are pushing for guidance counselors, counselors, peer counselors that are going to be there but do 

you see any—are there any reports showing that we ought to be, 

as you say, starting out earlier? 

Ms. HURD. So I think the earlier the better in terms of giving 

them knowledge and giving them access to knowledge. I also I 

think all of our public schools—and we are in Michigan. We actually have a lot of advisors in Michigan. Michigan State is a chapter 

as well as the University of Michigan. 

I think what we are seeing is the earlier they get the information 

the more they understand the choices, the more they understand 

the options because there are some great options in Michigan. They 

do have great high, you know, high graduation rates where financial aid will go a long way. 

I will also just say in terms of charter schools and others we actually have a national partnership with KIPP, so I think it is not 

just one public school or one sector that is actually struggling with 

this. 

I think all of us are trying to make sure that our students get 

the most and the best information as early as they can so that they 

42 

and their families can navigate this together, but it is a human 

capital issue. 

I think they have to have the not just information, but they have 

to have somebody help them navigate that path to college. And so 

whether you are in a charter school, a public school, a big school, 

or a small school, it is about making right decisions early and making sure that somebody helps navigate that path with you. 

Mr. WALBERG. Part of that navigation, does that include saying 

to a student, ‘‘Not only is this school not the best for you, but there 

is another approach to education you ought to consider; proprietary, vocational—— 

Ms. HURD. Absolutely, absolutely. So I think it is about postsecondary opportunity that every young person, and that is why I use 

the words match and fit very intentionally. 

You know, in our program it is any postsecondary plan is a success, but they need to have a plan. So whether it is military, vocational school, 2-year, 4-year. This isn’t about getting everybody to 

school X, this is about getting everybody to a place where they 

have a meaningful credential that has been valued well, that has 

been paid for affordably, and gets them to where they get to go so 

they can make their American dream happen. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. 

Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Foxx. 

Thank you so much to the witnesses for this important hearing. 

I really appreciate all of the testimony. 

Dr. Heller, I especially appreciated in your testimony where you 

raised some concern that I share about the problems of valuing a 

college based on the wages of an individual upon graduation. 

I would be concerned for example of what if a college graduates 

a lot of students who go into nonprofit work or the Peace Corps or 

some other AmeriCorps program for example. 

So I share that concern. I also applaud those of you who are talking about getting this information, important information, to students early not just early in the college search, but early in their 

education. 

There is a school district in my congressional district down in Oregon that actually gives all eighth-grade students, they explore all 

10th grade students the plan and all of 11th grade students the 

ACT and it is resulted in a lot of students actually thinking well 

maybe I could go to college because of they are already in that 

process. 

Dr. Reindl, you talked about better ways that we can measure 

outcomes and compare different colleges. We actually have a program in Oregon called ASPIRE trying to fill those gaps because we 

also don’t have enough college counselors to meet that recommended ratio. And ASPIRE is Access to Student Assistance Programs in Reach of Everyone with thousands, about 15,000 now 

trained volunteers. 

It is available to any student regardless of income, and students 

really get that one-on-one mentoring throughout the school year. It 

has been quite successful and has expanded with some federal 

grant help but a lot of volunteers throughout our state. 

43 

There is also some great nonprofit work going on in this area. We 

talked about what the states are doing. There is The Education 

Conservancy, is a nonprofit organization that just did a pretty thorough joint research project with consumers union called Information Matters and they did a lot of student surveys including nontraditional students, focus groups, polls, and interviews with experts. 

They have five recommendations including simplifying the research and admissions process, which they found of course too complex and confusing. But one of their recommendations is to minimize the information overload by having a more standardized 

framework. 

So I wondered if the people on the panel and I especially want 

to hear from Mr. Garrido, what do you think should be in that 

standardized framework? And following up on what Mr. Bishop 

asked, what information do students really need and are we giving 

them information that they might not find useful? 

Dr. Heller? You are not here for Michigan State, but you have 

a Spartan tie on, would you like to—— 

Mr. HELLER. Sure, sure. Let me just first say, Congresswoman, 

that I am glad it you raise the issue about measuring college outcomes based on wages and challenges in doing that. 

The best example that I give people is that I can have two students graduating from my teacher education program. One could be 

a—they could both be secondary science teachers. One could take 

a job in one district and have a wage of $35,000 in her first year. 

Another one maybe in another district in Michigan and be making 

$60,000 in her first year. 

Now you tell me whether those are—should be looked at as two 

very different kinds of outcomes. The wage data alone would say 

yes, but I would argue those are very similar kinds of positions. 

As far as standardizing, having a template of information, I 

think that is a move in the right direction and I think that the 

work of The Education Conservancy out of Portland is doing is 

doing a great job on trying to nudge the institutions on standardizing information just as we are trying to do with the financial aid 

letters and having a template about that. 

It would be nice if we could standardize information about admissions and the kind of fit we have been talking about. It is a little bit more of a challenge because college is obviously very complex. You have got lots of different majors. You have got lots of different students between 18-year-olds versus adult students. 

So I think it is a little bit more of a challenge to come up with 

a workable template that all colleges could fit into regarding admissions as we are trying to do on the financial aid side. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and Mr. Garrido, what would be most 

important in that standardized form for you? 

Mr. GARRIDO. Maybe the way an individual like myself would try 

to get all the information. When I went looking for this information, it was not readily available. 

I had to not only ask friends, ask former teachers. It is—for a 

person like myself, it was difficult, however, there are some people 

that can, you know, have the access but in my case, I did not have 

44 

that access. It was very difficult for me to find any information on 

that. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Dr. Hurd? 

Ms. HURD. You know, it has been the Wild West out there. I 

have no doubt that he had a hard time. There is just too much information out there. So I do think there are very consistent things, 

and you all have already moved on some of them in terms of graduation rates—in terms of what is in that standard award letter, 

you can give those categories very simply to somebody so they can 

make decisions. 

My biggest issue is that they are not comparing apples to apples 

so things like the College Board has this a new site called Big Future that is a huge step in the right direction and the Chronicle 

of Higher Ed just gave a college reality checked website this week 

that shows apples to apples. I think part of the problem is when 

you are apples to oranges, you start making unwise choices. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I see my time has expired. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

Mrs. Brooks, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. I am a former senior administrator at 

our state’s community college, Ivy Tech Community College, and 

also am the mother of a very recent college graduate and one of the 

things that I know we have struggled with at not only our college 

but I think colleges often struggle with this and I am curious is 

this whole conversation around return on investment and whether 

or not young people and returning adults, adults returning to 

school, really have a very good grasp on what their career path 

might be, what type of majors would lead to actual jobs versus just 

entering into programs of study that they just are interested in. 

And so I am curious and I guess I will start with the governors 

association, what kind of metrics and things we ought to be—or 

and information we ought to be providing students at all ages 

about how that field of study will actually lead to a career and 

while I appreciate that it is not all about salary, I think it is about 

needs in this country and what kind of job openings there are going 

to be and how are we doing a good job in higher ed or what do we 

need to be doing to do a far better job educating young people and 

older people on what is really a very good career path for the future. 

Mr. REINDL. That is an excellent question, Congresswoman, 

thank you. We have to crawl before we walk and I think that from 

a governor’s perspective, we need to look at, are students employed 

after they graduate and is that employment in a family supporting 

salary or wage. I think that it is very easy to get very granular 

quickly and saying does X major lead to Y job. 

We don’t live in a planned economy and I don’t think we will be 

so I think that the question for governors is are we educating people that can in fact be employed and that are employed in a way 

that allows them to be contributors to their communities, to the tax 

basis and be a little bit less granular and specific about does a particular major lead to a particular job. 

45 

Because, and I know where my major ended up and my parents 

are surprised. So I think that is a case study. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Actually, if you would just like to share, Dr. Heller, I would be curious what your thoughts are because—but what 

could we put in these college—you know, in these guides and in all 

of the different systems that are out there that can help answer 

that question. 

Mr. HELLER. You know, we are certainly—our economy is certainly passed this stage, Congresswoman, where people take a first 

job either out of high school, out of college and stick in that job or 

with that employer for the rest of their careers. 

People now are expected to hold a large number of jobs over the 

course of their careers and in all of those jobs they have to have 

the ability to learn new skills, learn new things whether it is on 

the job or through additional training. 

So focusing only on the kinds of wages that people earn coming 

out of school very quickly or very soon after they have graduated 

from college I think can provide a lot of misleading information. If 

anything, you want to know where somebody is 5, 10, 15, even 20 

years down the road with their career. 

Mr. Reindl gave the example where if you looked at what he is 

doing today, and the same would certainly be true with me, it 

would necessarily match up with what I did as an undergraduate. 

So I think that is the challenge and that is the difficulty with trying to map specific careers to specific majors outside of those vocational programs that are very clearly and targeted at specific locations. 

So a lot of the Ivy Tech programs for example that are training 

people for specific careers but even in those cases, we see people 

who may do that career for 5, 10 years, and then switch at some 

point in the future. So that is the biggest challenge we have in trying to do this mapping that Mr. Reindl is talking about. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And I guess I would ask Mr. Garrido, you chose 

criminal justice and I have been involved in criminal justice system 

actually most of my career until Ivy Tech. Were there certain 

things that you looked at in any of the tools that you looked at or 

was it the advising that helped lead you towards the criminal justice major? 

And how are the job prospects looking? 

Mr. GARRIDO. In my situation, seeing as how I was over 30 years 

old and when I was a child in, you know, your middle school and 

high school I was, I want to be that or I have ambitions to be a 

firefighter or, you know, role model in the community. I joined the 

service. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And thank you for your service. 

Mr. GARRIDO. Thank you. Unfortunately, I was hurt and if not 

for me, for myself being hurt, I would still be in the service. Now, 

I had to get into something that I can relate to in the service and 

in the civilian world, so I can contribute. 

I chose criminal justice because it was so close to the field that 

I can relate to. In my age, I wasn’t able to have people, you know, 

you should be a lawyer or you should be a consultant. I didn’t have 

that, you know, an opportunity. 

46 

So by me choosing a vocational school, that was able to teach me 

or to streamline that process was awesome in my—I am sorry for 

the word, but, you know—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. BROOKS. Well, thank you and thanks. I will think you make 

a terrific firefighter someday or public servant. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mrs. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I appreciate you all being here. 

Dr. Hurd, I wanted to talk to you a little bit more about the 

Stanford study. I think you mentioned it and in that case they 

found that students who ordinarily would probably not apply to 

what they call Peer Colleges, high esteem colleges perhaps that 

when they have more information they are more likely to apply and 

that more information is basically the fact that over the course of 

their college education that their costs would not be as dramatic as 

perhaps they might have thought. 

Ms. HURD. That is right. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And so with that kind of information and I think 

there has been a follow-up study as well, why aren’t—is there a 

better way then to get out that information for students? And 

clearly, it has to be done much earlier? There are programs—I 

think someone mentioned STRIVE, I know AVID as a program that 

really does a good job of integrating the college experience with the 

curriculum so that it is, you know, it is not something that comes 

after. 

Ms. HURD. Right. 

Mrs. DAVIS. What is it within that—I mean, if the Stanford study 

is actually an important one in terms of learning, what is missing 

in kids knowledge about what their options are? Why aren’t we 

doing more than that? 

Ms. HURD. Well, so, I think you are hitting on something really 

important which is that information matters. So graduation rates 

matter. That net income matters because what we are talking 

about is low income students that frankly they and their parents 

have sticker shock and they think I can’t go to school X for $40,000 

or $50,000 a year when they realize that they might be going to 

school X for nothing or they might be going to school X actually for 

$5,000 or $10,000 a year. 

So part of it is just at that lack of information and because like 

I said that some of the measures you all have made it to make 

these things more standard so that we can compare apples to apples it is becoming more transparent. It happens more. 

I do think we have a human capital challenge. So again, I think 

this is why I am so honored to work with the recent graduates I 

work with but frankly in this space, we have had a lot of cohort 

programs, so 15 kids get served but the other 500 in the senior 

class don’t get served. 

And we have had a lot of, you know, if you have a GPA of 3, you 

know, 3.0 and higher you might get served or if you have a GPA 

of 3.5 or higher you might get served. I think we need to get to a 

place where every student counts and every student is given this 

information. 

47 

And so again, I think we have had a situation where we have 

had just cherry picking frankly; certain school districts, certain 

populations, certain numbers of kids when every young person, 

every citizen deserves to have the information. 

I also think one of the barriers frankly is that again, families 

when they have that sticker shock they don’t make those choices 

as wisely as they could, and again if you look at retention rates— 

so this is another thing that is important about that study. 

If they go to those highly selective schools, their chances of actually graduating go up as well. 

Mrs. DAVIS. They are higher, right. 

Ms. HURD. So it is not just about picking the right school because 

it is the right match. It is about retaining and having a meaningful 

credential and I do think this is a pressure point on our higher 

education institutions to actually make sure that when they—that 

they honor the investment. When they take a young person, they 

should make sure that they graduate. 

Mrs. DAVIS. We had a hearing earlier and I know one of the— 

I think the entire panel in many ways was suggesting actually to 

all of us who were looking for a federal role in this, is there one? 

We are suggesting that, well, we don’t really know very much yet 

and so you don’t want to act on, you know, information that perhaps is not really accurate. 

But on the other hand, when it comes to retention and certainly 

what you are suggesting is we do know that in many cases they— 

there is a—the schools that students may shy away from may be 

more inclined to be more rigorous in supporting the outcomes. And 

so I think this is—we do know that—what is it that we don’t know 

actually? 

Ms. HURD. Well, and again, I think others—just real quickly— 

I said this statistic before because it keeps me up at night, frankly. 

So if you take our 146 more selective institutions, many of them 

are in your states, and you look at who is going, the bottom, you 

know, the bottom quarter—there is only 3 percent of those kids 

that are low income. So we have got a huge gap. 

And so I think part of this again is what we don’t know is that— 

or what we do know is why are they not going? It is because we 

are not actively recruiting them. We are not telling them what is 

possible and I do think higher ed has to get in the game. 

So again, I think of the 18 universities that I work with are all 

selective institutions and they are not recruiting for just their own 

institution, they are recruiting for all forms of higher ed, but to 

have a Michigan State or a UNC Chapel Hill or a Cal Berkeley say 

we care so much about every student that we are going to put our 

recent graduate in there and make sure that every person has a 

graduation rate in front of them, every student has a financial aid 

package in front of them, is an incredibly powerful thing and I 

think the federal government could be huge in making sure that 

that kind of national service frankly and that kind of transparency 

is presented to every single one of our students. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. Thank you very much. 

Anybody else want to quickly and the two seconds we have left 

weigh in on that? No? Okay, thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

48 

Mr. Thompson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thanks to the panel. 

Mr. Garrido, thank you for your service. 

When—a little bit different—I want to back up a little bit to 

post-discharge. When you were on active duty, did the Department 

of Defense in terms of that transition help at all or during your active duty service in terms of providing information on access to 

education whether it is online education or anything like that or 

how well did that information get pushed out if it got pushed out 

at all to those of you in the front lines? 

Mr. GARRIDO. What they had it was a program called the Navy 

College Online and basically for instance when you do like a C 

school or an A school, depending on what type of course title it had, 

it was able to be then taken into a, like a educational standpoint. 

In other words, you could take it as a credit for let’s say math 

or science credit. Depending on what classes you took and what 

classes were available for you to be able to take as like a—for instance some of my higher training was chemical, biological. We had 

detaining, that type of stuff. So in the civilian sector, it is not really 

a acknowledged title—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. That was kind of my follow-up question. How 

well did the training that you did translate into the academic setting? I think that is something we could—that is a challenge to our 

universities, our career and technical education centers to honor 

our veterans by doing a better job of that. 

Did—in your search, you know, once you were doing the online 

search, you were looking for resources for a school and the one you 

picked, in that one or others, did you see information that, you 

know, kind of was connected to that, that kind of provided answers 

of, you know, if you are a returning veteran you got—maybe you 

had, took some courses that were translated into semester hours or 

credit hours but also did you see anything where there were colleges that recognized and somehow would provide recognition of 

your training and experience? 

Mr. GARRIDO. I know for a fact Kaiser does that. Part of my 

checklist was to bring up my SMART Transcript and then they 

were able to document to see what was able to be taken and used 

so I would have that much less time in the academic, you know, 

in the training environment to get me out that much quicker out 

into the field. 

Mr. THOMPSON. To give you a head start. 

Mr. GARRIDO. Correct. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thanks. 

Mr. HELLER. Congressman, if I may, back when I was at Penn 

State in your district, I did a study funded by the National Science 

Foundation that we were looking at veterans who were 

transitioning into postsecondary education and the kind of information they received and we spoke to veterans on I think six campuses around the country and we heard a very common message 

from all of them. 

They all said that they wished they had more information about 

their postsecondary options earlier in their military careers. Most 

of them received the information only when they were separating 

49 

when they said they were absolutely swamped with everything 

from information about health benefits to education to housing, et 

cetera. 

And they are reflected back and said they wish they had better 

information earlier in their military careers so they would know 

the kind of training that they were signing up for in the military 

and how that would translate to later credits in college. So they all 

wanted more information at earlier. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good, thank you. 

Dr. Hurd, you mentioned a phrase that is near and dear to me, 

I talk about a lot, and that is financial literacy. Now how would— 

what would—for you, what would be your definition of full financial 

literacy for perspective students and their parents? And then a follow up to that, in your opinion, what is the optimal time to begin 

that process? 

Ms. HURD. Thank you for the question. Early. We are talking 

sixth, you know, seventh, eighth grade. Some of our advisors actually play this game, they call it the game of life and everybody gets 

an envelope and everybody has a different career and you start 

paying rent and you start paying back your loans and you start— 

and then all of a sudden, people start running out of money and 

it is ah-ha moment. And if we did that in 12th grade or frankly 

if we do that in college or we do that after college, that is when 

we get into the credit card situation we are in right now, that is 

when we get into all sorts of things. 

So I would say middle school is when financial literacy really 

needs to kick in, and I do think the difference between a loan and 

grant—it might be basic to everybody in this room—it is not basic 

to our students. 

You know the difference between like I said, a net price and 

what the sticker price is, huge difference. Again, there are some 

amazing institutions in Pennsylvania, a lot of our students could 

go there for a lot less than what is on the website or what is in 

a college guide book. 

So, I mean, I do think there are some very basic things like I 

said in my testimony, we have people putting their tuition on credit 

cards because they feel like a government loan is a hand out, because they feel like they don’t want to do this, they don’t want to 

do that, and so again, I think loan, grant, scholarship, net price 

versus what the sticker price is—there are just some very basic 

things in terms of financial literacy that would be game changers 

for our families. 

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

Mrs. McCarthy, your recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

And thank you for—I am sorry I missed all the testimony. I 

had—we both—all of us probably all have two committees and we 

have to go running between the two of them. 

Dr. Hurd, I want to follow up on, you know, what—some of the 

things that I have read about the program on sending the college 

graduates to be placed in high schools as peer advisors. What is the 

average stay of the students in the schools that they’re placed? 

50 

Ms. HURD. So, we place our recent college graduates in school for 

2 years and then after their 2 years, they are replaced by another 

member. So we are there for the long haul, but their term of service is 2 years. We actually track them to see what happens to them 

afterwards and I am happy to report a lot of them are going to education schools. They are going to places like Dr. Heller’s school. A 

lot of them are going into public service. I was actually this morning with our divisor in TC Williams Alexandria who is off to Syracuse to do an MPA. She wants to staff you all someday. So some 

of them see as a policy issue, some of them say they want to be 

practitioners, but we are creating new generation of leaders friendly by having them go into these public schools for 2 years. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. And how is the relationship between the students that are coming into the schools and the counselor that 

might already be there? 

Ms. HURD. Yes, so, because they are recent graduates and they 

are there full-time, they integrate into the school very well. So 

frankly, if they were current students or if they were kind of roadrunners coming back and forth I think we would have some issues, 

but they are there full time. So they are there from 7 in the morning until 5 at night. They are there for football games. They are 

there for this and that. And as I said before, our guidance counselor/student ratio is so horrific in this country, our guidance counselors are actually welcoming them with open arms. 

And I will tell you they see them as this next generation of guidance counselors so they actually are writing their rec letters to education schools and other things. 

The thing that also gets me really excited is frankly we have 

not—and Dr. Heller can talk about this—we have not always educated our guidance counselors very well. So we see a lot of guidance 

counselors who want to come back to us for training. They want 

to come on our summer training. We do not teach college advising 

and financial aid in our education schools. And frankly, we don’t 

need to just teach the guidance counselors, we need to teach the 

teachers, and we need to teach the principles because the whole 

school has to believe in a college going culture, not just the guidance counselor. 

So I do think part of it is the lack of education that they are getting in the professional training on some of these issues which I 

know Dr. Heller and others are trying to remedy, but that is historically been a problem with a guidance counselor opens up their 

arms and says thank you so much, I didn’t know all of these things 

that you know. 

And our training is so great because our universities are doing 

this—I should just clarify—it is our financial aid people, our admissions people who are taking the time to give these advisors 6 weeks 

of really thorough training. 

And one of the things I have to ask you to look at is our high 

schools are drowning in this information, why aren’t we asking our 

universities, our admissions and financial aid professionals and to 

help so this is a seamless pipeline that helps everybody and not 

this completely siloed system we are in right now. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. I have a very strong opinions on some of our 

teaching colleges and how we are actually teaching our teachers to 

51 

be teachers. I think that needs to be looked at. A lot of the states 

are looking at that but I think that something that should be 

looked into even deeper. 

Mr. Garrido, tell me how you chose the school that you ended up 

going to. 

Mr. GARRIDO. I—my other—my better half, she has a Bachelor’s 

in Biology, an Associates in Psychology, a Bachelor’s in Nursing, 

and now she is going for a nurse practitioner. She was a high 

school teacher and when I came back from the service, she was a 

high school teacher for 3 years. 

The guidance counselor like they have been you know, testifying 

about, my other half was the activities type—the ones for the Grad 

Nines—the, you know, all the fun stuff in high school that you always want to have the memory, the proms, well, my—Jackie had 

a really close relationship with her students. 

So she was able to talk to all these recruiters and these people 

who are coming on campuses and she was able to gauge an angle 

to see which student would best work out with what school. She 

was able to do that for me and I ended up Kaiser University. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. All right. And as far as the transition coming 

from military life going into—— 

Mr. GARRIDO. Criminal justice. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY [continuing]. University setting, how did the 

school work with you to make that transition? Because from what 

I have spoken to, some of these colleges that are certainly reaching 

out to our veterans coming home to give them the education that 

they are looking for. A lot of those military people had a very hard 

time and it is almost a new world I guess for the universities because so many are coming back almost like after World War II and 

they have had to come up with programs. So was that transition 

good for you? 

Mr. GARRIDO. Being a part of the service I am used to being in 

a tight structure that you wake up in the morning. At 6.30, you 

are going to PT. At 9 o’clock, you are going to muster. At 10 o’clock 

you are going to do this. You know, getting out of the service and 

just all of a sudden you are free, doesn’t help. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. No. I could imagine. 

Mr. GARRIDO. It is very difficult, and my situation was extremely 

difficult to be able to find the resources add that I needed to be 

able to continue. If it wasn’t for my support system, I don’t think 

I would have been able to make it. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Mr. Heller, did you want to add anything to 

that? 

Mr. HELLER. No. Just to add to what Dr. Hurd said, you know, 

guidance counselors particularly in schools that serve predominately low income populations, first-generation populations. They 

spend most of their time on what they will tell you is STD, and 

that is not sexually transmitted diseases, it is scheduling, testing, 

and discipline. 

And they spend so much time on that they don’t have the time 

to work with the students in their school who may express an interest in going to college. So that is why the supplemental work 

that people and Dr. Hurd’s program can do are welcomed into 

these schools generally with open arms because the counselors recVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\HEWT\113-15\80427.TXT DICK
52 

ognize that they just don’t have the time to do that because they 

have their hands full with other things. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. My time is up. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. I want to thank all of the members for being so good on their questions and staying on time today. 

Everybody has done a great job. So thanks for recognizing that. 

I am now going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I am very impressed that all of you are talking about outcomes 

and information versus data. I think you all have either explicitly 

said that or implicit—or implied it. 

Dr. Heller, if you had to pick five pieces of information that the 

federal government should collect and ensure it is provided to students, what would they be and why? 

Mr. HELLER. Oh boy, that is a good question. I will start with 

net price data. I think net price data is critical as the other witnesses have said as well. So and also net price data for example 

by family income. So not just an average net price, but if you are 

in this income bracket, here is what the average net price is at our 

institution. 

The second thing that would be information about the kinds of 

admissions criteria that make a difference for that institution. So 

for example, how heavily are things like test scores weighed versus 

high school grades; AP classes, things like that. 

Certainly, graduation rates is critical and this is an area as I 

mentioned earlier, we have lots of data but we don’t have the right 

data about graduation rates because right now we are only tracking students who start in one school and complete in that school. 

And with over half of all students today attending more than one 

institution, we need to have some kind of way of tracking students 

who cross institutions because for example, if a student starts at 

Michigan State and spends 2 years there and then transfers somewhere else, that is not going to show as a completion to us even 

though they may go elsewhere and complete their bachelor’s degree 

at a school down the street in 2 more years. So we need better data 

that tracks students across institutions. 

That is three and I will let anybody else chime in on the other 

two that they would like to add. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Reindl, do you want to add to that? 

Mr. REINDL. Well, I think that from the governor’s perspective it 

is really important and you want to look at who is coming and that 

is age, race, income. It is just essential especially for working 

adults like Mr. Garrido. We need to know how many of them are 

participating and then number two, remediation. That is the ticket 

out for too many students. And it is a national disgrace that we 

were not being transparent about that until governors came together and said no, we are going to be transparent about that. 

It is to Dr. Heller’s point, completion. Again, age, race, income. 

If I were a working adult, I would like to know how good that college does at getting people like me to graduation. How do we pay 

for it? I think Dr. Heller touched on that very nicely. 

Net and debt—this is what I would say—you know, net tuition— 

net price as well as the indebtedness and then the return. It is essential to know if I am paying this tuition, what is my likelihood 

53 

of being employed somehow somewhere and how much—how many 

people are being helped by my tuition and by the money that states 

pay. So it is coming, going, and paying. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Coming, going, and paying. Okay. Great. 

Dr. Hurd, do you have anything to add to that? 

Ms. HURD. They have done a beautiful job covering it. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Reindl, would you talk a little bit more about how the information that we are talking about gets presented? Are there some 

suggestions, are there some states that have done a wonderful job 

of presenting the information so that we could look at those as 

models? 

Mr. REINDL. Certainly, Chairwoman Foxx. And in my testimony, 

I point to three states; Kentucky, Washington State, and Arizona. 

They have developed interactive dashboards. You go on the web. 

You are able to pull down—it is a small number of measures so 

that you are not overwhelmed—you can tell how many students 

graduated from X University or College that year or look at it 

statewide or look at how many students ended up in remedial 

classes at the community colleges in the state or at a specific college. 

So those three states—and there are others—but those three 

states in particular make it easy for a consumer to just go, push 

the button that you want, and look at it either across the state if 

I am a legislator or just a taxpayer or at a particular campus. 

If I am that working adults and I want to know, how many people like me end up in remedial education so I think those are three 

examples of states that have done some good work in that. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank the panel again for taking time to testify before 

the subcommittee today. I think again it has been a very good 

hearing. I think the questions were well asked and I think you all 

have done a great job. 

Mr. Bishop, do you have any closing remarks you would like to 

make? 

Mr. BISHOP. Other than to thank the panel both for their testimony and also for the work that they do and to congratulate Mr. 

Garrido on what I am sure is going to be a great career. So thank 

you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Well I would like to make a couple of observations based on the comments that I have heard today. I appreciate the emphasis, Dr. Hurd, that you have put on evidence-based 

and data-driven results. I am going to submit some questions to 

you after today’s hearing that I didn’t want to try to—I knew you 

wouldn’t probably have the answers at your ready and so I am 

going to ask you some questions about that. 

In reading your testimony, Dr. Heller, I have noted our talking 

about traditional versus nontraditional and I have challenged other 

panels that we have had. When you are talking about 70 percent 

of students going to community colleges and proprietary schools, 

that is what I believe is the total in your testimony, the term traditional doesn’t mean anything anymore. 

Certainly if—I can’t remember the exact amount but the number 

of students in 4-year schools that are between ages 18 and 24 is 

54 

something like 14 percent now or at least that is making up 14 percent of our college going population. So I am challenging people to 

come up with a better title than traditional-nontraditional because 

the nontraditional have become the traditional or they are certainly the majority. 

I am again, intrigued by the emphasis that all of you have put 

on the word information as opposed to data. I think that is very, 

very important that we pay attention to those and I appreciate that 

a lot. 

Again, the emphasis on outcomes. Many, many years ago I 

thought we were going to get to that point. I have been around for 

a long time. I have been involved with Southern Association, accreditations, and been railing against inputs for a long time and 

saying when are we going to get to where we talk about outcomes. 

And so I appreciate very much the emphasis, Mr. Reindl, that you 

say that the governors are putting on this and I think it is really, 

really important that we do that. 

I don’t have a concern about people choosing to go to school closer to their homes or going to community colleges to begin with. 

That does not—or proprietary schools—that doesn’t seem to bother 

me but it does seem to bother some people that we are not—that 

folks are doing that. 

There is an implication that that is not as good as going a long 

distance to some school. You know, frankly, I think it is a smart 

decision on the part of a lot of people to do that. 

When we talk about the enormous debt that many students take 

on, maybe these students are pretty smart and their parents and 

they are saying we are not going to take on the debt because they 

have looked at the outcomes and they have seen that it isn’t necessary to get a degree from an Ivy League school to do well outside—after you get out of college. 

And so I think that that is very good. I think most, or a lot of 

my colleagues think the wisdom of the world is out there in flyover 

country and so we are very keen on that. 

I did note a couple people mentioned up here the issue of personal responsibility, and while I believe that if we spend hardworking taxpayer dollars, we deserve to get good outcomes for that, 

there is something about personal responsibility that I think is getting lost in our country and it concerns me a great deal. 

It is as though the government has an answer for everything and 

I think that in some cases we diminished the emphasis on personal 

responsibility for people and that we expect people to be spoon-fed 

in some way. 

So there are responsibilities. However, again, I think there has 

to be a balance. If we are going to pay for something, either at the 

local, state, or federal level, then we ought to be getting value for 

where that money is being spent. 

So I appreciate again all of the testimony that we have had. I 

do think this will be useful to us as we look to the reauthorization 

of the higher ed bill, as we look to other issues that we are dealing 

with on this subcommittee and on the larger committee. 

So I want to thank you all again for being here. 

I want to thank all of my colleagues for being here today. 

55 

1 ‘‘Rethinking Pell Grants.’’ The College Board. 2013. http://media.collegeboard.com/ 

digitalServices/pdf/advocacy/policycenter/advocacy-rethinking-pell-grants-one-pager.pdf Page 1. 2Time Is the Enemy.’’ Complete College America. 2011. http://www.completecollege.org/docs/ 

Time—Is—the—Enemy.pdf Page 6. 

There being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submission for the record from Hon. Suzanne 

Bonamici, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

‘‘Information Matters,’’ by the Education Conservancy, may be 

accessed at the following Internet address:] 

http://www.educationconservancy.org/InformationMattersResearchReportRv.pdf 

[Additional submission for the record from Hon. George Miller, 

senior Democratic member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the National College Access Network 

The National College Access Network (NCAN) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the April 24, 2013, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training hearing titled, ‘‘Keeping College within Reach: Enhancing Transparency 

for Students, Families, and Taxpayers.’’ NCAN and our over 350 affiliate organizations nationwide work to assist low-income, first-generation, and students of color 

to achieve their educational dreams. A large portion of the services provided to our 

over 200,000 students annually is guidance through the complicated and opaque 

pathway to college. 

Increasing the number of Americans with postsecondary credentials economically 

and socially benefits both the country and those individuals receiving degrees. But 

today’s pathway to and through college is often confusing and full of barriers. In 

order to increase those going to and graduating from college, the federal government, state governments, and institutions must each do their part to provide a 

transparent pathway to and through college. Transparency includes simplicity for 

students and accountability to the taxpayers. 

NCAN’s response will further explore the role the federal government can play to 

increase transparency for students and taxpayers. Mr. Travis Reindl spoke for the 

state role during his testimony, and Dr. Don Heller on the role of institutions. 

NCAN concurs with Dr. Nicole Hurd’s assertion that institutions must, ‘‘honor their 

investment by getting students to graduation.’’ This first and foremost must be the 

priority of every institution in this country. 

The profile of the college student is rapidly changing. Students who follow the traditional path enter college directly after high school, live on campus, and graduate 

within five years. With 44% of Pell grant recipients over the age of 24 1 and 75% 

of all college students commuting to campus,2 the traditional path no longer defines 

the college experience for most students. NCAN encourages a shift away from labeling students ‘‘traditional/non-traditional,’’ as suggested by Representative Foxx. 

Other terms currently used in the field to describe the new normal include: new majority students, post-traditional students, 21st century students, dependent/independent students, and traditional-aged/adult learners. 

For these students who are first in the family to go to college, receiving guidance 

through the college going process is crucial. The federal government must lead the 

effort to collect and disseminate the information students need. Representative Foxx 

asked witnesses what the most important information for students to have when 

making a college choice is. For NCAN, the two most crucial pieces of information 

for students are: 

• Disaggregated graduation rates for all students. Currently, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) only collects graduation rates for firsttime, full-time students and does not break down those rates by Pell grant status. 

With a growing number of students following a post-traditional college path, this 

limited definition of graduation rates does not inform students as to their chances 

of completing a degree from an institution. 

• Net price by family income. It is important for students to know not only the 

net price of an institution, but what that net price is for their family’s economic 

56 

3 National College Advising Corps. ‘‘Success & Results.’’ http://www.advisingcorps.org/success-results. 6 May 2013. 4 Corwin, Zoe and William Tierney. ‘‘Getting There—and Beyond: Building a Culture of College-going in High Schools.’’ USC Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. January 2007. 

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED498731.pdf Page 3. 5 Adams, Caralee. ‘‘Guidance Counselors Lack Training in College Admissions.’’ Education 

Week. 28 December 2010. http: / / blogs.edweek.org / edweek / college — bound / 2010 / 12 

/ counselors — lack — training — in — helping — students — get — into — college.html?utm 

— source = feedbur ner&utm — medium = feed&utm — campaign = Feed%3A + edweek%2FBVuj 

+ %28Education + Week + Blog%3A + College + Bound%29 

quintile. Many low-income students still think college is out of reach based solely 

on the cost. 

Additional helpful information would be the profile (age, race, income, part time/ 

full time, size) of the student body, the cohort loan default rate, and the admission 

criteria for the school. Admission criteria is important for students to learn in middle school so that they can plan their high school paths to not only complete high 

school but have the right courses to be college ready and eligible as those two paths 

are always the same. 

The federal government must continue its support of competitive funding programs, such as AmeriCorps and Social Innovation Grants, that the non-profit sector 

leverages in its work. As Dr. Nicole Hurd testified, the National College Advising 

Corps has multiplied these federal funds several times over to place near-peer counselors in high schools across the country to provide the high-touch, one-on-one counseling that students need to help them through this process. Schools with NCAC 

advisors experience an 8-12% increase in college going rates in comparison to similar high schools without college advisors.3 Further, NCAN has affiliates running 

proven, effective programs across the country that leverage AmeriCorps members to 

provide added assistance in high need high schools. Many of these AmeriCorps volunteers are first-generation college students from low-income backgrounds who become college advisors to give back to their communities. 

The importance of this direct, in person advising was discussed during the hearing, and its role cannot be understated. During his testimony, Dr. Don Heller noted 

that guidance counselors, who traditionally provide these supports, are burdened by 

high case loads and frequently spend most of their time on scheduling, testing, and 

discipline, leaving little time to help their students plan for their futures. Because 

of this burden on counselors, NCAN affiliates such as the National College Advising 

Corps work with guidance counselors to provide the individual support students 

need while building a college-going culture 4 within the high schools so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. Additionally, fewer than 10% of guidance 

counselor training programs nationwide offer a course in college planning according 

to Patrick O’Connor, former president of the National Associations for College Admissions Counselors.5 NCAN affiliates also aid counselors by bringing training and 

expertise to high need high schools. 

The hearing witnesses showed why our higher education system needs to be more 

transparent—so that all students have the opportunity to attend college without 

barriers. It also was clear that while technology is an important part of this outreach to students, that direct advising is crucial to the process. The federal government must lead the effort to collect and disseminate the crucial information students need about all colleges as well as continue to provide funds that the non-government sectors can leverage to do this work so that students have access to the 

best information and tax payers can examine their return on investment. 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, June 5, 2013. 

Dr. DONALD HELLER, Dean, College of Education, 

Michigan State University, Erickson Hall, 620 Farm Lane, Rm. 501, E. Lansing, MI 

48824. 

DEAR DR. HELLER: Thank you for testifying before the Subcommittee on Higher 

Education and Workforce Training at the hearing entitled, ‘‘Keeping College Within 

Reach: Enhancing Transparency for Students, Families and Taxpayers,’’ on Wednesday, April 24, 2013. I appreciate your participation. 

Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the subcommittee 

after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later than June 19, 2013 for 

inclusion in the final hearing record. Responses should be sent to Amy Jones, Brian 

57 

Melnyk or Emily Slack of the committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225- 

6558. 

Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

VIRGINIA FOXX, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training. 

CHAIRMAN JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

1. It seems the federal government provides a number of tools for students and 

families to utilize in their college search process whether it be the College Scorecard, the Shopping Sheet, the net price calculator, or data derived from new regulations. Do you have a sense about whether these tools offer consistent data? So, for 

example, if a student uses more than one tool, does he or she get consistent information? 

2. The College Navigator displays data at the institutional level. Do you think 

that collecting data at this level assists the current college-going population or do 

you believe we need to display information by program? What information might we 

want at the programmatic level? 

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD HUDSON (R-NC)

1. Dr. Heller, you mentioned that both traditional—aged students as well as 

adults returning to college generally are looking at institutions close to where they 

live. What other metrics, besides location, do traditional-aged students examine 

when choosing a college? Do these vary for non-traditional students? 

2. Your testimony mentions that the Department of Education can improve upon 

the information it currently provides to students and families. Are there more appropriate or accessible ways the federal government can present data to students, 

parents, and taxpayers? 

Dr. Heller’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

CHAIRMAN KLINE

1. It seems the federal government provides a number of tools for students and 

families to utilize in their college search process whether it be the College Scorecard, 

the Shopping Sheet, the net price calculator, or data derived from new regulations. 

Do you have a sense about whether these tools offer consistent data? So, for example, 

if a student uses more than one tool, does he or she get consistent information? 

In my experience, information useful in the college search process provided by the 

Department of Education (ED)—most of which is derived from data collected and 

disseminated by the National Center for Education Statistics—is consistently distributed to consumers. It is very unusual to find the same data element from the 

same time period having two different values in the information provided by ED. 

The key point here is the same data element from the same time period. You may 

find similar data elements reported with different values; one example would be the 

sticker price reported for a particular college as compared to the net price. Similarly, there may be situations where one data element is reported with values from 

two different time periods on different tools disseminated by ED. When this does 

occur, it is usually related to differences in data collection or propagation schedules. 

In general, however, my experience is that there is good consistency across the 

various ED tools available to students and parents. 

2. The College Navigator displays data at the institutional level. Do you think that 

collecting data at this level assists the current college-going population or do you believe we need to display information by program? What information might we want 

at the programmatic level? 

The Chairman has raised a very good point. Right now, all the data in the ED 

College Navigator is at the institutional level, not the program level within institutions. At present, I do not see this as particularly problematic. In most institutions, 

the tuition prices are generally fairly consistent across programs, though in some 

institutions there are small numbers of programs that charge higher, or premium, 

tuition rates. 

These are generally laboratory-intensive programs with higher costs, such as 

nursing, laboratory science, and the like. 

However, if the ED begins to disseminate more information about the earnings 

of graduates of particular programs, then the College Navigator would be enhanced 

if it provided data at the program level. This is because the earnings of students 

58 

with different majors within an institution are often greater than differences in the 

average earnings of students across institutions. Right now, there is not an accurate 

and reliable source of earnings data for students by institution, never mind within 

different programs at institutions (I recently blogged about this issue—see part one 

at http://edwp.educ.msu.edu/dean/2013/measuring-the-return-on-investment-of-attending-college-part-1/ and part two at http://edwp.educ.msu.edu/dean/2013/ 

measuring-the-return-on-investment-of-attending-college-part-2/). 

If the Congress does agree to consider allowing ED to develop a student-level unit 

record data system, this would be a step toward collecting better data on the earnings of graduates of colleges and universities at the program level. This could be 

accomplished by matching university records with Social Security earnings records. 

If this step is taken, then providing College Navigator data at the program level 

could be useful to students and families. 

In addition, if colleges move more toward charging differential tuition—varying 

tuition rates for different majors—than it would be useful to have these different 

program rates reported in the College Navigator. 

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD HUDSON

1. Dr. Heller, you mentioned that both traditional-aged students as well as adults 

returning to college generally are looking at institutions close to where they live. 

What other metrics, besides location, do traditional-aged students examine when 

choosing a college? Do these vary for non-traditional students? 

For traditional-aged students, the price of college and availability of financial aid 

are important and growing factors in their decisions regarding where to attend college. The research shows that sensitivity to price is inversely related to income, i.e., 

the lower the financial resources of the student and her family, the greater is her 

sensitivity to rising prices. 

There are also a number of other characteristics that the research shows can influence traditional-aged students’ decisions about college attendance. These include: 

size of institution; racial/gender mix; program availability; retention and graduation 

rates; urban/suburban/rural location; support services; and campus amenities, including housing, dining, and cultural and recreational facilities. 

For non-traditional students, price and availability of financial aid are also important factors, as are program availability. However, the other factors mentioned 

above tend to be less important for adult, working students, and location and price 

tend to be most important. 

2. Your testimony mentions that the Department of Education can improve upon 

the information it currently provides to students and families. Are there more appropriate or accessible ways the federal government can present data to students, parents, and taxpayers? 

As I stated in my testimony, we have a plethora of data available about colleges, 

but less information that is truly useful to students and parents who are trying to 

distinguish among different institutions. I do not believe there is much more the 

federal government can do to improve the delivery and availability of existing data 

to students and their families. 

What we need is more help for potential college attendees to wade through the 

data that are already available, and this is where better access to college counselors 

and the like can be helpful. This is particularly true for first generation college students. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, June 5, 2013. 

Dr. NICOLE HURD, Founder and Executive Director, 

National College Advising Corps, 200 No. Greensboro, Suite C8, Carrboro, NC 

27510. 

DEAR DR. HURD: Thank you for testifying before the Subcommittee on Higher 

Education and Workforce Training at the hearing entitled, ‘‘Keeping College Within 

Reach: Enhancing Transparency for Students, Families and Taxpayers,’’ on Wednesday, April 24, 2013. I appreciate your participation. 

I have enclosed an additional question for inclusion in the final hearing record. 

Please provide a written response no later than June 19, 2013. Responses should 

be sent to Amy Jones, Brian Melnyk or Emily Slack of the committee staff who can 

be contacted at (202) 225-6558. 

59 

Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

VIRGINIA FOXX, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training. 

During the hearing, you mentioned a study that looked at the effects of providing 

better information about the full range of college-going opportunities to low-income, 

high-achieving students. Could you please provide the committee with a copy of that 

study and an explanation of whether or not it is evidenced based and data driven? 

If it is not evidence based and data driven, do you know of any studies that are 

which show similar results? 

Dr. Hurd’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record_ 

COLLEGE ADVISING CORPS

Recommended Reading on Access 

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2002). Access denied: Restoring the nation’s commitment to equal educational opportunity. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office.* 

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2002). Empty promises: The 

myth of college access in America. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office.* 

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2006). Mortgaging our future: How financial barriers to college undercut America’s global competitiveness. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.* 

Beasley, Sarah and Neal Holly. (2013) To improve completion, remember the countryside. http://chronicle.com/article/To-Improve-Completion/139183/ 

Bowen, W.G. and Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-term consequences 

of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton University 

Press. 

Bowen, W.G., Chingos, M.M., McPherson, M.S. (2009). Crossing the Finish Line: 

Completing college at America’s Public Universities. Princeton University Press. 

Bowen, W.G., Kurzweil, M.A., Tobin, E.M. (2005) Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education. University of Virginia Press. 

Castleman, Benjamin L. and Lindsay S. Page. (2009). Stemming the summer flood: 

An experimental study of college counselor intervention the summer after high 

school graduation on low-income students’ college enrollment. 

Ibid. (2010). A trickle or a torrent? Understanding the extent of summer ‘‘melt’’ 

among college-intending high school graduates. 

Ibid. (2012). The forgotten summer: Does the offer of college counseling the summer 

after high school mitigate attrition among college-intending low-income high 

school graduates? 

Clinedinst, Melissa E., et al. (2011). 2011 State of Admissions (National Association 

for College Admissions Counseling). http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/Documents/2011SOCA.pdf 

College Cost and Financial Aid Handbook. (2006). College Board Publications. 

College Counseling Sourcebook: Advice and Strategies from Experienced School 

Counselors, 6th edition. College Board Publications. 

Corwin Z., & W. Tierney. (2007). Getting there and beyond: Building a culture of 

college-going in high schools. Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education Policy 

Analysis. 

Cushman, Kathleen. (2005). First in the family: Advice about college from first-generation students; Your High School Years. (Vol. 1). Providence, RI: Next Generation Press. 

Cushman, Kathleen. (2006). First in the family: Your college years: Advice about 

college from first-generation students. (Vol. 2). Providence, RI: Next Generation 

Press. 

Dowd, A.C., E. M. Bensimon, G. Gabbard, S. Singleton, E. Macias, J. R. Dee, T. 

Melguizo, J. Cheslock, and D. Giles. 2006. Transfer access to elite colleges and 

universities in the United States: Threading the needle of the American 

dream—The study of economic, informational, and cultural barriers to community college student transfer access at selective institutions. http:// 

60 

www.jkcf.org/grants/community-college-transfer/research/transfer-access-toelite-colleges-and-universities-in-the-united-states-threading-the-needle-of-the-/ 

Heller, D., ed. (2002). The condition of access: Higher education for lower income 

students. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 

Hoxby, Caroline and Sarah Turner. (2013). Expanding college opportunities for 

high-achieving, low income students. 

Kozol, Jonathan. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid 

schooling in America. New York: Three Rivers Press. 

Kravets, Marybeth &Wax, Imy. (2007). The K & W Guide to Colleges for Students 

with Learning Disabilities or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 

9th Edition. Random House, Inc. NY. 

Lerner, J. B. Brand. (2006). The college ladder: Linking secondary and postsecondary education for success for all students. Washington, DC: American Youth 

Policy Forum. 

Lumina Foundation, The. (2012). A stronger nation through higher education: How 

and why Americans must achieve a Big Goal for college attainment. http:// 

www.luminafoundation.org/publications/ 

A_stronger_nation_through_higher_education.pdf 

Mathews, Jay. (2003). Harvard Schmarvard: Getting beyond the Ivy League to the 

college that is best for you. Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing. 

McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (Eds.). (2006). College access: Opportunity or 

privilege?. New York: The College Board. 

Meece, Judith, et al. Educational aspirations of rural adolescents. http: / / 

www.nrcres.org / Research % 20Briefs / HSA / HSA % 20Educational % 

20Aspirations % 20brief.pdf 

Pope, Loren. (2006). Colleges that change lives: 40 schools that will change the way 

you think about colleges (Rev. Ed.). New York: Penguin Books. 

Ramsey, J. (2008). Creating a high school culture of college-going: The case of Washington State achievers. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. 

Roderick, M., et al. (2008). From high school to the future: Potholes on the road to 

college. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. http:// 

ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/CCSR_Potholes_Report.pdf 

Rugg, Frederick. (2007). Rugg’s Recommendations on the Colleges, 24th Edition. 

Sacks, Peter. (2007). Tearing down the gates: Confronting the class divide in American education. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Sherwin, Jay. (2012). Make me a match. Helping low-income and first-generation 

students make good college choices. http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ 

policybrief_24.pdf 

Smith, Jonathan. (2011). Can applying to more colleges increase enrollment rates? 

http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/ 

11b_4313_College%20App%20Research%20Brief_WEB_111026.pdf 

Stephan, Jennifer L. and James E. Rosenbaum. (2012). Educational Evaluation and 

Policy Analysis: Can high schools reduce college enrollment gaps with new 

counseling model? http://epa.sagepub.com/content/35/2/200 

Suskind, Ron. (1998). A hope in the unseen: An American odyssey from the inner 

city to the Ivy League. New York: Broadway Books. 

The College Admissions Data Hyper-Handbook. Wintergreen Orchard House. 

www.wintergreenorchardhouse.com/wgoh_hyper_handbook.html 

Tierney, William G., et al. (2009). Helping students navigate the path to college: 

What high schools can do. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/ 

higher_ed_pg_091509.pdf 

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). College Completion Tool Kit. http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/college_completion_tool_kit.pdf 

Wyner, J.S., J. M. Bridgeland, J. J. Diiulio Jr. 200y. Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. 

http://www.jkcf.org/news-knowledge/research-reports/ 

NOTES

*The first three reports can be found at http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/edlitepublications.html. 

Another helpful site is the Pathways to College Network, an online library of access practice 

and research: http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/PCNLibrary/ListTopics.aspx. 

61 

For literature related to specific populations, check out Excelencia in Education (http:// 

www.edexcelencia.org/), which has reports on serving Hispanic/Latino students, and the Institute for Higher Education Policy (http://www.ihep.org/), which has a report on increasing higher education access for immigrant students. 

The Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA) at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education has an excellent repository of online papers about college 

access and financial aid: http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/papers_publications.html. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ