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

74–975 PDF 2012

KEEPING COLLEGE WITHIN REACH: 

EXPLORING STATE EFFORTS TO CURB COSTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 18, 2012 

Serial No. 112–65 

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 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Bob Goodlatte, Virginia 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

George Miller, California 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 18, 2012 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

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

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

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

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training ......................................................... 4 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Jones, Stan, president, Complete College America ....................................... 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Lubbers, Teresa, commissioner, Indiana Commission for Higher Education .............................................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

May, Dr. Joe D., president, Louisiana Community and Technical College 

System ........................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34 

Pattison, Scott D., executive director, National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) ...................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Additional Submissions: 

Barletta, Hon. Lou, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, questions submitted for the record: 

To Ms. Lubbers .......................................................................................... 58 

To Dr. May ................................................................................................. 62 

To Mr. Pattison .......................................................................................... 66 

Mrs. Foxx: 

Prepared Statement of John Ebersole, LPD, president, Excelsior College .......................................................................................................... 6 

Questions submitted for the record: 

To Ms. Lubbers ................................................................................... 58 

To Dr. May .......................................................................................... 62 

To Mr. Pattison .................................................................................. 66 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

questions submitted for the record: 

To Ms. Lubbers .......................................................................................... 58 

To Mr. Pattison .......................................................................................... 66 

Ms. Lubbers’ response to questions submitted for the record ...................... 59 

Dr. May’s response to questions submitted for the record ............................ 63 

Mr. Pattison’s response to questions submitted for the record ..................... 67 

(1) 

KEEPING COLLEGE WITHIN REACH: 

EXPLORING STATE EFFORTS TO CURB COSTS 

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 

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 10:05 a.m. in Room 

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

Present: Representatives Foxx, Biggert, Roe, Thompson, 

Bucshon, Heck, Hinojosa, Bishop, Miller, and Altmire. 

Staff Present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary; 

James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; 

Adam Bennot, Press Assistant; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and 

Member Services Coordinator; Heather Couri, Deputy Director of 

Education and Human Services Policy; Cristin Datch, Professional 

Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones, Education Policy/Counsel and Senior Advisor; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Brian Melnyk, Legislative 

Assistant; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Linda 

Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Alissa 

Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk; Kelly 

Broughan, Minority Staff Assistant; Daniel Brown, Minority Policy 

Associate; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director; Ruth Friedman, 

Minority Director of Education Policy; Megan O’Reilly, Minority 

General Counsel; and Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director. 

Chairwoman FOXX. A quorum being present, the subcommittee 

will come to order. 

Good morning and welcome to our subcommittee hearing. We are 

fortunate to have a distinguished panel of higher education experts 

here today, and I would like to thank these witnesses for joining 

us. 

In recent months, the issue of rising college costs has shifted to 

the forefront of our national discourse, and rightly so, as millions 

of young people struggle to manage school debt and to find job opportunities in the lagging economy. Annual tuition and fees at public universities have increased 72 percent since 2001, and the cost 

of private institutions and 2-year degree programs have similarly 

increased. Meanwhile, the student debt load recently surpassed $1 

trillion, exceeding total outstanding credit card debt for the first 

time in history. 
2 

Clearly there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it cannot be solved solely at the federal level with Washington bureaucrats acting as master puppeteers. That has been tried over the 

last decade, and it hasn’t worked. Federal support for higher education increased 155 percent over the last 10 years, yet tuition has 

continued to rise. In these fiscally challenging times, if government 

subsidies aren’t producing more affordable education in the current 

system, we cannot just keep writing bigger checks. Instead, we 

need to look to States and postsecondary institutions for creative 

solutions to the college cost conundrum. 

In a previous hearing, this subcommittee explored ways some colleges and universities are working to streamline costs and reduce 

the burden for students. Grace College and Seminary President Dr. 

Ronald Manahan described the value of accelerated degree programs that allow students to graduate in less time. Colorado Mesa 

University President Tim Foster explained how his school’s innovative work study program has been beneficial to students and the 

school’s bottom line. 

Today, we will learn about State-led initiatives to tackle the college cost problem. As our economy continues to falter, it is no secret many States are hard-pressed to match the levels of support 

they have appropriated to higher education in previous years. Despite these challenging circumstances, some State officials are developing inventive programs and policies that provide students 

more affordable options on the path to a postsecondary degree. 

For example, Indiana and Pennsylvania have successfully implemented ‘‘pay for performance’’ funding structures in which States 

set aside a certain percentage of funds for higher education programs with the best retention, completion, and placement rates. As 

one of our witnesses will discuss today, the benefit of ‘‘pay for performance’’ is two-fold: Not only do these structures offer colleges a 

financial incentive to raise the bar, they also provide another layer 

of accountability to ensure limited taxpayer resources are being 

used wisely. 

Recognizing that not all learning occurs in a traditional classroom setting, colleges and universities in Minnesota and Vermont 

now offer assessments for prior learning. These tests determine 

whether the knowledge a student has obtained through previous 

education and work experience merits college credit. And when 

these tests are implemented for each student, they help eliminate 

instructional redundancies and spare students the cost of courses 

that would attempt to teach them skills they already possess. 

Other States, such as Ohio, require all public universities to offer 

accelerated degree programs that provide students the option to 

earn their degrees in less time than the traditional 4 years, thereby 

saving money. 

To help lower the tuition bill, some students opt to take courses 

at a less expensive community college and then complete their degree program at a public 4-year institution. Officials in some 

States, including Louisiana, Florida, and my home State of North 

Carolina, have acknowledged the fiscal practicality of this approach 

in implementing comprehensive articulation agreements to make it 

easier for students to transfer credits to another public institution 

within the same State. We are fortunate today to have a witness 
3 

from the Louisiana Community and Technical College System who 

will discuss how students are benefiting from these agreements. 

Before I yield to my colleague, Ruben Hinojosa, I would like to 

make one thing clear: I know all of us have the best intentions 

when it comes to helping students afford a college education, and 

we all agree debt should not be a foregone conclusion in higher 

education. However, we must not forget heavy-handed federal regulations often yield results contradictory to their aim, weighing 

down States with another layer of burdensome red tape. Instead of 

leveraging new mandates on States and institutions, we should encourage innovation by continuing to highlight the successful efforts 

being made at the State and local level. 

I look forward to a productive discussion with my colleagues and 

our witnesses on ways States are working to keep college within 

reach for more students. 

I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Hinojosa, 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 our subcommittee hearing. We are fortunate to 

have a distinguished panel of higher education experts here today, and I would like 

to thank these witnesses for joining us. 

In recent months, the issue of rising college costs has shifted to the forefront of 

our national discourse—and rightly so, as millions of young people struggle to manage school debt and find job opportunities in the lagging economy. Annual tuition 

and fees at public universities have increased 72 percent since 2001, and the cost 

of private institutions and two-year degree programs have similarly increased. 

Meanwhile, the student debt load recently surpassed $1 trillion—exceeding total 

outstanding credit card debt—for the first time in history. 

Clearly there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it cannot be solved 

solely at the federal level with Washington bureaucrats acting as master puppeteers. That’s been tried over the last decade, and it hasn’t worked. Federal support 

for higher education increased 155 percent over the last ten years, yet tuition has 

continued to rise. In these fiscally challenging times, if government subsidies aren’t 

producing more affordable education in the current system, we cannot just keep 

writing bigger checks. Instead, we need to look to states and postsecondary institutions for creative solutions to the college cost conundrum. 

In a previous hearing, this subcommittee explored ways some colleges and universities are working to streamline costs and reduce the burden for students. Grace 

College and Seminary President Dr. Ronald Manahan described the value of accelerated degree programs that allow students to graduate in less time, and Colorado 

Mesa University President Tim Foster explained how his school’s innovative work 

study program has been beneficial to students and the school’s bottom line. 

Today, we will learn about state-led initiatives to tackle the college cost problem. 

As our economy continues to falter, it’s no secret many states are hard-pressed to 

match the levels of support they’ve invested in higher education in previous years. 

Despite these challenging circumstances, some state officials are developing inventive programs and policies that provide students more affordable options on the path 

to a postsecondary degree. 

For example, Indiana and Pennsylvania have successfully implemented ‘‘pay for 

performance’’ funding structures, in which states set aside a certain percentage of 

funds for higher education programs with the best retention, completion, and placement rates. As one of our witnesses will discuss today, the benefit of ‘‘pay for performance’’ is two-fold: Not only do these structures offer colleges a financial incentive to raise the bar, they also provide another layer of accountability to ensure limited taxpayer resources are being used wisely. 

Recognizing not all learning occurs in a traditional classroom setting, colleges and 

universities in Minnesota and Vermont now offer prior learning assessments. These 

tests determine whether the knowledge a student has obtained through previous 

education or work experience merits college credit. And when these tests are implemented for each student, they help eliminate instructional redundancies and spare 
4 

students the cost of courses that would attempt to teach them skills they already 

possess. Other states, such as Ohio, require all public universities to offer accelerated degree programs that provide students the option to earn their degree in less 

time, for less money. 

To help lower the tuition bill, some students opt to take courses at a less expensive community college and then complete their degree program at a public fouryear institution. Officials in some states, including Louisiana, Florida, and my home 

state of North Carolina, have acknowledged the fiscal practicality of this approach 

and implemented comprehensive articulation agreements to make it easier for students to transfer credits to another public institution within the same state. We are 

fortunate today to have a witness from the Louisiana Community and Technical 

College System who will discuss how students are benefitting from these agreements. 

Before I yield to my colleague, Rube ́n Hinojosa, I’d like to make one thing clear. 

I know all of us have the best of intentions when it comes to helping students afford 

a college education. And we all agree debt should not be a foregone conclusion in 

higher education. However, we must not forget heavy-handed federal regulations 

often yield results contradictory to their aim, weighing down states with another 

layer of burdensome red tape. Instead of leveraging new mandates on states and 

institutions, we should encourage innovation by continuing to highlight the successful efforts being made at the state and local level. 

I look forward to a productive discussion with my colleagues and our witnesses 

on ways states are working to keep college within reach for more students. I now 

recognize the ranking member, Mr. Hinojosa, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

I would like to thank our distinguished witnesses for joining us 

today to discuss State-led efforts to curb college costs, as the chairwoman made in her opening remarks. I am also eager to learn 

more about the strategies that a number of States are taking to 

maintain affordability, accessibility, diversity, and student success 

in higher education. 

As ranking member of this subcommittee, I am deeply concerned 

that college costs continue to rise at unprecedented levels and of 

the ever-increasing amount of debt that students are being burdened with. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, total outstanding student loan debt surpassed $1 trillion late 

last year. 

As costs to educate have increased, students have been forced to 

shoulder the additional cost burden. In 2012, student tuition made 

up 43 percent of higher education spending. According to the State 

Higher Education Executive Officers Association, that is a fact. By 

contrast, in 1986, student tuition comprised only 23 percent of 

higher education spending. To make matters worse, State funding 

per full-time equivalent student declined 23 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars over the last 10 years. 

In the past several years, Democrats have taken bold steps to address rising costs through increased transparency and investments 

in federal aid. 

With the passage of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility 

Act, known as SAFRA, in the year 2010, the Democratic-led Congress provided $36 billion in additional Pell Grant funding, as well 

as $2.55 billion in targeted investments for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, better known as HBCUs, as well as for Hispanic-Serving Institutions, known as HSIs, Tribal Colleges and 

Universities, Predominantly Black Institutions, Asian American 

and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions to bolster STEM education. 
5 

It is important to note that HBCUs and minority-serving institutions like I enumerated are some of the most affordable colleges 

and universities in our nation’s higher education system. 

Most recently, the passage of the Moving Ahead For Progress in 

21st Century Act kept interest rates on need-based student loans 

from doubling in July of this year, saving 7.4 million students an 

average of $1,000 in borrowing costs over the life of their loan. I 

would also like to underscore that the Obama administration has 

redoubled efforts to increase transparency of college costs through 

additional institutional reporting requirements and new tools for 

consumers to better understand the costs and financial aid. 

Clearly, federal investments in higher education are critical to 

student success. This is especially true for low-income, for first-generation college and minority students. At the same time, States and 

colleges and universities must do their part to keep college affordable, promote on-time graduation, and create and strengthen articulation agreements that help students transfer credit and earn 

their degrees. 

While this is a tall order, I am confident that State leaders and 

institutions, as are being represented today by our panelists, can 

do more to rein in college costs without sacrificing quality, without 

sacrificing equity, and diversity. 

In closing, I want to say that if students can afford the cost of 

their college education they are more likely to lead healthy and 

prosperous lives and use their degrees to contribute to our nation’s 

workforce and economy. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on how States 

and institutions can work together and help all students afford the 

cost of a high-quality postsecondary education, and I thank you. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

I would like to thank our distinguished witnesses for joining us today to discuss 

state-led efforts to curb college costs. I am eager to learn more about the strategies 

that a number of states are leading to maintain affordability, accessibility, diversity 

and student success in higher education. 

As Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I am deeply concerned that college 

costs continue to rise at unprecedented levels and of the ever-increasing amount of 

debt that students are being burdened with. According to the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB), total outstanding student loan debt surpassed $1 trillion 

late last year. 

As costs to educate have increased, students have been forced to shoulder the additional cost burden. In 2012, student tuition made up 43.3% of higher education 

spending, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association 

(SHEEO). By contrast, in 1986, student tuition comprised 23% of higher spending. 

To make matters worse, state funding per full time equivalent student declined by 

23% in inflation adjusted dollars over the last decade. 

In the past several years, Democrats have taken bold steps to address rising costs 

through increased transparency and investments in federal aid. 

With the passage of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) in 

2010, the Democratic led Congress provided $36 billion in additional Pell grant 

funding and $2.55 billion in targeted investments for Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Tribal Colleges and 

Universities (TCUs), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs) and the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions to bolster STEM 

education. 
6 

It’s important to note that HBCUs and Minority-Serving institutions are some of 

the most affordable colleges and universities in our nation’s higher education system. 

Most recently, the passage of the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in 21st Century 

Act’’ kept interest rates on need-based student loans from doubling in July, saving 

7.4 million students $1,000 in borrowing costs over the life of their loan. I would 

also like to underscore that the Obama Administration has redoubled efforts to increase transparency of college costs through additional institutional reporting requirements and new tools for consumers to better understand costs and financial 

aid. Clearly, federal investments in higher education are critical to student success; 

this is especially true for low-income, first-generation college, and minority students. 

At the same time, states and colleges and universities must do their part to keep 

college affordable, promote on-time graduation, and create and strengthen articulation agreements that help students transfer credit and earn their degrees. 

While this is a tall order, I am confident that state leaders and institutions can 

do more to rein in college costs, without sacrificing quality, equity, and diversity. 

If students can afford the cost of their college education, they are more likely to 

lead healthy and prosperous lives and use their degrees to contribute to our nation’s 

workforce and economy. 

In closing, I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on how states and institutions can help all students afford the cost of a high quality postsecondary education. 

Thank You. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

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

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record 

will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous materials referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

[An additional submission of Mrs. Foxx follows:] 

EXCELSIOR COLLEGE, 

July 24, 2012. 

Hon. VIRGINIA FOXX, Chairwoman, 

House Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee, 1230 LHOB, Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRWOMAN FOXX: Per our conversation, I am grateful for your accommodation to include my supplemental testimony as part of the official record for your 

recent hearing titled ‘‘Keeping College Within Reach: Exploring State Efforts to 

Curb Costs’’ which was held on Wednesday, July 18, 2012. 

Excelsior College is most grateful for your commitment to keeping college costs 

low and for your great work on behalf of higher education. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN F. EBERSOLE, 

President. 

Prepared Statement of John Ebersole, LPD, President, Excelsior College 

Chairwoman Foxx and Members of the Committee, I am grateful for the inclusion 

of my testimony as part of the official record on the hearing titled ‘‘Keeping College 

Within Reach: Exploring State Efforts to Curb Costs.’’ 

In addition to the ideas and concepts presented to your committee during its recent hearings on college affordability, I would like to add the following: 

1. Improve the credit transfer process. It is inefficient and costly to require students to repeat course work simply because they satisfied a particular degree requirement at a different institution. In academic year 2010-2011, Excelsior College 

(a regionally accredited, non-profit, adult-serving institution created by the Regents 

of the State of New York in 1971) enrolled about 12,500 new students. On average, 

these adult students presented five transcripts for review and evaluation. From 

these, Excelsior accepted over 600,000 credits toward Excelsior’s established degree 

requirements as approved by the State of New York. At our tuition rate of $355 per 

credit, Excelsior saved these students, their families, employers and the American 

taxpayer over $200 million, in one year alone. 
7 

2. Accept credit for non-collegiate instruction that has been reviewed by the American Council on Education, such as military and corporate training. 

3. Accept credit for prior learning that has been assessed by such credible entities 

as the Council on Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), for work and life experience. 4. Accept credit earned through such psychometrically valid, nationally normed, 

assessments as those of The College Board (CLEP), the Educational Testing Service 

(DSST), and Excelsior College (Excelsior College Examinations and UExcel Exams). 

5. Offer instruction on a year round basis. This would both reduce living costs by 

one year and allow graduates to enter the workforce a year earlier. While most traditional institutions offer a summer program, they often do not recognize the credits 

earned toward degree requirements. This is inefficient and driven by business considerations, rather than academic quality, in most cases. 

6. Consolidate libraries. In the digital age, it is no longer necessary to maintain 

large inventories of books and journals at every institute of higher education. A single, full-service library can support the students of multiple institutions, as Johns 

Hopkins now does for a number of online institutions, including Excelsior College. 

Imagine the savings if all public institutions in a given state were serviced by a single, online mega-library, with the staff and technology to support all of the state’s 

public higher education institutions. 

7. Reduce or consolidate state and federal regulations that have been imposed on 

higher education, using some form of cost-benefit analysis or needs test. Since the 

2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the American Council on Education states that 150 new regulations have been imposed on higher education. Each 

of these requires expending staff time to review, evaluate applicability, ensure compliance and provide reporting. Frequently, these regulations are required of all institutions to solve a problem created by a few. For instance, the abuse of credit hour 

criteria by two institutions has resulted in a national definition of ‘‘credit hour’’ that 

cannot be used by online education providers and flies in the face of efforts to move 

from ‘‘inputs’’ to ‘‘outputs’’ (results) as a means of determining return on investment. 

Compliance with ‘‘state authorization’’ regulations has cost my institution over $300,000 in its first year. The requirements proposed by the ‘‘Military and Veterans 

Educational Reform Act of 2012’’ (Senate Bills 2179, 2006 and 2241) will cost Excelsior College another $200,000, if enacted as proposed. This $500,000 that my institution will need to pay, on a recurring basis, becomes more than $2 billion when 

multiplied by the approximately 4,600 regionally accredited institutions that will 

need to comply. Administrative expense, the primary category of cost created by new 

regulations, is growing at a rate 3 to 4 times greater than for academic staff or faculty. These positions are for risk managers, compliance officers, legal counsel and 

government affairs staff. Their salaries are a significant part of the cost that the 

nation is experiencing in rising tuition expense. 

8. Provide incentives for institutions to reduce their costs. Excelsior College is 

home to the largest pre-licensure nursing program in the nation with approximately 

14,000 associate degree-seeking students. It is a ‘‘career ladder’’ program that only 

admits persons with existing clinical experience such as licensed practical nurses, 

paramedics and military corpsmen. Our School of Nursing has been designated, 

three consecutive times, as a Center of Excellence in Nursing Education by the National League for Nursing. 

Yet, none of the students in this particular degree program are eligible for Title 

IV financial aid because this low cost, competency-based model has been deemed an 

‘‘independent study program’’ by the Department of Education and is, therefore, excluded from Title IV participation. 

However, if Excelsior moves this accredited program from its current competencybased model, where the costs are a few hundred dollars per assessment, to an online 

instructional model, increasing the cost to over $1,000 per course, the program 

would become federal aid eligible. Similarly, recent Congressional discussions of the 

Pell Grant program have led to consideration of a new ‘‘total cost of attendance’’ formula for online students that actually penalizes those who attend low tuition programs. 

9. Reduce ‘‘residency requirements’’ for adult students. Many traditional institutions require that all graduates earn at least 30 units from their institution, regardless of available transfer credit, as well as complete their final work at that school. 

Some institutions even require that all of the final 30 units be in ‘‘residency.’’ For 

mobile adult students this may mean that they have to complete more than the 120 

semester units typically required for a bachelor’s degree. Such students, for example, may come to an institution with more than 100 units available for transfer, but 

still will need to complete at least 30 more to earn their degree because of lack of 

transfer acceptance and residency requirements. 
8 

10. Make greater use of online technology. After nearly 30 years of evaluation, 

most objective observers have come to the conclusion that there is ‘‘no substantive 

difference’’ between outcomes achieved online and those attained in a classroom. As 

a result, nearly two-thirds of all accredited institutions are now offering at least 

some credit-bearing programs online. This includes some of the most prestigious institutions in the world. Yet, many of these still attempt to ease on-campus classroom 

shortages through the construction of costly new buildings rather through the 

‘‘blended’’ use of online technology, combining online with on-campus class sessions. 

The capacity of existing space could be doubled or tripled depending upon the number of class meetings which would occur with virtual interactions in addition to 

those conducted face-to-face. 

11. Provide greater access to college courses to high school seniors. The 12th year 

of secondary education is often referred to as ‘‘a wasted year.’’ This need not be the 

case if seniors are expected to complete college-level, general education courses 

(breadth requirements) as part of their final year. While some do take College Board 

AP courses for this purpose, there is insufficient availability or support for these 

programs to create the kind of ‘‘running start’’ that will benefit college completion 

and real cost reduction. With the plethora of high quality Open Education Resource 

courses increasingly moving online and validation of learning assessments that are 

available, access can be easily expanded. 

12. Combine Open Education Resource (OER) courses with nationally reviewed 

and approved assessments to award low cost degrees. By vetting that OER material 

which maps directly to subject matter assessments that are readily available from 

ETS, The College Board and Excelsior College, students can study independently (or 

with tutors) with assurance that their studies and the assessments are aligned. For 

those who have discipline and motivation to satisfy degree requirements in this 

fashion, the cost of a bachelor’s degree can be as little as $10,000 for someone with 

little or no prior credit, or considerably less for those with accumulated transfer 

credit. 

Excelsior College is proud of the fact that it has adopted and perfected a variety 

of tools for assessing prior learning and for applying these to rigorous State of New 

York degree requirements. Over the College’s 40 years it has graduated nearly 

150,000 individuals, primarily adult learners, with a quality degree. It has done this 

at an average cost per student, per year, of $1,600 according to 2010 IPEDS data. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address your subcommittee. 

Chairwoman FOXX. It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

Mr. Scott Pattison is the Executive Director of the National Association of State Budget Officers, the professional membership organization for State budget and finance officers. Prior to his current 

role, Mr. Pattison served as Virginia’s State budget officer for 4 

years, headed the Regulatory and Economic Analysis Section of the 

Virginia Department of Planning and Budget, and served on the 

Virginia Debt Capacity Advisory Board. 

Ms. Teresa Lubbers became Indiana’s Commissioner for Higher 

Education under Governor Mitch Daniels in 2009 following a 17- 

year career as a Republican member of the Indiana State Senate. 

During her tenure in the legislature, she chaired the Education 

and Career Development Committee. 

Mr. Stan Jones is the current President and founder of Complete 

College America. He has been involved in higher education for 

three decades, serving as Indiana’s Commissioner of Higher Education, a State legislator, and a senior adviser to former Governor 

Evan Bayh. 

Dr. Joe May is the President of the Louisiana Community and 

Technical College System, the management board for the State’s 14 

public 2-year institutions. Prior to joining the system in 2006, Dr. 

May was Senior Vice President for Best Associates, a private equity 

group in Dallas, Texas, where he provided operational leadership 

for new higher education ventures. 
9 

Before I recognize you 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 one minute is left, the light will turn yellow; and when 

your time has expired, the light will turn red, at which point I ask 

you to 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 Mr. Pattison for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT PATTISON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BUDGET OFFICERS 

Mr. PATTISON. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 

Hinojosa and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting 

me to appear today on behalf of the nation’s State budget and finance officers. 

Since 1945, NASBO has been the professional organization for 

the State budget officers; and I commend the subcommittee for examining this important issue of keeping higher education costs 

within the reach of all Americans. Today, what I would like to do 

is briefly provide you a fiscal context for continued examination of 

this important issue. 

Since the beginning of the most recent recession, the State fiscal 

landscape has dramatically changed, as I think most of you know. 

The bottom line is State revenue and State funding will be slower 

growing than usual, and therefore there will be very stiff competition for every dollar that the States have. For the last 3 fiscal 

years, for example, State budget growth is running at about half 

of what it used to run prior to the recession in terms of growth, 

and we expect that slower growth to continue. In fact, many economists use the term ‘‘the new normal,’’ and we at the State level are 

certainly experiencing that. 

Demand for funding for everything from Medicaid, health care, 

K-12 education, prisons, transportation, and, of course, higher education is extremely high; and the bottom line is there simply won’t 

be enough money to go around. So, therefore, in this new funding 

environment, now more than ever, public higher education officials, 

institutions, State government, in fact, every level of State government, local government, federal government, will need to work together to figure out how to improve access and performance while 

spending resources wisely and efficiently and, yes, frankly, figuring 

out how to cut costs. 

Because of balanced budget requirements and other restraints, it 

is true that the proportion of State funding for higher education 

has indeed decreased over the past decade and that over the years 

the State funding for higher education has been rather volatile and 

up and down. However, I do want to note that State funding has 

increased for higher education even in this environment; and, interestingly, when fiscal times are good, an examination of the data 

demonstrates that States are actually more generous to higher education on average than to other parts of State government. 

But, unfortunately, when you look at the data during recessions 

and downturns, States are less generous to higher education. And 

part of that is higher education has alternative sources of funding 
10 

and so, from a practical standpoint, for better or for worse, there 

is an ability to cost shift, which certainly occurs. 

I want to note that the proportion of State funds going for higher 

education went from about 11 percent in 2001 down to 10 percent 

in fiscal year 2011, and a lot of this is due to the increased spending on Medicaid and K-12 education. And, even so, State funds to 

higher education have increased in nominal dollars in the last decade by about 50 percent. 

I also want to note you can use statistics in many different ways, 

as we all know, but State governments still remain a very critical 

and important source of funding for public higher education. In fiscal year 2010, for example, 53 percent of the general operating educational expenses were supported by State funds. And we shouldn’t 

overlook that capital spending from the State is extremely important. States for years have issued billions of dollars in bonds to 

fund public university capital projects. 

Now, as I mentioned, higher education for States is important 

and popular; and so when the resources are there, they tend to be 

more generous than average for them. But, unfortunately, resources are cut more during downturns. As a result, funding for 

higher education at the State level, again because of balanced 

budget requirements and other constraints, tends to be rather volatile. 

But going forward there is going to be a need for a new approach 

to higher education finance. With resources scarce, as I mentioned, 

State officials are going to increasingly expect improved efficiency 

and tying funding at higher education to outcomes and results. Because there is simply not enough money to go around for all of the 

areas of State government like Medicaid, health care, K-12, and so 

forth. 

In addition, and you are seeing some of this and we are going 

to hear more about this today, but you need to see more of an adoption of innovative reforms, changes in financing structure, so that 

you are tying funds to performance and results. 

One of the things I know over time a general concept I want to 

mention is the importance of providing States with flexibility so 

that they can allocate their resources based on the need and evidence and not have constraints such as maintenance of effort requirements, which provide disincentives for providing maybe a big 

bump in funding during a particularly good year. 

So NASBO commends the subcommittee on their attention to 

this very crucial and timely issue. Obviously, it is extremely important. So I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 50 State budget officers. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Pattison follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Scott D. Pattison, Executive Director, 

National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 

Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to appear before you today on behalf of the budget and 

finance officers of the nation’s 50 states and territories. For over 60 years, the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) has been the professional membership organization for state budget and finance officers. As chief financial advisors 

to our nation’s governors, NASBO members are influential decision makers in state 

government. They guide their states in analysis of budget options and formation of 

sound public policy. 
11 

Fiscal Outlook: A New Era for State Budgeting 

The state fiscal landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. Even with 

a recovering economy, the fiscal environment for state higher education support is 

expected to be very different and much more constrained compared to past decades. 

State budgets continue to be impacted by the recent recession, and funding for all 

areas of state government, including higher education, is expected to be constrained. 

This is because future state spending is likely to grow more slowly than in past decades, meaning that resources will continue to be limited for years to come. At the 

same time, the demand for funding continues to rise in a number of high-priority 

program areas, particularly Medicaid. As a result, competition for state funds is and 

will continue to be stiff, leaving support for traditional higher education funding arrangements possibly permanently and unalterably different from the past. 

The fiscal challenges facing state governments are largely tied to the fact that a 

few program areas consume very large shares of state budgets. As shown in the figure below, elementary and secondary education and Medicaid—the two largest state 

expenditure areas—together consumed nearly 44% of all estimated state expenditures for fiscal 2011. 

The relative size of these two spending areas is even more prominent when just 

looking at expenditures out of states’ general funds, which are states’ own source 

funds over which they have more control and discretion. As shown below, in fiscal 

2011, K-12 and Medicaid expenditures were estimated to account for over half all 

state general fund spending. Both areas are generally top funding priorities for 

states, leaving state officials with limited room in their budgets to make program 

adjustments to close gaps when necessary. Thus, in severe revenue downturns, state 

officials face constituent and political pressures to avoid K-12 education and Medicaid budget cuts, forcing difficult choices and spending cuts—at times severe—to 

other areas of state spending, in particular higher education. 
12 

According to NASBO’s Spring 2012 Fiscal Survey of States report, state fiscal conditions are projected to continue slowly improving in fiscal 2013, although general 

fund expenditures and revenues remain below pre-recession levels in many states.1

The national economic recovery is causing aggregate state tax collections to increase, prompting general fund expenditure growth and a further restoration of 

budgetary reserves. Governors’ recommended spending plans deliver a relatively 

positive outlook for many states, but valid concerns persist with slowing general 

fund expenditure growth rates compared to fiscal 2012, constrained revenue growth 

and a lingering high unemployment rate. Such concerns ensure budgetary challenges will continue for states in fiscal 2013 and possibly beyond. Thus, though revenue growth could help mitigate the funding squeeze and restore more resources for 

critical areas that were cut during the recession, the fiscal situation will entail 

budgetary decisions that must balance the recent rise in Medicaid costs over the 

past two years with increased demand for education and other state services. In this 

new funding environment, now more than ever, public higher education institutions 

and state officials will need to work together to improve access and performance 

while spending resources wisely and cutting costs. 

Recent trends in public higher education finance 

Higher education is in stiff competition for state funds and its share of the budget 

has certainly been affected by significant funding increases for large and high priority budget items like health care programs, especially Medicaid. This can be seen 

in the figures below. 
13 

The proportion of state budget dollars directed towards higher education has only 

decreased slightly over the past decade; however, total state spending on higher 

education has increased steadily over time (48 percent between fiscal 2001 and 

2011, without adjusting for inflation),2 except during recessionary periods. On the 

surface this may appear positive, but the actual cost of acquiring a degree from the 

public higher education system has gone up significantly more, placing an ever 

greater reliance on tuition dollars. According to College Board, published tuition and 

fees for four-year public universities and colleges increased by 72 percent, after adjusting for inflation, over roughly the same time period (from 2000-2001 to 2010- 

2011 academic years). In nominal terms (without adjusting for inflation), four-year 

public institution tuition and fees increased by 117 percent.3

And yet, state governments have in the past and continue to be a tremendously 

critical source of funding for public higher education institutions. While public university presidents often claim that state funds may make up a small percentage of 

their institutions’ budgets, these statistics can be misleading, since they include all 

parts of the institution’s budget, including hospital and other expenditures that the 

state has no part in subsidizing. State dollars comprise a much larger share of these 

institutions’ yearly expenditures on educational activities—or on what the Delta 

Cost Project refers to as ‘‘education and related’’ (E&R) expenses per student. Using 

this measure, the national average state subsidy for higher education in 2009 accounted for 48% of E&R spending per student at public research institutions, 51% 

at public master’s institutions, and 68% at community colleges.4
14 

Using a different metric, the share of general operating expenses of higher education institutions supported by the state was 53% for fiscal 2010 according to the 

State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), as displayed in the pie chart 

below. 

In addition to this assistance, states have also historically and annually provided 

enormous financing assistance for capital projects at public universities. States often 

issue bonds for public university capital projects. 

Funding for public higher education has been volatile over time. States usually 

are generous to higher education in good fiscal periods, only to cut significantly during severe revenue downturns. In fact, state funding to higher education experiences 

outright declines during recessionary periods. For instance, state spending for higher education was nearly $62 billion in FY 2002, but dropped slightly to $61.6 billion 

in FY 2003 and was down to roughly $60 billion in FY 2004. Affected again by the 

latest recession, state funds (that is, excluding federal assistance) spent on higher 

education fell by 0.8% between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010; however, when federal 

funds are included in the calculation, total state higher education expenditures went 

up by 0.8% in this period due to increased federal assistance resulting from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Recessions have led to an unfortunate— 

and almost unique—cycle of state funding for higher education. A long-time budget 

director in Ohio and Illinois, the late Hal Hovey provided analysis in the 1990s 

about this volatile cycle in state budgeting. According to Hovey, states use higher 

education as a ‘‘balance wheel’’ during economic downturns. Essentially, states cut 

higher education funding in bad fiscal times (allowing significant tuition increases 

to make up for the reductions) but then dramatically increase higher education 

spending when state revenues rebound. A group convened by the National Center 

for Public Policy in Higher Education (NCPPHE) put it more starkly when they said 

in a 2009 statement, states ‘‘follow past patterns of responding to revenue shortfalls 

by shifting the financial burden [of higher education] to students and their families 

and by shutting out undergraduate students. Even when growth returns, states will 

still face structural budget deficits.’’ 5

More recently additional data on this issue of cyclical funding for higher education 

has been analyzed by William Doyle of Vanderbilt University and Jennifer Delaney 

of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The two authors analyzed data 

on state support for higher education between 1979 and 2007 and demonstrated the 

volatility in higher education funding. Echoing Hovey’s point, they write, ‘‘When 
15 

state revenues are low, higher education is an attractive option for heavy cuts because it has the ability to collect fees for its services (an ability lacking in most 

other state spending categories). When states revenues are high, higher education 

is a politically attractive area on which to spend money.’’ 6 This past recession has 

been no different with declines in state support for higher education (along with significant cuts to nearly all parts of state budgets) and increases in tuition. 

Moving towards a new approach to state higher education finance 

On a nominal basis, state spending growth has averaged 5.5 percent annually 

over the last few decades.7 Economic forecasts for slower growth—the new normal— 

make this scenario unlikely to continue. Based on governors’ recommended fiscal 

2013 budgets, state spending is expected to increase by just 2.2 percent,8 and average spending growth may actually be closer to 3 percent to 4 percent on a nominal 

basis for years to come, in line with slower national economic growth. Consequently, 

even if states want to be generous to higher education, they may not be able to be. 

With resources even scarcer, state Governors and lawmakers are going to be asking 

administrators tough questions about state-supported programs and this will include higher education. State officials will be reluctant to provide funding increases 

unless they know how the money will be spent wisely and that there will be an improvement in program performance. 

State officials, for example, will be less patient with universities that have empty 

classrooms for significant portions of the day, or that cannot accommodate all of the 

students who want a particular course. State officials also will be less patient with 

institutional duplication. Too often, each separate institution within a public university system wants to do what its peers are doing, leading to extensive duplication. 

When the institutions are able to complement each other rather than duplicate, 

funds can be allocated more efficiently. Increases in appropriations for the institutions will need to lead to increased performance in some way. 

According to College Board, over the past five years, average posted tuition and 

fees at public four-year higher education institutions increased at an annual growth 

rate of 5.1% after adjusting for inflation.9 Granted, in some cases universities are 

simply replacing lost state dollars, but state officials still want to understand whether this is always necessary and when institutions should seek to be significantly 

more efficient. One major concern among state officials was raised by a recent study 

that found that much of the new incoming revenue to institutions was not necessarily spent on educating students or producing degrees. There needs to be a serious commitment among state and education policy leaders to set specific goals, align 

spending with those goals, improve degree productivity and improve public accountability. Goals need to be based on the public’s needs not necessarily on the interests 

of individual public institutions. 

Funding has rarely been tied directly to results and performance in the case of 

higher education but the scarce resource environment at the state, and ultimately 

at the federal level, may cause this to change. More and more officials are focusing 

on the importance of accountability. There will be opportunities in the states to 

adopt different approaches to this dilemma and in fact there are some examples to 

examine. At the same time, certain obstacles impede states from tying spending to 

performance, such as the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provision of the 2008 Higher 

Education Opportunity Act. With this requirement in place, states have less flexibility to allocate resources based on need and evidence, and furthermore have a disincentive to make a large or one-time increase in higher education spending in a 

given year. 

The bottom line is: Money will be tight for all areas of state government. The ability of states to fund higher education at previous growth rates may be limited and 

in many states not possible. The old pattern of making up for significant cuts with 

generous increases to higher education when good times return may no longer be 

possible. With resources so scarce, state officials will increasingly expect improved 

efficiency and funding tied to outcomes and results. Working with university systems, state officials can improve the situation by determining ways to provide more 

predictable revenue to higher education. At the same time, public university officials 

will need to understand and acknowledge the ‘‘new normal,’’ and determine ways 

to improve efficiency and performance. 

NASBO commends this subcommittee on their attention to this critical and timely 

issue. Our organization also recognizes the importance of state higher education finance and is very interested in strategies to reform the system to make it work better for all. In light of this, among many other projects, NASBO is partnering with 

the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to have state budget officers engage in an 

open dialogue on the critical issues associated with higher education finance. This 

effort will culminate in a final report offering best practices and recommendations 
16 

in this area. Ultimately, we expect these efforts and the efforts of many other 

groups to lead to the adoption of changes to higher education finance to make it 

more closely tied to successful outcomes. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today on the subject of higher 

education finance and share the perspective of the nation’s state budget officers. 

ENDNOTES

1 National Association of State Budget Officers. The Fiscal Survey of States. (June 2012). 

2 National Association of State Budget Officers. State Expenditure Report. (2002; 2010). 

3The College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges. (2011). 

4Delta Cost Project IPEDS database. www.deltacostproject.org. 

5The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. The Challenge to States: Preserving College Access and Affordability in a Time of Crisis. (March 2009). 6Delaney, Jennifer. A. and William R. Doyle. ‘‘The Role of Higher Education in State Budgets.’’ The Challenges of Comparative State-Level Higher Education Policy Research. Kathleen 

M. Shaw and Donald E. Heller (Sterling, Virginia: Stylus, 2007). 55—76. 7 National Association of State Budget Officers. The Fiscal Survey of States. (June 2010). 

8 National Association of State Budget Officers. The Fiscal Survey of States. (June 2012). 

9The College Board. Trends in Higher Education Series: Trends in College Pricing 2011. 

(2011). 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Pattison. 

Ms. Lubbers, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TERESA LUBBERS, COMMISSIONER FOR 

HIGHER EDUCATION, STATE OF INDIANA 

Ms. LUBBERS. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Teresa Lubbers, and I serve as Commissioner of Indiana’s Coordinating Board for Higher Education. My 

testimony will provide a brief overview of Indiana’s efforts to lower 

student costs and enhance success by improving college affordability and productivity. 

Indiana is ripe for reform in higher education. The State currently ranks 40th in the nation in postsecondary attainment. Capitalizing on that need to reform, the Indiana Commission for Higher Education has adopted an aggressive strategic plan, ‘‘Reaching 

Higher, Achieving More.’’ Ultimately, our goal is quite straightforward: to ensure that more students complete postsecondary credentials on time and at the lowest possible cost. 

Indiana has fared no better than most States in containing the 

costs of postsecondary education over the past two decades. Hoosier 

students borrow an average of $27,000 to finance a college degree, 

and Indiana’s student loan default rate has increased by 35 percent 

over the past 3 years. 

Indiana has weathered the recent recession far better than nearly any other State; and thanks to Governor Mitch Daniels and the 

State’s General Assembly, Indiana’s funding for higher education 

operations has remained essentially stable. In the past decade, Indiana’s allocation for financial aid has actually increased by 90 percent, and during the current biennium it has grown by a generous 

4.5 percent. 

Indiana’s tuition has increased by nearly 100 percent over the 

past decade, while Hoosier per capita personal income has grown 

by only 27 percent. In response, the General Assembly mandated 

that the commission set targets for tuition and fees at the public 

institutions. 
17 

To their credit, Indiana’s public colleges adopted measures that 

lower cost, including decreasing summer tuition, guaranteeing ontime graduation, and increasing aid based on student performance. 

Affordability is also a function of time spent in remediation, excessive credits taken, and credits lost through transfer or poor academic advising. 

Indiana has focused on five opportunities for limiting higher education costs. 

The first, as has been mentioned, is performance funding. Indiana’s performance funding formula has evolved since 2003 to 

prioritize degree completion, on-time completion, the success of atrisk students, and the production of credentials that support Indiana’s economy. Indiana allocated 5 percent of overall State support 

for institutions to performance funding in the past budget and is 

committed to increasing the percentage in the years ahead. 

The second opportunity is creating innovative educational models. As an example, Western Governors University Indiana allows 

students to advance in their degree programs as they master the 

material rather than through credits earned or seat time. 

The third area focuses on accelerated credentials. Ivy Tech Community College enables some students to earn a 2-year degree in 

10 months, while Purdue University’s balanced trimester schedule 

will allow students to obtain a 4-year degree in 3 years. 

Currently, 90 percent of Indiana’s college degree programs exceed 120 or 60 credits. Ball State University has led a statewide 

return to the 120-credit-hour standard, while recently enacted legislation mandates that all public institutions provide justification 

for degree programs that exceed the standard. 

A fourth opportunity is optimizing credit transfer. We have developed a core transfer library of courses that transfer seamlessly 

among public and many private colleges. Additionally, Indiana 

mandated a general education core, which will transfer as a block 

among the State’s public institutions. 

Finally, Indiana seeks to increase the transparency of return on 

its educational investment. Students need to know that, while all 

degrees matter, some matter more in terms of earning, employment 

prospects, and job security. Already, the commission has supported 

the development of a college cost estimator and will launch a return on investment calculator to convey the value proposition of investing in higher education. 

I will conclude with some reflections on the shared responsibility 

which must characterize the discussion of educational affordability 

as we move forward. 

The past two decades have witnessed a perfect storm within 

higher education and the economy. Cost growth among postsecondary institutions has been fueled by the extraordinary institutional investments in technology, facilities, employee benefits, and 

student support staff. 

The recent economic downturn has caused many States to reduce 

their spending on postsecondary operations. And students themselves are not without culpability. Completion rates have stagnated, more students supersede normal graduation timelines, and 

many practice less than sound judgment in borrowing and spending. This perfect storm has resulted in triple-digit percent increases 
18 

in tuition and fees and runaway increases in student debt. Reversing this trend must be a responsibility shared among States, institutions, and students. 

While today’s hearing focuses on some cost considerations, a 

word of caution is warranted. Neither Indiana nor the nation can 

suffer the long-term consequences of building a productive, affordable system of higher education that diminishes academic quality. 

Ensuring affordability at the expense of academic rigor would be a 

hollow victory indeed. To avoid doing so will take thoughtful, collaborative action and metrics to promote quality learning and accountability. 

I am grateful to the members of committee for convening this important discussion and thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The statement of Ms. Lubbers follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Teresa Lubbers, Commissioner, 

Indiana Commission for Higher Education 

Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important subjects of affordability 

and cost containment within higher education. 

My name is Teresa Lubbers, and I serve as commissioner of the Indiana Commission for Higher Education. The commission is a 14-member public body, created in 

1971 to define the missions of Indiana’s public colleges and universities; plan and 

coordinate the state’s postsecondary education system; and ensure that Indiana’s 

higher-education system is aligned to meet the needs of students and the state. 

My testimony will provide a brief overview of the commission’s goals for college 

affordability and productivity; the current cost of higher education in Indiana; and 

how those costs have increased over time. I will describe actions the Commission 

for Higher Education and its partnering state institutions of higher education have 

recently undertaken to contain, and in some cases reduce, the cost of education to 

Indiana residents. I will also mention briefly additional steps that are planned or 

currently in progress to advance the goal of making postsecondary education affordable to all Hoosiers. In particular, I will focus my comments on five areas that the 

commission considers to have great potential in limiting the cost of postsecondarycredential attainment to students and to taxpayers. Those five areas are: performance-based funding, innovative educational-models, accelerated credential-completion, optimization of credit transfer, and transparent means for students and parents to calculate the return on their investments in postsecondary study. 

Reaching Higher, Achieving More 

Indiana is ripe for reform in higher education. The state currently ranks 40th in 

the nation in higher education attainment. Less than a third of Indiana’s four-year 

college students graduate on time, and just over half graduate after six years. Only 

4 percent of the state’s two-year college students complete their credentials on time, 

and merely 12 percent graduate within three years. More than two-thirds of students attending the statewide community college require remediation in math, 

English, or both. 

With the recent economic downturn, the imperative to increase Indiana’s postsecondary attainment was never clearer or more vividly impactful on the lives of the 

state’s workforce. As the graph below describes, the unemployment rate of Indiana 

workers by educational attainment is inversely proportionate to their average weekly earnings. Generally, Hoosiers with postsecondary credentials have weathered the 

recession far better than their less-well educated neighbors; and the higher the educational attainment, the more secure the job and the greater the income. 
19 

While Indiana’s postsecondary attainment lags the national average, and has 

done so historically, the will and call to improve are strong. More Hoosiers than 

ever before recognize that a college credential is their passport to opportunity and 

prosperity, as evident in the recent growth in postsecondary study. Within the past 

five years, enrollment at Indiana’s statewide community-college has increased by 

double-digits, and it has witnessed a remarkable 57 percent increase in associate 

degree production. Moreover, the postsecondary-enrollment rate of recent high 

school graduates is moving in a positive direction, now at 67 percent. Increasingly, 

Indiana’s economy demands better-skilled workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

projects that by 2018, Indiana will have 500,000 job vacancies requiring postsecondary credentials, compared to only 325,000 with high school diplomas. Indiana’s 

legislature is equally committed to improvement, having enacted broad-sweeping reforms to improve the state’s K-12 system, while actually increasing the allocations 

of state funds for financial aid during the recent economic downturn. 

With the need to reform and the commitment to do so at hand, in March 2012, 

the Indiana Commission for Higher Education adopted a new strategic plan, titled 

Reaching Higher, Achieving More. The development of a new plan reflects the evolving environment of higher education, including employer demands for higher-skilled 

workers, the imperative to ensure quality in the credentials produced, the need for 

quicker and alternative pathways to credential attainment, and the fact of ever-increasing costs of tuition and fees. 

To respond to that evolving environment, Reaching Higher, Achieving More envisions a higher-education system grounded in three overarching principles. The system must be student-centered, recognizing the changing needs and demographics of 

Indiana students and placing students at the center of all reform efforts. It must 

be mission driven, recognizing Indiana’s diverse landscape of public and private 

postsecondary institutions, each with a distinct but integrated role within the system. It must be workforce aligned, recognizing the increasing knowledge, skills and 

credential attainment needed for individual lifetime-employment and to ensure Indiana’s economic competitiveness. 

To advance the principles embedded in Reaching Higher, Achieving More, and to 

honor the evolving environment of higher education, the plan calls for action by the 

commission and by Indiana’s public universities in three key areas: completion, productivity and quality. Specific recommendations are set forth to increase credential 

attainment, generally, as well as on-time graduation rates. The plan supports improvements to remedial education; a focus on improved secondary-postsecondary 

alignment; and increases in dual-enrollment courses and other means of accelerating credential completion. It calls upon the colleges and universities to collaborate more fully on instructional delivery, to expand joint-purchasing agreements, 

and to establish annual targets for savings. And the document seeks reform in the 

allocation of state financial-aid awards, facilitated transfer of academic credit, and 

comparable assessments of program quality. While many and aggressive, the objec-
20 

tives contained within the plan are well reasoned; some are reflective of the very 

best practices in higher education nationally, while others are truly innovative in 

concept and approach. 

Ultimately, the goal of Indiana’s environmentally-responsive, integrated system of 

higher education as envisioned in Reaching Higher, Achieving More is quite 

straightforward: to ensure that more students complete postsecondary credentials 

on time and at the lowest possible cost. 

Indiana’s Educational Costs and Financial Aid 

Indiana has fared no better than most states in containing the costs of postsecondary education over the past two decades. Too many Indiana families must borrow large sums to pay for higher education. In fact, Hoosier students borrow an average of $27,000 to finance a college degree, and according to the U.S. Department 

of Education, Indiana’s student loan default rate has increased by 35 percent over 

the past three years. 

It is true that Indiana has weathered the recent national recessionary-period far 

better than nearly all states, attributable to sound fiscal management and prudent 

spending cuts across state agencies. Credit is due to Indiana’s political leadership, 

Governor Mitch Daniels and the state’s General Assembly, for their extraordinary 

efforts to sustain postsecondary funding during a period of significant economic turmoil. Whereas most states have trimmed, and many have eviscerated, their appropriations for public institutions, Indiana’s higher-education funding has remained 

essentially stable in terms of direct-dollars. 

Moreover, recognizing the ever-increasing importance of college access, Indiana 

has nearly doubled its appropriation for student financial-aid over the past decade. 

State student-support has increased by 90 percent, and remarkably, the appropriation has grown by $23 million during the current biennium—a generous 4.5 percent 

increase. Importantly, Indiana’s financial-aid program is primarily needs-based, focused on Hoosiers who would otherwise be challenged to pay the cost of postsecondary study. And since Indiana grants-in-aid follow the students, whether they enroll in public, private or proprietary institutions, students are free to choose the 

school that best fits their needs. 

Nationally, much recent debate has centered on the role of tuition and fee increases in college affordability. The graph below describes tuition increases in comparison to other cost-sectors. Over the past twenty years, tuition and fees have 

grown nearly 300 percent, while other cost-sectors have increased by a fraction of 

that rate. That tuition and fees have outpaced increases in healthcare costs is especially remarkable, given the substantial national-outcry about healthcare affordability. 

Indiana faces the same concerns. Despite Indiana’s efforts to sustain higher education appropriations and increase funding for student financial-aid, state dollars 

simply cannot keep pace with the year-over-year cost increases among postsec-
21 

ondary institutions. The table below describes the increases in tuition and fees at 

Indiana’s public institutions over the past decade, as compared to changes in Hoosier per-capita personal income and the consumer price index. The average tuition 

and fees at Indiana’s public colleges have increased by nearly 100 percent over the 

past decade, while Hoosier per-capita personal income has grown by 27 percent and 

inflation by 24 percent. To address this dramatic increase, the legislature has mandated that the commission set targets for tuition and fees at public institutions and 

requires each institution to hold an open hearing on proposed increases. 

To their credit, Indiana’s public postsecondary-institutions have begun to adopt 

measures that directly lower their costs of tuition and fees. While some measures 

are quite straightforward, others seek to cut costs while also incentivizing student 

achievement. 

• Indiana University, Ball State University and the University of Southern Indiana have lowered their summer-session tuition and fees by as much as 25 percent. 

• Vincennes University has instituted the ‘‘Middle-Income Hoosier Scholarship,’’ 

which provides semesterly tuition reductions to income-qualified students who 

maintain a 2.5 grade-point average. Students who graduate within five semesters 

receive a $250 refund. 

• Indiana State University has launched the ‘‘Sycamore Graduation Guarantee,’’ 

which guarantees eligible students that they will be able to complete a bachelor’s 

degree within four years. If not, they will be able to enroll in remaining courses tuition free. 

While direct reductions in postsecondary tuition and fees are certainly welcome, 

it is widely recognized that college costs, and therefore affordability, are also a function of more indirect variables. The correlation between cost and time spent by students in a course of study is clear. By delaying college completion, time spent in 

remedial courses, a superabundance of academic-credits taken, and academic credits 

lost through transfer or poor academic-advising all contribute to inflated student 

costs. In fact, these factors diminish the likelihood of completion all together; and 

low completion-rates surely increase institutional costs. Moreover, if students’ expected return on their educational investment is not transparent or evident, they 

will be less likely to make good, cost-conscious educational choices, and may not 

make them at all. 

In recognition of the impact of these more indirect drivers of postsecondary costs, 

the Indiana Commission for Higher Education and its partner postsecondary-institutions have committed to a series of reforms as articulated in Reaching Higher, 

Achieving More. Among them, five opportunities for action are particularly noteworthy for their potential to lower the cost of college completion. 

Performance-Based Funding 

The commission believes that funding for our state’s colleges and universities 

should be tied to key values and needs, especially higher graduation rates and credentials that lead to greater economic opportunity for students and the state. 

Historically, support for Indiana’s public colleges and universities had been determined by set increases in state funding, based on the number of students enrolled 

in a given year and adjusted for inflation. In other words, the more students enrolled, the greater the funding colleges received, without respect to how many students actually graduated. A performance-based funding formula represented, therefore, a significant shift from past practice. 
22 

Indiana’s performance-funding formula was first enacted in 2003 as an incentive 

to increase the level of research conducted at the public institutions of higher education. In the intervening years, the formula continued to evolve, expanding upon 

its incipient research-focus to place priority on degree completion, on-time completion, and the success of at-risk students. Indiana allocated 5 percent, approximately 

$61 million, of overall state-support for institutions to performance funding in the 

2011-13 biennial-budget. 

As Indiana plans for its next biennial budget, new performance criteria have been 

established. The refined performance-funding formula complements the existing foci 

by rewarding successful remediation strategies, establishing targets for credit-attainment, and incentivizing institutions to produce graduates in fields that support 

Indiana’s economic-development goals. To honor mission differentiation among the 

state’s colleges and universities, and to support their individual priorities, each institution may also designate a unique metric to be included in its performance formula. The new criteria fit within three high-level foci of performance: 

Completion Metrics 

• Overall Degree Completion—Includes one-year certificates, associate degrees, 

bachelor degrees, master’s degrees and doctoral degrees. 

• At Risk Student Degree Completion—Includes one-year certificates, associate 

degrees and bachelor degrees. Applies to Pell recipients at the time of graduation. 

• High Impact Degree Completion—Includes bachelor degrees, master’s degrees 

and doctoral degrees in STEM-related fields. STEM is defined as Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, based on national standards. This metric applies only to research campuses. 

Progress Metrics 

• Student Persistence Incentive—Provides an incentive for students successfully 

completing a set number of credit hours. Two-year institutions are rewarded for students earning 15, 30 and 45 credit hours; four-year, non-research campuses are rewarded for students earning 30 and 60 credit hours. The metric applies only to community colleges and non-research four-year institutions. 

• Remediation-Success Incentive—Provides an incentive to two-year institutions 

for students who successfully complete a remedial course and subsequently complete 

a gateway college-level course in math and English. 

Productivity Metric 

• On-Time Graduation Rate—Provides an incentive for increased on-time graduation rates at two- and four-year institutions. On-time graduation rate is considered 

four years for four-year institutions and two years for two-year institutions. 

Institutional Defined Productivity Metric—This metric is defined by each institution and submitted to the commission for approval. The metric must align with the 

strategic plan of the institution and focus on reducing the cost of attendance to the 

student. Although differing by institution, the goal is to rewarding institutions for 

improving productivity in some manner. 

Indiana is widely recognized as a national leader for advancing an effective performance-based formula for higher education funding, and it is a practice we advocate for consideration among other states, as well. With the staunch support of Governor Daniels and members of the General Assembly, Indiana has made performance funding a foundational principle of public support for our higher-education system, and the state is also committed to increasing the percentage of overall institutional support allocated through performance in the years ahead. 

Innovative Educational-Models 

Increasingly, Indiana’s college students are a diverse group from all ages and 

backgrounds who are working (often full time), commuting to campus, and balancing 

their academic work with family obligations. The changing demands of Hoosier students requires new approaches to the delivery of higher education, embracing flexibility and expanding options that support student learning at the time, place and 

pace that best fits an individual’s unique needs and circumstances. Within Indiana’s 

system of public postsecondary institutions, several innovative models meet those 

changing demands. 

Western Governors University-Indiana fills a unique role among higher-education 

institutions. WGU-Indiana is a fully-online university that allows students to advance in their degree programs as they master the material rather than through 

credits-earned or time-spent in class. WGU-Indiana’s competency-based approach 

caters specifically to working adults, enabling motivated students to earn bachelor 

and master’s degrees faster and at lower cost than they could otherwise. Moreover, 
23 

WGU-Indiana offers the state’s community college graduates full transfer-credit for 

prior coursework, an application fee waiver, and a 5 percent tuition discount. 

Ivy Tech Community College also employs a competency-based approach through 

its Ivy Institute of Technology. The Institute delivers academic programs that are 

structured around industry-recognized certifications in such high demand areas as 

manufacturing, computing technology, and logistics. The 30-week programs are offered as a single progression of skill acquisition within a fixed daily class schedule 

of 6 hours per day. The self-contained instructional day includes all academic activity, allowing students to engage in evening employment, if necessary. The curricula 

are delivered through self-paced, computer-based instruction, and are facilitated by 

a content-expert, certified faculty. At the completion of the program, students earn 

a certificate of completion and are eligible to sit for one or more nationally-recognized certification exams. 

In addition to these competency-based models, Indiana actively encourages the 

state’s colleges and universities to award credit for prior learning. Through competency-based assessments that evaluate the knowledge and skills individuals have 

mastered in their work and related experiences, students earn credit, thereby shortening the length of their formal studies. 

Taken together, these and other innovative educational-models are providing more 

options for students to complete postsecondary studies, while ensuring academic 

quality. 

Accelerated Credential Completion 

Recognizing that time is the enemy of completion, the commission increasingly 

emphasizes on-time and accelerated degree completion. In addition to the on-time 

completion component of the performance funding formula noted previously, several 

of the state’s postsecondary institutions are implementing alternative course-delivery and scheduling options that enable students to earn an associate degree in one 

year and a bachelor’s degree in three years. 

Ivy Tech Community College’s Associate Accelerated Program (ASAP), a highlystructured associate degree program enables students to earn a two-year degree in 

10 months. The accelerated program is intensive, applying rigorous interventions to 

address remediation needs and requiring students to be on campus 40 hours each 

week for coursework and group study. Designed specifically for students from lowincome households, the ASAP program targets students during the critical transition period from high school to college. As participants in ASAP, students are encouraged to think of college as a job, and to that end, they are provided with a stipend of $5,200 per year, which covers living expenses and encourages them to make 

coursework their first priority. This focus also ensures that students learn critical 

soft skills, including the importance of arriving on time, staying on schedule, and 

working collaboratively with others. 

Purdue University is transitioning to a balanced trimester schedule in an effort 

to streamline students’ path to graduation and to increase institutional operatingefficiency. Offering a third semester each year will allow students to complete a 

four-year degree in as little as three years, saving students both time and money 

in the process. When fully implemented, Purdue estimates that the trimester initiative could provide $40 million in additional revenue for the university and would 

support better use of classrooms, residence halls and other campus facilities during 

the summer months. 

Eliminating excessive credit requirements is another effective strategy for supporting on-time and accelerated degree completion. Credit requirements have steadily increased nationwide over the years, and currently, nearly 90 percent of Indiana 

college degree programs exceed the historical standard of 120 credit hours for a 

bachelor’s degree (four years of full-time attendance) and 60 credits for an associate 

degree (two years of full-time attendance). Ball State University has led a statewide 

return to the 120 credit-hour standard for all bachelor’s degrees offered by that institution. Further, recent-enacted legislation mandates public institutions to provide 

justification for degree programs that exceed the standard, and establishes an ongoing audit-process that empowers the commission to enforce the statute. 

Building on this recent progress, Indiana is currently exploring related on-time 

and accelerated completion incentives for students. Possible policy directions include 

encouraging full-time students to take 30 credit hours per year and potentially capping state financial aid for students who accumulate excessive credits. 

Optimization of Credit-Transfer 

College becomes more affordable when students are able to transfer without losing 

credit, take courses from less expensive colleges before transferring, succeed after 

transferring with a strong foundation for subsequent coursework, and easily access 
24 

reliable information about their transfer options. To these ends, Indiana has, over 

the past ten years: • Created a statewide comprehensive community college system; • Undertaken curricular innovations; • Facilitated ways high school students can earn college credit; and • Utilized technology to inform students about transfer opportunities. 

Indiana has the only statewide community college system that is accredited as a 

single institution. Such an approach facilitates transfer of credit, providing a single 

curriculum and common syllabi for each credential statewide. Moreover, transfer 

agreements with four-year institutions are more readily maintained; and the community college’s accreditation as a single institution promotes system-wide quality. 

For nearly a decade, the Commission for Higher Education has worked with the 

state’s institutions of higher education to develop a legislatively-mandated Core 

Transfer Library (CTL) of some 85 courses. All courses in the CTL transfer to all 

public institutions, and many private colleges participate in the CTL on a voluntary 

basis, as well. To supplement the CTL, the commission worked closely with the Indiana General Assembly during the last legislative session to establish a common 

statewide-transfer general-education core, which, when completed, will transfer as 

a block of 30 credits to any of the state’s public institutions. Notably, the general 

education core is to be based on a set of competencies—what students are able to 

know and do—rather than a standard set of distribution requirements of credits. 

The legislation also calls for a common course-numbering system to reduce confusion among institutions and students, alike. 

To increase public transparency in credit transfer, the commission maintains a 

comprehensive TransferIN website that helps students to understand how completed courses transfer between colleges and to avoid wasting time and money on 

duplicative coursework. Students are also able to determine how a specific course 

they are contemplating will transfer to another institution, if at all. 

Indiana has also worked to provide students with more opportunities to complete 

college-level coursework while in high school. By statute, each Indiana high school 

must offer a minimum of two dual-credit and Advanced Placement courses, and the 

state has made a concerted effort to expand the numbers of students completing 

these rigorous courses. From 2006-2011, Indiana increased the percentage of high 

school graduates passing AP exams from 7.5 percent to 14 percent, while dual-credit 

course-taking increased by 317 percent to include more than 43,000 students. To 

support affordable access to dual credit courses, state law also gives the Commission 

for Higher Education the authority to limit the cost charged to students by the Indiana’s public colleges and universities. For 2011-2013, that cost was capped at $25 

per credit hour. The commission has also put in place quality-control mechanisms 

to ensure that dual-credit courses are truly college-level courses. 

With these reforms, Indiana has made important strides in ensuring the 

fungibility of coursework between a less-expensive community college and a fouryear institution. Students who begin their education at a community college will be 

able to transfer their credits seamlessly to four-year schools. Likewise, four-year students who discover a community college or a different university to be a better fit, 

will not lose academic credit. These efforts will undoubtedly help make college more 

affordable to students and lead to greater student success. 

Transparent Return on Education Investment 

As the cost of postsecondary education rises, students and their families are increasingly called upon to finance tuition and fees through personal savings or student loans. As noted above, the average Hoosier student now graduates with 

$27,000 in college debt. In making investments in college study, students and families alike, increasingly seek assurance that they will realize a return, in employment 

opportunity, in job security and in financial remuneration. 

Although there is no single measure, data point or piece of evidence that will fully 

satisfy that need for assurance, a number of sources of information can be assembled to help students and their families make good investment choices. One important data point is presented in the chart on page two of this document, describing 

the inverse proportionality between unemployment risk and wages produced as academic attainment increases. A multiplicity of data demonstrate the truism that 

while all postsecondary degrees matter, some matter more in terms of postgraduate 

earnings-level, employment prospects, and job security. Other data attest to the differential quality of education among institutions, demonstrating that the same degree, earned from disparate institutions, frequently results in widely-varying employment prospects and salary levels. 

The whorl of these data points and other information about postsecondary outcomes begs for improved aggregation, accessibility and transparency; and sound ad-
25 

vice on appropriate debt-levels should be part of the calculus. The goal of this ambitious project is support for students and their families in appreciating the value 

proposition in higher education—in making reasoned and informed judgments about 

their financial investments in postsecondary study and understanding the value of 

what they stand to yield from them. 

The Commission for Higher Education has embarked on such a project to bring 

that information into a one-stop, user-friendly, easily-accessible format for Hoosier. 

When complete, the utility will allow students to discern their interests and values 

for a professional career; to identify those careers that best fit their aspirations and 

financial goals; to discover which academic programs and postsecondary credentials 

lead to that career; to learn which institution meet their personal and academic 

needs, and those of employers; to obtain precise information about available financial aid; and to understand how their own monetary contributions should best support their education. 

Indiana has already made good progress on the project. Learn More Indiana is 

a communication and outreach initiative that guides students through a series of 

questions and exercises designed to help them plan, prepare and pay for postsecondary studies. Planning includes completing the Indiana Career Explorer interest 

and values inventory and investigating universities and colleges with the College 

Navigator developed by the Institute of Education Sciences. The Preparing section 

counsels students in good study habits and leads them to explore careers through 

information provided by the United States Department of Labor. And when it comes 

to Paying, students are directed to the commission-supported College Cost Estimator, a robust tool that uses family-specific income information and demographic 

data to predict, quite accurately, their anticipated costs at any Indiana college or 

university. 

Within the coming months, the assistance already available at Learn More Indiana will be supplemented by a Return on Investment Calculator. The calculator will 

frame the value proposition inherent in higher education, generally, as well as the 

anticipated returns on making specific choices about college major, degree type, institution and cost. Moreover, the commission has begun scoping a prescription, likely in the form of a percent on post-graduation earnings, that will provide students 

and their families solid advice on appropriate debt-levels for their postsecondary 

education. 

The commission anticipates that, equipped with fuller information about their interests, institutional quality, major-to-career options, employment prospects, financial aid and borrowing, students will be empowered to make the good decisions 

about their postsecondary study and will understand that a sound and appropriate 

financial commitment will produce lasting dividends. 

Summary 

I will conclude with some reflections on the shared responsibility which must 

characterize the discussion of educational affordability as we move forward. 

The past two decades, right up to the present, have witnessed a perfect storm 

within higher education and the economy. Cost growth among postsecondary institutions has been fueled by the emergence of widespread information-technology and 

the need to make extraordinary capital investments to facilitate learning and to 

support administrative needs. Many universities have made costly investments in 

residence halls, fitness centers, and other high-visibility facilities, as well as student 

support staff, in an on-going race to attract students who place a premium on such 

amenities. 

Concomitantly, evolving employer demand for a highly-skilled workforce has required more students to seek postsecondary study, placing further pressure on institutions to expand their offerings and facilities to accommodate burgeoning enrollment. Complicating these upward pressures on cost, the recent national economicdownturn has caused many states to contract their spending on postsecondary operations. Students themselves are not without culpability: postsecondary completion 

rates have stagnated, more students supersede normal graduation-timelines, and 

practice less-than-sound judgment in borrowing and spending. 

The result of this perfect storm has been triple-digit-percent increases in tuition 

and fees, and runaway increases in student debt-load. To reverse this trend and rationalize postsecondary costs must be a responsibility shared among states, institutions and students. 

Indiana has taken significant steps to contain higher-education costs and to advance the goal of making postsecondary education affordable to all Hoosiers. More 

needs to be done, but in adopting Reaching Higher, Achieving More as its strategic 

plan, the Indiana Commission for Higher Education has articulated a clear pathway 

forward—one that is student-centered, mission-driven and workforce-aligned—with 
26 

specific, actionable goals. The commission remains grateful to have the support of 

Governor Mitch Daniels and the Indiana General Assembly in sustaining public investments in the operations of the state’s institutions and in increasing the amount 

of aid available to Hoosier students. 

The commission is fortunate to have the partnership of Indiana’s public colleges 

and universities, whose leadership is active and engaged in efforts to improve postsecondary affordability. Those institutions have already begun to adopt cost-containment measures aimed directly at lowering tuition and fees. Many have implemented 

other affordability measures that will allow students to graduate more quickly and 

at reduced cost. 

Now we must turn our attention more fully to the crisis of student debt. Solutions 

will require the development of assistance mechanisms and making information 

more transparent, so that students and their families can simultaneously realize the 

overwhelming value proposition inherent in postsecondary attainment, while understanding fully the ramifications of borrowing and the need to spend wisely. 

While today’s hearing focuses on cost considerations, a word of caution is warranted. Neither the nation nor the State of Indiana can suffer the long-term consequences of building a productive, affordable system of higher education that gives 

short shrift to academic quality. Ensuring affordability at the expense of academic 

rigor would be a hollow victory, indeed. It would be far too easy to develop academic 

programs that accelerate completion at the cost of learning, and credentials that 

have no value within the workplace. To avoid doing so will take thoughtful, collaborative discussion among all stakeholders in the outcomes of postsecondary education, as well as mutually-accountable, eagerly-accepted shared responsibility in 

making positive change. 

I am grateful to the members of the subcommittee for convening this important 

discussion and thank you for the opportunity to contribute testimony. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Ms. Lubbers. 

Mr. Jones, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STAN JONES, PRESIDENT, 

COMPLETE COLLEGE AMERICA 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

I am Stan Jones. I am president of Complete College America. 

We are a relatively new national organization, not-for-profit. We 

have a single purpose. That is college completion. We principally 

work with States, with governors, with key legislators within 

States. We have been funded, fortunately, by the Gates Foundation, Lumina, Ford, Carnegie, and Kellogg; and that has been our 

focus. 

I want to approach this hearing just a little bit differently than 

my good friend and colleague, Teresa Lubbers from Indiana. When 

I was first elected to the Indiana General Assembly, being quite a 

bit older than Teresa, in 1974, college tuition had literally doubled 

in 2 years; and it was a hot issue in 1974. And Indiana enacted 

in 1975 a 2-year tuition freeze, the first and only time they have 

done that. It has been a hot issue ever since. And Chairwoman 

Foxx very correctly outlined the situation that States are facing, 

that this country is facing and its students are facing very well. 

But I would like to take a different look at this tuition affordability issue. If we think that college is increasingly expensive for 

students, it is even more expensive for students who don’t graduate; and half those that start at 4-year colleges don’t graduate. 

Two-thirds of those that start at community colleges don’t graduate. That is crippling. Those students are more than twice as likely to be in default on their student loans, twice as likely to go into 

bankruptcy. 
27 

What is even more expensive, as well, is what we think of college 

as a 4-year enterprise. Actually, it takes most full-time students 5 

years to graduate. It takes most students going to community colleges that are going full time not 2 years, not 3 years, but 4 years 

to graduate. 

So you think about tuition at a community college, you might 

think about doubling it. If you think about it at a 4-year institution, it is at least 20 percent more. We only have about a third of 

the students going to 4-year colleges that graduate on time. So 

when we talk about these things, we have to talk also about the 

price of failure, about students who don’t graduate and students 

who take too long. 

One of the contributing factors that I see, and that Congressman 

Miller has introduced some legislation on, is transfer of credit. It 

simply doesn’t work in many States. Everybody is working on this 

problem. 

Students also accumulate too many credits. Typically an associate degree, instead of being 60 hours, the average student gets 

80 hours; and typically a 4-year student, instead of 120 hours, it 

takes 135 credit hours to graduate. And many of these credits are 

inefficient credits. So—not enough students graduate and it takes 

too long and they accumulate too many credits. 

What are States doing? They have been pretty aggressive, as my 

colleague has pointed out, in terms of performance funding, in 

terms of 120-hour credit caps, in terms of more on-time pathways, 

in terms of attacking remediation. We have about 60 percent of 

students that start at community colleges, start taking remedial 

courses, courses they just literally passed in high school, a very expensive proposition. So these strategies are being put in place. 

Rethinking what a full-time student is. If we think a full-time 

student is 12 credit hours, they are already on the 5-year plan, not 

the 4-year plan. So States are working toward getting more students on 15 and 16 credit hours a semester so they can graduate 

in a timely way. 

What is important here, and I guess what I would like to say to 

you, is the federal government can provide more transparency. 

Right now, we don’t report graduation rates for Pell students. Even 

though we spend literally billions of dollars a year on Pell students, 

that is not part of the federal database. We don’t report graduation 

rates on part-time students. Right now, they represent 40 percent 

of all the students going to college in this country. We don’t report 

graduation rates on adult students, who increasingly are an important part of the economy for all these States. So transparency is 

very important as part of what the federal government can do. 

But also importantly, this country has been hugely successful on 

our access agenda. We have record-breaking enrollment in the middle of this recession, more students going to college than ever before, the freshman class is more representative of this country than 

ever before in respect to Latinos and African Americans than ever 

before. But if you look at graduation day, we have lost many of 

those demographics by graduation day, and less than half of the 

students that start finish. 

So we would like the federal government to rethink that this 

should not only be an access agenda with student loans, with Pell 
28 

grants, with college access, but also a success agenda. How can we 

better model State programs and federal programs to respect 

progress toward degrees, on-time graduation, higher graduation 

rates? 

So thank you very much for having me. It is a pleasure. 

[The statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Stan Jones, President, Complete College America 

Executive Summary 

• A new American majority of students is emerging on college campuses. These 

students must often delicately balance long hours at jobs they must have with the 

higher education they desire. Approximately 40% of all American college students 

today feel they can only manage to attend part-time. And just one-quarter of American college students attend full-time at residential colleges. • Even though this emerging majority has fundamentally different needs, American higher education in general has been slow to change, continuing to deliver 

courses and programs designed decades ago and best suited for full-time, residential 

students. • To achieve the substantial gains in college completion America must have to 

compete, we must reinvent American higher education. To do so, requires significant 

shared responsibility by all stakeholders, including government. More of the same 

will not do. • Historic data has proven that time is the enemy of college completion: the 

longer it takes to graduate, the less likely one is to do so. And more time on campus 

means more is spent on college, adding high costs as another cause for dropping out. • Time, choice and structure are the essential optics through which all higher 

education reforms must be viewed in order to maximize the likelihood of graduating 

more of today’s students. • Successful, large-scale programs and systems around the country have proven 

that by utilizing informed choice and structured delivery, students can successfully 

balance jobs and school—and are much more likely to graduate. • States, as the leading investors in higher education, have the power and authority to demand more from higher education—and they have a moral obligation to do 

so. • By utilizing the NGA/CCA Common College Completion Metrics, yawning gaps 

in current data collection will be filled and states will be empowered with new tools 

to hold higher education accountable and inform reform design. • Congress can seize key opportunities to encourage states, incent needed reforms, and signal its clear interest in more college graduates, not just enrollments. 

Introduction 

Measured on the first day of classes each fall, higher education in America appears to be a roaring success. In most communities, our campuses are bursting at 

the seams with eager students. More important, colleges have nearly erased racial 

gaps in enrollment: According to a 2003 US Department of Education report, 83% 

of whites pursue higher education in the first eight years after high school—and 

80% of blacks and Hispanics do the same. 

We have clearly convinced almost all of our young people that for good jobs and 

a brighter future there is one irrefutable fact: high school isn’t high enough. Our 

colleges provide most of the open doors and essential ladders to the greater opportunities and higher achievement young people desire. 

There’s no disputing that a generation or more of sustained efforts—while unfinished—have yielded impressive gains in access. But, access without success is an 

empty promise—and a missed opportunity with severe economic consequences for 

students, states and our country. 

With so much at stake, how is America doing? Barely more than half of full-time 

students graduate with 4-year bachelor’s degrees in six years—and fewer than three 

in ten pursuing 2-year associate degrees at our community colleges graduate in 

three years! Sadly, part-time students graduate at even lower rates. 

To make matters worse, a closer look on graduation day reveals that those eventually receiving degrees look very different than the student body on the first day 

of class: the hopes raised by nearly equitable enrollments are crushed by long persistent gaps in achievement and completion. 

Given projections that two-thirds of all jobs in 2020 will require advanced training 

or education, we simply have no choice: We must get more of our students—from 

all walks of life—to graduation day. 
29 

Many argue that it is the significant cost of higher education that is the greatest 

obstacle to student success. If we simply cut tuition and fees, they claim, our country can significantly boost college graduations. 

While it is true colleges must become more efficient and tuition more affordable, 

we will not regain our intellectual leadership in the world without new policies, legislation and strategies to reduce the time it takes students to complete degrees and 

certificates. 

Historic data has now proven that time is the enemy of college completion, not 

just tuition. Today’s college students are dramatically different than those of the 

past: most now commute to campus, balancing jobs, school and often family. 

Yet higher education has done little to adjust to the changing needs of this new 

majority. The result: students are spending longer than ever in college. The longer 

it takes, the more life gets in the way, and the less likely it is that one will ever 

graduate. More time on campus means more is spent on college, adding high costs 

as another driver of dropping out. Simply put: time is money. 

A New Reality for an Emerging Majority on Campus: Time is the Enemy 

Why does America have such abysmal completion rates? Of the many reasons offered, one compelling fact stands above all others: Today, most students balance the 

jobs they must have with the higher education they desire. 

Today’s college student is a far cry from the American archetype of the 19 yearold college kid who lives on campus, attends full-time, doesn’t work, and gets most 

of his bills paid by Mom and Dad. In fact, only 25% of college students in our country today attend residential schools. 

What’s the new reality? According to a recent study by Public Agenda, nearly half 

of students at 4-year schools work more than 20 hours a week. At community colleges, 60% are at jobs more than 20 hours a week, and a quarter of these stressed 

out students are working more than 35 hours. Nearly 40% of all of our college kids 

attend part-time. Roughly a quarter of them have children of their own to support. 

And yet they still find a way to come to college to pursue better lives. 

With so much at stake, today’s students need to finish their studies as soon as 

possible to get on with life. They need clear pathways to quality degrees and career 

certificates in order to land the good jobs they desperately want. And they must 

have predictable schedules they can count on in order to balance jobs and school. 

Why is this so important? Because the more time college takes, the more life intrudes. And when more life intrudes, fewer students complete college. 

The Completion Cornerstones: Time, Choice and Structure 

For years, adding time and more choices have been our answers. Semester long, 

multiple-level remediation courses, limitless periods of exploration before declaring 

a major, and midnight courses are all examples of well-intended efforts to try and 

meet student needs. When coupled with other policies like additional credit requirements or transfer rules that don’t readily recognize credits earned at multiple campuses, the result has been to lengthen the time to degree for many students—or 

hinder degree completion altogether. 

The numbers make it clear: When it comes to college graduation, time is the 

enemy. According to federally collected data in 2008, only 29% of full-time students 

at public 4-year institutions graduated on time. After the fifth year of pursuing a 

Bachelor’s degree, 19% more graduated. 

Now consider the sixth and eighth years after enrollment: Only 6% then 3% more 

students made it to graduation day, respectively. Giving students more time to graduate does not yield many more graduates. Why? Simply put, life gets in the way. 

Today’s students need less time on campus, fewer confusing choices and more 

structured schedules. Time, choice and structure are the key issues to address the 

needs of today’s students and the optics through which efforts to boost completion 

must be viewed. 

Directed Choice Yields More Graduates 

More time and uninformed choice work against college completion. To understand 

why, we must again consider the nature of today’s college students—and human nature, in general. 

Respected researcher and educator, James Rosenbaum, of Northwestern University, and his colleagues have found that students at 2-year colleges in America, 

which now make up nearly half of all college kids today, often lack the know-how 

to direct their own progress. Further, their work revealed that although students 

‘‘are assumed to be capable of making informed choices, of knowing their abilities 

and preferences, of understanding the full range of college and career alternatives, 

and of weighing the costs and benefits associated with different college programs, 

our analyses show that many students have great difficulty with such choices.’’ The 
30 

fact that on average one college guidance counselor is matched with 700 students 

in this country doesn’t help the situation. 

While public 2-year colleges design their programs and procedures based on faulty 

assumptions about the capability of their students to make informed choices, Rosenbaum found that their private counterparts often do not. According to him and his 

fellow researchers, many private 2-year colleges—with identical student bodies containing large numbers of low-income and minority students who did poorly in high 

school—shift academic planning responsibilities to themselves, ‘‘devising procedures 

to help students succeed even if they lack the traditional social prerequisites of college.’’ And it works: Rosenbaum found that the private 2-year schools in his study 

graduate significantly more students than their public peers. 

How do they do it? The private 2-year colleges in the study offered students ‘‘package deal’’ plans for accomplishing their specific academic and career goals in a clear 

length of time. Instead of charting their own paths by navigating daunting catalogs 

overflowing with choices, students make the ‘‘big choice’’ of a desired career or academic discipline and then the colleges make all of the ‘‘little choices’’ for them by 

utilizing structured programs that move students to degrees in the shortest time 

possible. (See Appendix A to review Rosenbaum’s findings.) 

Before assuming that only private colleges can accomplish this, consider the tremendous success of the past twenty years at the public Tennessee Technology Centers. Part of the Tennessee Board of Regents system, the statewide Technology Centers have been regularly accomplishing graduation rates of 75% or higher and job 

placement rates above 85%. 

Their approach shares many common elements with private schools: Students 

sign up for whole programs, not individual courses. They are clearly told how long 

the program will take to complete, the likelihood of success, and the total ‘‘all in’’ 

costs. There are plenty of ‘‘big choices,’’ but the ‘‘small choices’’ are directed, streamlined and packaged to cut down on confusion and the chance of mistake. 

So, this isn’t about public versus private 2-year schools. It’s about divining an uncharted course through a catalog of undirected choices on one’s own versus fully informed choices with clear expectations and benefits. 

Nor is it just about college students—it’s about what the abundance of choice does 

to the human brain. In one famous study, subjects became nearly paralyzed when 

presented with 24 choices of fruit jams. While 60% helped themselves to samples, 

only 3% could ever decide which jam to buy. By reducing the choices to just 6, researchers observed that nearly a third of the 40% who sampled the jams made a 

purchase. Whether choosing jams, bath soaps, investment plans, or college courses, 

directed choice can be a great benefit to consumers. 

As important as direction, the best choices are those most closely aligned with intentions: Students come to college in pursuit of better lives, higher-paying jobs and 

clearer paths to accomplish their goals. They simply seek the fastest, most affordable route to do so—and most don’t enjoy the luxuries of endless time and resources 

to get there. 

Add Structure to Achieve the Full Potential of Reforms 

By choosing to think differently about choice, colleges can meet the needs of more 

of today’s students and share in the success that comes with more graduates. But, 

combining directed choice with new structures for academic delivery unleashes the 

full potential of reforms to boost college completions. 

To understand why, return again to what it’s all supposed to be about: students. 

It’s clear that too many students work too many hours. That’s unlikely to change 

unless college suddenly becomes a lot more affordable. 

So, let’s consider again the lives of young adults who try to keep it all going. At 

almost all colleges, courses are scheduled all over the weekly calendar. In a studentcentered culture, would programs be designed that required an 8:00 a.m. class on 

Monday, a 2:00 p.m. class on Tuesday, 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, etc.? Of course 

not. 

Instead, what if programs were designed utilizing more structured scheduling? 

Students could attend classes every day, five days a week, from 8:00 a.m. to noon 

or from 1:00 until 5:00 p.m. Full-time attendance would now be possible for many 

more, dramatically shortening the time it takes to graduate. And finding time for 

jobs in such a predictable daily routine is no longer a challenge. 

When presented with this concept, students are incredulous. ‘‘That would be a 

dream come true,’’ they have told us. Here again, the dream is actually a tried-andtrue reality. 

Not only do the hugely successful Tennessee Technology Centers help direct student choices, they also structure academic delivery in just this way. Three-quarters 

or more of their students earn career certificates in twelve to eighteen months going 
31 

full-time, five days a week, from 8:00 until 2:00. Every year over 12,000 students 

move through the multiple Technology Center campuses and nearly all of them head 

straight into jobs. 

Structure also produces some added bonuses that should not be overlooked. Compressed class schedules create stronger linkages between faculty members—and cohort-like connections between students. Professors not only interact more often, they 

also tend to create team approaches to teaching the students they share. And students often move through programs as a group, strengthening their ties and support 

of one another. 

But, structured scheduling only works for vocational education and career certificate programs, right? Wrong. The City University of New York (CUNY) has a program (ASAP) for accelerated completion of associate degrees that is so successful the 

system will soon open an entire campus designed to utilize block scheduling, student 

cohorts, directed choice, embedded remediation and reinvented supports. Why make 

this kind of significant investment in the midst of a budget crisis? Because it works 

so well: ASAP students graduate on-time at more than twice the rate of their peers. 

Time, choice and structure: to significantly boost college completions, turn the broken dreams of dropouts into the bright futures of graduates, fully seize the opportunities for our country that overflowing campuses provide, and make America the 

world leader again in college attainment, we must keep our collective focus on these 

three touchstones. They are universal truths arrived at in the best way: by seeing 

the true nature of our college students today—and opening our minds to accept that 

to help them succeed—a success that America is counting on—we must reinvent 

American higher education. 

States Must Lead the Way 

The stakes are high. That’s why we must recognize that higher education institutions themselves are not the only players. One key participant that has too long 

been on the sideline of higher education reform is state government. 

Given that our country has suffered these low graduation rates for a generation 

or more, it is clear that—in spite of our best intentions—doing more of the same 

will just get us more of the same. Higher education now must have the committed 

and shared partnership of all key stakeholders. America—now 12th in the world in 

college attainment and falling—does not have the luxury of time to wait. States 

must step forward and help lead the way. 

There are many compelling reasons for governors, state legislatures and higher 

education system leaders to assume leadership on this agenda: 

• State Authority 

While state-appointed or elected citizen boards directly govern public institutions, 

ultimately states are responsible for all public colleges and universities. State goals 

and state leadership created college systems and expanded open access four-year institutions over the past 50 years; state leadership and support will be necessary to 

enhance and sustain their effectiveness in improving college completion in the 

21enhance and sustain their effectiveness in improving college completion in the 

21enhance and sustain their effectiveness in improving college completion in the 21 

• Majority Investor 

By a wide measure, state taxpayers provide the greatest funding for institutions, 

especially community colleges and open access four-year institutions. No other 

stakeholder is better positioned than state governments to ensure that public investments are wisely utilized to maximize opportunities for the future economic success 

of their states. 

• Systemic, Scalable Change 

States are the best positioned to ensure reform across systems and campuses by 

setting goals, establishing uniform measures, and monitoring progress. They can 

also serve as the most efficient clearinghouses of best practices, allowing for rapid 

scaling of successful reforms. 

• Accountability 

With so much at stake economically, states must hold themselves, students, and 

institutions accountable for success. States have leverage over both governance and 

the funding mechanisms needed to achieve higher levels of completion. 

• Transparency 

Institutions have strong incentives to shape reporting to mask failure and avoid 

confronting problems. States are much more likely than individual institutions to 

share and publish data to drive reform. 
32 

• Economic Development 

Higher education attainment is inextricably linked to future economic success. 

State leadership will ensure stronger linkages between each state’s economic needs 

and higher education delivery. 

• Mobility of Students 

Today’s students move across campuses and systems to attain credentials. Coherent state policy and integrated state strategies are essential for assuring ease of 

transfer and efficient completion of academic programs. 

States in Action: Complete College America’s Alliance of States 

When it comes to state leadership, there is great reason for optimism. Today, 

more than half of the states have joined Complete College America’s Alliance of 

States. To do so, Governors and their higher education leadership had to make four 

key commitments: 

1. Establish statewide and campus-level college completion goals, 

2. Adopt the NGA/Complete College America Common Completion Metrics in 

order to measure progress and hold institutions accountable for results (see Appendix B), 

3. Create comprehensive statewide and campus-level college completion plans, and 

4. Move significant legislation and policies to remove unnecessary obstacles and 

speed student success. 

As of this writing, 30 states have made these commitments and are now working 

as members of the Alliance of States to design and implement strategies that will 

significantly boost the number of their citizens with college degrees or other credentials of value. 

Essential Steps for States 

Complete College America recommends several significant policy levers that 

states can utilize to enhance the likelihood of student success and college completion, including shifting to performance funding, reducing time-to-degree, transforming remediation, restructuring academic delivery, and making career certificates count, among others. Please see Complete College America’s Essential Steps 

for States documents for more specifics on what states can do today (Appendix C). 

Actions Congress Can Take Now 

1. Restructure federal investments in higher education to reward states and institutions that implement new strategies and structures to significantly boost college 

completion, including measures to shorten time-to-degree. As an example, the Community College and Career Training Grants program should incent states with unified community college systems and/or community college consortia to restructure 

delivery to help working students. As shown above, proven models exist that can 

be replicated and scaled by states and consortia. 

2. Embed robust progress and completion metrics in all federal higher education 

policies and statutes. The NGA/CCA Common College Completion Metrics can serve 

as a strong starting point. These comprehensive metrics allow for accurate state-bystate and institutional comparisons and fill in yawning gaps in current data collection, enhancing opportunities for accountability and empowering all stakeholders 

with new tools to inform reform design. 

Conclusion 

Commitments like those made by our Alliance States give us great reason for optimism—and a clear path forward. With a little more help—and a lot of common 

sense—students, their families, taxpayers, and all Americans will share in the benefits of more individuals completing college. 

Complete College America applauds the President and Congress for efforts to 

make America first in the world again in college completion. And we stand ready 

to assist in efforts to reinvent higher education to meet the needs of the new emerging American majority of college students. Thank you for this opportunity to be of 

assistance in this vital effort. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

I would now like to recognize Dr. May for 5 minutes. 
33 

STATEMENT OF JOE MAY, PRESIDENT, LOUISIANA 

COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Hinojosa, 

and members of the committee. I am honored to be with you today 

and to represent not only the State of Louisiana and our community and technical colleges but also community colleges across the 

nation. The Louisiana Community and Technical College System is 

comprised of 14 colleges, which last year served 111,000 students. 

As well as being the President of the Louisiana Community and 

Technical College System, I also am President and represent a new 

group, an organization called Rebuilding America’s Middle Class, 

which represents about 100 institutions across the country that 

have joined together to ensure that federal policies support the 

ability of individuals to acquire the skills needed for today’s jobs. 

More than ever, as was said in opening testimony, the road to 

economic security runs through higher education and through specifically community and technical colleges. Over the last 5 years, 

Louisiana, like most of the nation, has seen reduced State funding 

and yet increased interest. In fact, our enrollment has grown by 55 

percent, while we have seen decreased State support of almost 37 

percent during that same period of time. And while the changing 

funding model creates challenges, I believe it is in times like this 

that community and technical colleges shine. 

In Louisiana, through merging colleges, eliminating redundant 

programs, aligning programs with market demand, consolidating 

information technology systems, sharing backroom operations like 

payroll and auditing services, we are saving almost $30 million a 

year that we are applying to meet students’ needs as compared to 

41⁄2 years ago. 

One of the greatest opportunities for keeping costs low is to encourage more students to begin their postsecondary career at a 

community or technical college. Because our colleges are close to 

where students live and work, they are lower cost and offer high 

quality programs, they are an outstanding value for students planning to transfer to a university and earn a baccalaureate degree. 

While this has been an obvious benefit of attending community 

colleges, for many students the transfer process itself has been a 

nightmare. In fact, in Louisiana, in the past if a student earned an 

associate’s degree at a community college and transferred to a public university, the student would on average lose between 21 and 

24 semester credit hours. 

The solution to this problem was clear: develop a statewide 

transfer agreement to ensure that students can transfer without 

losing credit, regardless of which institution they choose to attend. 

Today, students can enroll at any community college in Louisiana, earn the Louisiana transfer degree, either an associates of 

art or associates of science degree, and transfer to LSU or any of 

the 14 State universities with junior status. Thus, for the first time 

in the history of our State, 2-year college advisers can actually encourage students to earn the associates degree. 

Prior to this legislation, advisers knew that if the student earned 

the associates degree that he or she would take more hours than 

needed and spend more money than was necessary. Prior to this 

legislation, students were spending about $2,100 more in terms of 
34 

the amount of money they needed to spend and the State of Louisiana was spending about $1,900 more per student. In addition, 

the Pell program was spending about $2,750 more per student than 

was necessary. It is estimated that, on average, students would 

save over $10,000 of the cost of a bachelor’s degree by starting at 

a community or technical college and then transferring with the associate degree into a 4-year college or university. 

As we streamlined the process, we also realized that one of the 

barriers, and it has been mentioned earlier, was the fact that we 

had seen the credit hour creep. Many of our programs associate degrees had gotten as high as 75 hours required to earn the associates degree. In 2010 we capped that at 60 hours, went back and 

reviewed programs, both to reduce time to degree and to save students dollars. On average, we have seen a $1,100 reduction in 

terms of the amount of money that students spend and about $792 

per student in terms of what the State is spending. 

As both the President of the Louisiana Community and Technical 

College System and the President of Rebuilding America’s Middle 

Class, I have learned the importance of policy on impacting the 

ability of colleges to respond to business and industry to meet the 

needs of students and to rebuild America’s middle class. In Louisiana, we have been successful in growing enrollment while reducing costs, improving services and enhancing quality and guaranteeing that we are relevant to the needs of today’s students, business and industry and our communities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share this important story 

today, and I welcome your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. May follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Joe D. May, President, 

Louisiana Community and Technical College System 

Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and members of the Committee. 

I am honored to be with you today. 

My name is Joe May and I am the President of the Louisiana Community and 

Technical College System. 

On behalf of the great state of Louisiana and Louisiana’s community and technical colleges, I want to thank you and the members of the Sub-committee on Education and Workforce Training for inviting me to be part of these important deliberations. 

The Louisiana Community and Technical College System is comprised of 14 colleges which last year served 111,000 unduplicated students. 

Of these 14 colleges, seven have been recognized as among the nation’s fastest 

growing colleges when ranked among colleges of the same size. 

Along with being President of the Louisiana Community & Technical Colleges, I 

am the president of a new organization called Rebuilding America’s Middle Class 

(RAMC). 

Our almost 100 members are a group of community and technical colleges that 

have joined together to insure that federal policies support, rather than hinder, the 

ability of individuals to acquire the skills needed for today’s jobs. 

Our economy is in trouble. When our economy is in trouble, individuals and families struggle to find good jobs. 

More than ever, the road to economic security runs through higher education and 

specifically community and technical colleges. 

The fear of skyrocketing college costs has put the dream of a middle-class lifestyle 

out of reach for many Americans. 

Yet, community colleges are the low cost, high value educational providers that 

respond to market demands. 
35 

The average annual cost per year to attend a community college is just under $3,000 compared to over $8,000 for the average price of annual in-state tuition at 

a four-year public college. 

Author Jim Clifton points out in his book, ‘‘The Coming Jobs War,’’ that today’s 

global economy is engaged in a war for jobs. 

As pointed out by the McKinsey publication of a few years ago, employers are also 

engaged in a ‘‘war for talent.’’ 

The war for jobs and the war for talent are symptoms of the same problem. 

As a country, we must do more to align postsecondary programs with the needs 

of business and industry to enable them to be successful and to equip individuals 

for good paying jobs. 

It is clear that while employers are fighting for the top talent in terms of knowledge, skills, and abilities in order to remain competitive in today’s economy, individuals badly want those jobs. 

Community colleges are the key to bridging this knowledge gap between employers and individuals. 

Bringing together employers and individuals has been the story of the Louisiana 

Community and Technical College System. 

Yet like most of the nation, funding at Louisiana’s community colleges and technical colleges has not kept pace with enrollment growth. 

Over the past five and a half years, Louisiana’s community and technical college 

enrollment has grown by 55% while our state support has decreased by 37%. 

While the changing funding model creates great challenges, I believe that it is in 

times like this that community and technical colleges shine. 

As institutions, we are problem solvers that find ways to be more efficient while 

serving more students and meeting the needs of business and industry. 

Our colleges are driven to adapt to changing economic realities because we understand that the stakes have never been higher. 

In Louisiana, through merging colleges, eliminating redundant programs, aligning 

programs with market demands, consolidating information technology systems, and 

sharing backroom operations such as payroll and auditing services, we are saving 

almost $30 million annually. 

Enrolling almost half of the nation’s undergraduate enrollment, community and 

technical colleges have become the front line for improving student access and student success. 

Perhaps most importantly, our colleges are the conduit by which employers secure 

the talent they need and help students get the jobs they desire. 

Louisiana’s community and technical colleges are proud to say: 

Our colleges have no needs * * * 

We quickly point out that it is people, who have needs, 

Employers have needs, 

Communities have needs * * * 

Our colleges must use all of our resources to provide the solutions to meet the 

needs of people, employers and communities. 

Transfer Policies 

In Louisiana, we have worked hard to help students achieve their goals and objectives, ensuring that employers find the talent they need, while at the same time 

driving costs down. 

One of the greatest opportunities for keeping cost low is to encourage more students to begin their postsecondary career at a community or technical college. 

Because our colleges are close to where students live and work, are lower cost, 

and offer high quality programs, they are an outstanding value for students planning to transfer to a university and earn a baccalaureate degree. 

While this has been an obvious benefit of attending community and technical colleges, for many students, the transfer process has been a nightmare. 

In fact, in Louisiana, if a student earned an associate’s degree at a community 

college and transferred to a public university, the student would, on average lose 

between 21 and 24 semester credit hours in transfer. 

The solution to this problem was clear: develop a state-wide transfer agreement 

to ensure that students can transfer without losing credit hours regardless of which 

university they chose to attend. 

When the Louisiana legislature debated our transfer policy, it was supported by 

not only two-year colleges but university faculty as well. 

Referencing the transfer policy in testimony before the Louisiana Senate, Louisiana State University Faculty Senate President, Kevin Cope stated, ‘‘I urge everyone to think long and deeply about this system and how it will impact the educated 

person. I believe that with this legislation we finally have the chance to get it right.’’ 
36 

Today, students can enroll at any community college in Louisiana, earn the Louisiana Transfer Degree—either an Associate’s of Arts degree or an Associate’s of 

Science degree and transfer to LSU or any of the state’s 14 universities with junior 

status. 

Thus, for the first time in the history of our state, two-year college advisors can 

actually encourage students desiring to transfer to complete the associate’s degree. 

Prior to this legislation, advisors knew that if the student earned the associate’s 

degree that he or she would take more hours than needed and spend more dollars 

than necessary. As the result of this initiative, the average student saves $2,117 while the state of Louisiana saves $1,930 per transfer student. In addition, this means that $ 2,750 less Pell funds are needed by students who 

transfer to a university having already earned an associate’s degree. It is estimated that, on average, students would save over $10,000 of the cost of 

a Bachelor’s of Arts by starting their college careers at a community college and 

transferring their credits seamlessly to a four-year school. 

Establishing a General Education Common Core 

The legislation didn’t stop with policies related to student transfers, it also allowed for the development of a common general education core of 39 semester credit 

hours. 

These courses would be the same regardless of the institution attended and would 

be guaranteed to transfer to all public institutions in Louisiana. 

Capping Associate Degree Programs 

As we streamlined the process for students, we realized that one of the transfer 

barriers was inconsistency with the number of hours needed to earn an associate’s 

degree. 

Over time, many of our programs had grown from the standard 60 semester credit 

hours to as many as 75. 

This sort of credit hour creep had to be changed. 

Therefore, in 2010 the Louisiana Legislature passed a bill that limited all but selective associate’s degrees to 60 semester credit hours. 

Reducing the number of credit hours results in a reduction in cost of approximately $1,100 to the student and their family. The state of Louisiana additionally 

saves $792 per student and most importantly, it reduces time to degree. 

Accountability, Retention, and Graduation Rates 

We also support legislation in Louisiana that holds colleges accountable for retention and graduation rates as part of the higher education funding formula, which 

ensures that students are getting more value for their dollar. 

Common Course Numbering 

Another important policy measure passed in the 2012 legislative session was a bill 

to require common course numbering at all 2-year and 4-year colleges. 

This means that English 101 at any community college is the same English 101 

at LSU or any other 4-year college in the state, ensuring that the course will transfer no matter when or where it was taken, which has not always been the case. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I want to mention that the Louisiana Community and Technical College provides something we call the Day One Guarantee. 

Our colleges guarantee that a graduate of any of our certificate or associate degree programs will have the knowledge, skills, and abilities expected by employers 

on day one or we will retrain them for free. 

This is about guaranteeing quality and market relevance to our graduates and our 

employers. 

This guarantee is posted in every college and listed in every college catalog and 

we stand behind it. 

Our goal is to ensure that both students and employers know that there is guaranteed value in every educational dollar they spend. 

As both the President of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System, 

and the President of Rebuilding America’s Middle Class, I have learned the importance of policy in impacting the ability of colleges to respond to business and industry, to meet the needs of students, and to rebuild America’s middle class. 

In Louisiana, we have been successful in growing enrollment while reducing costs, 

improving services, enhancing quality, and guaranteeing relevancy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share this important story today. 

I welcome your questions. 
37 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Dr. May. 

Thank you all very much for staying within our time constraints 

and presenting very cogent testimony to all of us. I am very grateful to you. 

I am going to ask a couple of questions, and then I am going to 

list some questions that I am not going to ask you to answer today. 

And I know we can do this in the record without my saying them, 

but I want to put some issues out there for everybody to hear, not 

just to send them to you to answer. So I will do that and probably 

not use all of my time so that I can move on to some of my colleagues. But I did want to get a couple of things out. 

I would like to ask Dr. May and then Ms. Lubbers and Mr. Pattison, if you know this from either your experience in Virginia or 

general knowledge, how much does it cost in your State, Dr. May, 

Ms. Lubbers and Mr. Pattison, if you know, how much does it cost 

to fund a student’s degree? How much is your State spending? 

If you don’t know that, then we can get that answer from you 

later. 

Dr. May? 

Mr. MAY. In terms of the funding from the State and the cost to 

students to earn a 60-semester-hour associate degree, it is going to 

cost a little over roughly $5,500, $5,600 for tuition fees and State 

costs, not counting books and fees, our books, which would be in 

addition to that. So around $5,500. 

Chairwoman FOXX. That is what the student would pay? 

Mr. MAY. Yes, the student would pay about $5,500, and the State 

would pay roughly an equal amount to that. So the total cost of 

that would be about $10,000. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Okay. I thought your number was a little 

low. 

Ms. Lubbers? 

Ms. LUBBERS. Our State operating per FTE is about $4,900; and 

the students are paying, depending on whether they are going to 

a community college or they are going to a 4-year institution, somewhere between a little over $4,100 for the 2-year college and more 

like $7,200 to $7,400 for the 4-year institution. So the State’s commitment, which is down for FTE by about 16 percent over the last 

3 years, is right at around $4,900. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Pattison? 

Mr. PATTISON. I unfortunately don’t recall off the top of my head 

for Virginia. But I will say what is very interesting and I think a 

very important point is it does vary quite tremendously by State, 

and that brings up another issue as to why costs are so different, 

depending on the State. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Okay. Thanks. 

And, again, I will ask Dr. May and Ms. Lubbers this question, 

and if you would answer it as succinctly as you can: What led each 

of your States to recognize that you had a problem in making college affordable for students? What was the awakening in the State? 

Mr. MAY. I think the awakening really came from the employers 

in the State. We saw two issues that were taking place. On the one 

hand, our companies were looking for talent to meet their needs 

and stay viable as organizations. On the other hand, we have seen 

the highest unemployment rate in a generation occur. So you have 
38 

companies wanting to hire people but couldn’t find them, and individuals needing jobs who weren’t getting those jobs. 

So what we began to look very closely at, how do we get more 

people in the door, recognizing that there are budget constraints 

that are out there. So we began to look at wastes to reduce costs 

to students so that even in tight budgets we could expand services. 

And, in fact, we have done that, having grown 55 percent in enrollment during the very time that we have seen funding reduced at 

the State level. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Ms. Lubbers. 

Ms. LUBBERS. Certainly Indiana, like most States and more than 

most States, needs to look at this from the standpoint of the job 

opportunities we have and the workforce preparation. But I think 

the one factor that probably has directed this more than anything 

else has been the 100 percent increase in tuition over this period 

of time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Great. Thank you. 

Let me throw out again some questions that we will ask you in 

a more formal way. One is, do you believe higher education is subject to the whims of the economy more than other areas of State 

budgets? In what ways do you anticipate the structure of State 

funding for higher education to evolve over the next 10 years? Mr. 

Pattison, that is a particularly good question for you. 

And I think another question, to build on what Ms. Lubbers just 

said, why has the cost of acquiring a degree outpaced State funding 

increases so dramatically? 

And another question again for Ms. Lubbers and Dr. May, did 

you encounter pushback from institutions when the State began to 

discuss higher education reforms, how did you appease the concerns of the faculty, and what benefits have students and institutions realized since enacting the reforms put forward by the State? 

I think we have sort of glossed over in some ways the institutional resistance to the changes that have to occur in higher education. We haven’t really focused on those very much as we deal 

with this issue. 

But thank you all very much. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Hinojosa for his questions. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Jones, President Obama has set a national goal that the 

United States will lead the world in proportion of college graduates 

by the year 2020. Will you elaborate on the importance of this goal, 

both in terms of individual prosperity as well as our nation’s ability 

to compete in this 21st century global economy? 

Mr. JONES. Well, first of all, I think it is aspirational in the sense 

that we used to talk about that it was good enough to get an eighth 

grade education, and then we focused on it was important for everybody to get a high school education. And so clearly this is 

generational. It is aspirational, the recognition that more students 

need to go to college, that that is the remaining pathway to prosperity as many of the good factory jobs just aren’t there anymore. 

There also have been a lot of economic reports out, one from the 

Georgetown Center on Education and the Economy, that clearly 

points to the fact that 60 percent of our workforce is going to need 

credentials of value, 2-year degrees, 4-year degrees, 1-year certifi-
39 

cates. So there is both an economic imperative, nationally, internationally, as well as a generational imperative to do this. 

I do want to clarify, because this is an issue that comes up all 

the time, when we say not everybody should go to college, I think 

all of us here would define ‘‘college’’ as being, broadly defined, not 

only 4-year bachelor’s degrees but 2-year associate’s degrees, 1-year 

certificates. Many of the vocational programs one might think 

about in terms of electrical work or plumbing, all those students 

go to college. So we think of it as broadly and not simply as getting 

a 4-year degree. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Tell me, in my home State of Texas, Latino, African American, Asian American, and Native American students already make up the majority of the students enrolled in many of our 

colleges and universities. Can you highlight what States are doing 

to ensure that these students are part of the President’s college 

completion goal? 

Mr. JONES. I think, as I said, this country, ever since the GI Bill, 

higher education has been about access. That has been the DNA 

of higher education. And we have record breaking enrollment in 

this very difficult time because people have decided the pathway to 

a better job is education. And the freshman class has more, across 

this country, more Hispanics, more African Americans, than ever 

before. 

But if you look at the graduating class, a lot of the Latinos, a 

lot of the African Americans that we worked so hard to get into college, they are not there, a lot of the first-generation students. So 

we are winning the access battle. We are losing, not only in the 

State of Texas but across this country, the success rate for these 

students. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. But tell me, when are the governors and all of the 

stakeholders going to believe that investing early in reading and 

writing so that children can have a good understanding of what 

they read, a good vocabulary so they can express themselves? Why 

isn’t there more being done and why aren’t the Governors pushing 

for that? If we know that half of our students are not graduating, 

even though the enrollment is so high, we have a void that has to 

be filled, and that is getting children to start reading when they 

are 1-year-old, 2, 3, and 4-year-olds. 

Commissioner Lubbers, Indiana’s 21st Century Scholars Program 

has been cited as a model for State College aid programs, promising scholarships to free-and-reduced priced lunch students in 

middle school if they graduate from high school and maintain good 

grades and stay out of trouble. So, as Indiana is reducing the State 

appropriations for this 21st Century Scholars Program, administrative costs and scholarships, what is the expected impact on recruiting and enrolling low-income students into the program? 

Ms. LUBBERS. Well, the good news is that financial aid is actually 

increasing in Indiana, including funding for the 21st Century 

Scholars Program, which is a nationally respected program and one 

which we want to preserve. We believe it is an aspirational preparation scholarship program for students. It has a huge increase in 

the number of students who are signing up and going to college. 

Actually, the college-going population for the 21st Century Scholars 

is the highest college-going population of any right now. 
40 

Like the discussion preceding my comments, we are not getting 

them to complete at the level we need to, so we are really focused 

on interventions for their success. It is an entitlement program. If 

they meet their needs, we try to meet the State’s obligation to 

them. But, not surprisingly, our financial aid, like every other part 

of the State’s budget, has suffered some, in this case primarily because we have more people going to college. 

We have put $23 million more into financial aid when we 

couldn’t put money into anything else, but the number of people 

who are showing up at our doors meant that the size of some of 

our grants was actually going down. But our commitment to the 

21st Century Scholars and those mostly first-generation collegegoing students is strong and will remain strong. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. The Pew Foundation report says that enrollment 

in colleges went up 28 percent for minority students, but I say that 

we still are not doing a good job in pre-kindergarten and getting 

them ready to be able to handle the assignments and the work that 

is expected at the college level. 

Chairwoman FOXX. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would like to recognize Dr. Roe for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROE. I thank the chairwoman for recognizing me; and, first, 

I want to welcome the students. I see a lot of students out here. 

And really this is about them. In not so many years you are going 

to be sitting where we are. One of my major concerns I had, I only 

have been here 31⁄2 years in Congress, but was the affordability of 

a college education, and let me sort of explain why that is. 

My father was a factory worker, and I was able to graduate from 

college, stayed at home, worked my way through school, and ended 

up graduating from college with no debt. I then went to medical 

school in 3 years. So I know an accelerated program can work, because I have been through it. And I graduated from medical school 

with no debt. And one of the colleges I applied to, the tuition was 

more than my father made in a year, so I clearly wasn’t going to 

go there. 

We didn’t have access to loans that are available now that I 

think put a lot of students in horrific debt. And it is not unusual 

to see a student graduate from college—and I get letters all the 

time in my office, ‘‘Dr. Roe, I have got $75,000 in student debt.’’ 

Well, one of my good friends, my son’s best friends, has $300,000 

in student debts after graduating from law school. So it is a huge 

problem. 

On my walk down here today, I saw people lined up around Financial Services getting ready to go in there. And if we don’t get 

this right where you can educate people at a reasonable cost, the 

rest of that stuff is not going to matter. 

I have heard a lot of good ideas, and Mr. Jones pointed out something I thought was very important, is the price of failure. That is 

huge in this country, when we fail and don’t graduate our students. 

And really the future of our country relies on us educating our people where it is still affordable. 

So I think the things we are doing in Tennessee—and I want to 

bring this up just a little bit—is to use our technology centers. We 

have 27 technology centers in Tennessee where you can get technology training. The community colleges, Dr. May, you make a 
41 

great point, and a lot of students are now taking advantage of a 

much lower cost community college and then going to the 4-year 

college and graduating. 

I think the other thing that I think Ms. Lubbers brought out— 

and I want her to talk about this a little more—is the education 

of students, where I know what I can do with my degree when I 

graduate. And it is not just getting a degree, but then can I extrapolate this degree into meaningful employment. And the meaningful employment numbers I have seen are, if you graduate from 

high school, it is worth a half million dollars more in your lifetime 

in income; if you graduate college, it is at least a million dollars 

more; and if you have an advanced degree, it is even an exponential number of that. 

So, Ms. Lubbers, I want you to again go over those things in Indiana, because I think our State is doing some of the same things. 

Ms. LUBBERS. Thank you. 

I know one of the things that we are doing, as you are doing in 

Tennessee as well, is performance funding and paying for what we 

value at an increasingly higher level. So if we believe that failure 

is a problem, then we should incent completion, and that is one of 

the things that we incent. If we believe that you can save money 

by graduating on time, then we look at funding on-time graduation 

at a higher level. So some of those things that we are doing from 

a policy standpoint. 

From a student or a family standpoint, when you talk about 

making decisions about going to college and making smart decisions, we think that it is important for students to be able to follow 

their dream and do those kinds of things in life that they want to 

do, but we think it is important that they understand the implication of the decisions they make and the likelihood of getting a job, 

how much debt they have actually incurred during that time, how 

long it will take them to pay that off. 

So that is why we are committed to really this return on investment report that will try to align college with the workforce, with 

employers. And the good news is we are doing that better now than 

ever before. We have the ability through technology to align the 

performance in school with the kinds of jobs that people get, and 

we are committed to doing that. So I think this return on investment issue is incredibly important so that people will make smarter decisions. 

Mr. ROE. I think one of things that I looked at—I talked to some 

folks in Tennessee last night. In 2001, the tuition at a 4-year college was $3,100. In 2010, it was $6,000. It doubled during that 

time. That is a lot of money. And 80 percent of the students that 

leave East Tennessee State University have an average debt of 

$21,000. And if you are a teacher, if you go into law enforcement 

as a police officer or whatever, at least in our area, that is a sizable 

chunk of change. 

And I don’t want the students out there to think—I was highly 

motivated by the draft during the Vietnam War, so I want you to 

understand that that motivated me a lot to stay in college. It didn’t 

work out for me. I ended up going anyway. But that was one of my 

motivations. 
42 

The other thing we did was, and this was done when I was in 

college, if you took 12 hours or above, then it was a full load, and 

you could take whatever you wanted after that. So I graduated 

with extra hours, not because it cost me more but because there 

was an incentive for me to do that. 

Is there a way to look at that now, where if you take a full load, 

not charged by the credit hour, but this is a full load, if you take 

more than that it doesn’t cost you any more money. Does anybody 

want to comment? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. More and more States—some States have had 

those policies, some institutions. But as we are thinking about getting students, you only have 12 hours to be a full-time student to 

get federal Pell grants, so that is kind of the default now. So we 

need to have people thinking about 15 hours. And so States are 

doing that, colleges are doing that in the same way. 

I did want to point out that your technology centers I think are 

an unwritten story. They have a 75 percent graduation rate and an 

85 percent placement rate and compared to other similar programs 

that might only have a 15 or 20 percent. So your State is doing a 

lot both with Governor Bradesen and Governor Haslem. 

And the technology center model is highly effective. They go on 

block schedules, they go on cohorts, they take attendance, which I 

think is an underrated strategy, and it is really a model I think 

the rest of the country could look at. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, and thank you all for boosting 

Tennessee here. 

I do think that, particularly in Ms. Lubbers’ response, it partly 

answers I believe Mr. Hinojosa’s question about why can’t we get 

more people to get students through. More pay performance perhaps in the States would help with helping students with graduation. 

I now would like to recognize Ranking Member Miller for—I recognize Mr. Bishop for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, and I thank the ranking 

member for his indulgence. 

I want to just pick up on the point that Dr. Roe just made. I 

think it is one that we should look at very carefully, the choice between flat rate pricing and per credit pricing. I do think that there 

is an opportunity there to help students accelerate. The key would 

be to have the tipping point or the equity point for the flat rate 

pricing versus the per credit pricing to be relatively closer to the 

12 credit number as the 18 credit number, but I think a very good 

point. 

It seems to me that a theme that runs through all of your testimony is that we need to have two agendas. We need to have an 

access agenda, and we need to have a completion agenda. And 

right now what is facing students at the public level is per-FTE 

funding that is lower than it has been an in a quarter of a century. 

I understand that you said the aggregate fund is higher, but that 

has I guess to do with the increased volume as opposed to per-FTE. 

Mr. Jones, you made comments in your testimony about the extent 

to which both full- and part-time students rely on at least parttime work, if not full-time work. 
43 

One of the things I am very concerned about is here in Washington we are, in effect, moving in the opposite direction. Today, 

the Labor-H Appropriations Subcommittee is going to vote on the 

chairman’s mark for appropriations for fiscal 2013, and that mark 

includes a reduction in the Pell Grant of approximately $800 per 

year. It is estimated that that reduction will render immediately 

approximately 400,000 students ineligible for Pell, and every 

other—just the way Pell works, everybody else that gets a Pell will 

get a Pell that is $800 less than what they are getting now. 

So my question to each of you is, to what extent do you see that 

move on the part of the federal government impacting our shared 

concern for both an access agenda and a completion agenda? 

Mr. Jones, why don’t we start with you? 

Mr. JONES. Right. And I am not knowledgeable enough to talk 

fully about the Pell Grant, except to say this: the Pell Grant and 

the student loan program, which serves even many, many more 

students, both are extremely important to the access agenda and 

have propelled the access agenda and made our freshman classes 

more diverse. 

But I will say, as you are thinking about reforms both in student 

loans and in Pell grants, is that you think about the progress students make toward completion. To the very point you made about 

an access agenda coupled with a success agenda, to the very point 

you made about if we can get students thinking about 15 or 16 

credit hours a semester, progressing in a timely way. Not everybody is going to graduate on time, but more than a third of them 

could graduate on time. 

So I would like Congress to think about those kinds of progress 

measures as you are thinking about very, very precious resources 

that you are having to allocate. 

Mr. BISHOP. I think you are absolutely right. 

I am going to let you all answer, but I just want to jump in. 

Given the extent to which now even full-time students depend on 

work, if we are reducing their Pell, is it reasonable to assume that 

their dependence on work will go up and therefore their time to degree will get longer? Is that a reasonable assumption? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. We put out a report last October called ‘‘Time 

is the Enemy.’’ That was essentially the argument in our report, is 

that the longer it takes, the less likely it is students will graduate. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Ms. Lubbers. 

Ms. LUBBERS. Well, I would like to use this as an opportunity to 

put a plug in for something that I think you could help us with, 

which is the consideration of using Pell in the summer months. If 

we talk about trimesters at Purdue and we talk about accelerated 

programs, it only makes sense that we would actually be able to 

use Pell during the summer months. So whatever you do with the 

final amounts of money for Pell, to preclude people from using Pell 

in the summer is turning out to be very problematic in the States. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sure you know that we had year-round Pell in 

the last higher education reauthorization, but it became a casualty 

of our effort to keep the Pell Grant maximum at $5,550. 

Ms. LUBBERS. I do understand. And I am just saying that as we 

look forward into the 21st century of how students are actually get-
44 

ting their education, one of the considerations that I think we 

should have is what that calendar actually looks like; and the old 

agrarian calendar is not the calendar in which students now go to 

school. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me just raise one last thing. I thought you made 

a wonderful point, Ms. Lubbers, about the tightrope basically between efforts to reduce costs and maintain quality. And if you—at 

the end of that tightrope is completion, and a lot of things that are 

related to completion cost money. And so how we work our way 

through this over the next, you know, several years is going to be 

a real challenge, I think, from a public policy perspective but also 

from an educational administrator and faculty and curriculum perspective. And I hope as we look to cut costs we don’t lose sight of 

the fact that a lot of what we spend money on is integral to a student’s ability to persist and succeed. 

Thank you all for the work you do on behalf of our students. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

I would like to point out that in the appropriations process this 

year the Pell Grants were level funded. There were no cuts made 

in Pell Grants. 

I would now like to recognize Dr. Bucshon for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I want to put in a plug for Indiana since two of our people that 

are testifying today are either currently or previously involved in 

Indiana’s higher education. We appreciate all of you being here 

today. 

I usually try to focus on what we can do on the front end on a 

lot of these problems, and I agree that we have maybe been a little 

bit of a victim of our success, of our goals of getting everyone into 

a 4-year college institution. And now, on the back end, we have a 

lot of students that have an education with degrees that don’t 

produce jobs. Nothing against those at all. But these students now 

have a lot of debt, and they don’t have any access to the job market 

because what they are educated in may or may not produce a degree that allows them to be employed. 

And as a parent of four children—I have one son who just finished his freshman year in college, another getting ready to go. 

And coming from a family kind of like Dr. Roe’s, who my dad was 

a coal miner and my mom was a nurse and I am the first graduate 

of a 4-year school from my family, I understand the importance of 

parental expectations. And let me tell you, my dad said, you have 

4 years to graduate, and he meant it. And I do think to a certain 

extent that, as a society, we have lessened our expectations of our 

citizens in that respect. 

And similar to health care where, unless we get people to take 

personal responsibility for their own actions related to their health 

care, education is very similar. Unless we get students and parents 

to take some responsibility as part of this overall problem that we 

have, it is going to be difficult to solve it. 

And so, Ms. Lubbers, I will ask you. I mean, how can you interact with people at the grade school level and the high school level 

to help us educate our students and, probably more importantly, 
45 

our parents about what the expectations will be of their students 

when they get to college? 

My wife and I are college graduates, so we know what the expectations are. But I think a lot of students going to college not really 

understanding what the expectations are, how simple stuff like if 

you only take 12-hour credit hours for a semester it is going to extend your college unless you take 18 in another one. 

So the first question is to Ms. Lubbers. In grade school and high 

school, can we help? 

Ms. LUBBERS. Well, we are trying to make certain in Indiana 

that people understand the relationship between K-12, higher education, workforce development is very inextricably linked. And so 

we work together. We have an organization in Indiana called Learn 

More Indiana, which is basically focused on working with schools 

to make sure that students understand at an early age what it 

takes to be ready to go to college both academically and financially. 

And you can’t start too early in doing that. So we reach all the way 

down to the grade school in trying to do that, to make sure that 

people are starting to prepare, on both of those levels, academically 

and financially prepared to go. 

This return on investment report that I mentioned I think it is 

going to be very important, too, to make sure that we can crosswalk the kind of degrees that you get with the workforce opportunities that exist in Indiana. So it is really by working together. We 

have the good fortune in Indiana of having our superintendent of 

public instruction, as commissioner myself, our teachers, our higher 

education institutions, we are sort of committed to the same final 

product at the end, which is the success of the individual, and we 

can’t have failure anywhere along the way. 

So as was mentioned earlier, you know, reading early in life, that 

that is critically important. You can connect those who don’t read 

to those who don’t go to college, and certainly we have to do a better job with that. But there is no one answer, but starting early 

and being consistent in a message of being academically and financially prepared is important. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I think it is so important that parents understand, 

understand that. I mean, I know what the expectations are for my 

kids and my dad did for me, and that makes a big difference. 

I guess the second question along that line is, once students are 

in college, I have found—my son is 19 and so there are a lot of privacy issues with access to his academic record and his progress in 

school. Believe it or not, we have to get his permission to see his 

grades and other things like that. And I am not sure I have a problem with that necessarily. However, since we are footing the bill, 

you know I guess you could say, well, if you don’t show us, we don’t 

pay. 

But my point is, are we doing a good enough job once students 

are in college in advising them about, you know, about not only 

just the credit hours but the financial impact of not taking the 

right courses and how that will have an effect on you financially. 

Because students can understand, if I don’t do this, it may take me 

5 or 6 years to graduate. But unless you really put a dollar amount 

on it, I don’t know if that works. Can we do that? Can we bring 

that into it? 
46 

Anyone want to comment on that? 

Dr. May? I think my time has expired, so real briefly. 

Mr. MAY. You know, to comment on that, I think sometimes we 

forget that people are in college for a reason today in the United 

States. Most people are there because they want a job and, at the 

end of it, they want to go to work. 

And I think sometimes we confuse the means with the end and 

that a college education is a means to get there to improve the individual, to improve society, and to grow the economy. And I think 

sometimes we just talk about that as the end goal when in reality 

people want more out of—they want more for themselves, more for 

the community, and more for the nation as a whole. And sometimes 

I think the numbers we talk about in terms of cost don’t tie directly 

to the salaries, the jobs, and—that they will be making as individuals. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. May. And I want to thank 

you particularly for pointing out that even people in 4-year schools 

are striving to get a job. Too often—I think Mr. Jones mentioned 

this—that there is a perception that there is something called vocational education that is aside from 4-year schools. That is not true. 

Everybody is in college pretty much to get a degree. Yes, they want 

more, but I mean to get a job. They want to get a job whether they 

are in a 4-year school or a 2-year school or a certificate program. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing. I think this is one of the most important hearings 

we have had on the issue of the cost of college, and I want to thank 

the panel because I think you have brought a number of recommendations and accomplishments that greatly enrich this conversation in the Congress. 

This committee has been interested in this problem for a long 

time on a bipartisan basis, but we haven’t made a lot of progress. 

But I think you present a very rich environment of how this can 

now be accomplished if we rethink how we look at these institutions. 

And I think that we sort of see a confluence of events taking 

place, probably driven by the economic downturn but also by the 

work of Georgetown that maybe disturbs some of us liberal arts degree majors and graduates, that 80 percent of the people who are 

going to college are going there to get a job. And that doesn’t reduce the responsibility of the other institutional mandates of institutions of higher education, but we cannot neglect that. 

And when we look at the Chamber of Commerce, it is telling us 

that these institutions really have to think about what service are 

you providing to your community—that could be the State or your 

local community or to the nation. 

It goes back to Clayton Christensen, a writer of disruptors, who 

asked the question, for what purpose is this student hiring this college? Is it for a certificate? Is it for a job? Is it for greater education, advanced degrees? For what purpose is this community supporting this institution? And I think that the rethinking that you 

have proposed in your testimony today I think is very, very, encouraging. 
47 

And I think, Dr. May, you have done us a great service when you 

are willing to sort of quantify what a more efficient institution— 

that doesn’t mean a more base institution but a more efficient institution—whether you are going to graduate with a degree in humanities or in sciences or in business—it doesn’t matter—what 

that means to taxpayers and to families and students paying that 

cost. I think Louisiana has done a great service here in willing to 

put that down. And so I think that is very, very important. 

And, Dr. Jones, you have touched on in your testimony—well, 

you have all touched on this subject, including the Chamber. It is 

this issue of articulation agreements that can no longer be allowed 

just to lay around and you go as slow as the slowest boat here. I 

know I have been kind of at this in my State of California for many 

years and pitched battles, and they have made some progress, but 

it is not comparable to what we are hearing here today in terms 

of what has been accomplished and what is possible. 

I have introduced legislation—you referred to it, Mr. Jones—that 

I think that by the middle of 2014 States have got to have these 

in place. This is a luxury. It is very costly to taxpayers. It is very 

costly to students and their families if you don’t have this. 

And, Ms. Lubbers, you talked about credit creep. We don’t know 

quite why it happened. Was it essential? Was it necessary? Except 

I know it cost me that much per unit to finance that credit creep, 

and I think that has to be looked at again. 

I would hope people would support the legislation. I basically 

say, do it however you want to do it. Let’s just come up with a system so students can navigate this system in the most informed, efficient way since they are borrowing money. When I went to school, 

we weren’t borrowing money. 

I would say, Mr. Bucshon, it would have been much better if we 

had privacy arrangements so I wouldn’t have to bring my grades 

home. That would have worked out much better in the Miller 

household. 

So I just want to thank you very much; and, Madam Chair, I 

want to thank you for this hearing. I hope we can continue. This 

is really a conversation that is taking place here this morning 

about how we can support these efforts by the States, and there 

are others that are leading the way on making our institutions 

much more responsive to today’s economies, to the needs of our students today. 

It is no longer just about the degrees that we have historically 

awarded. As you know, it is also about certificates. It may soon be 

about badges that you will be asked to recognize or not recognize, 

to assign credit to or assessments to that you don’t give, that you 

don’t have control over. We don’t know how that is going to play 

out. 

So this is a very exciting time, but with those cost factors continuing to creep up, you have focused I think our attention here. 

And I hope that we can continue to follow up in other hearings on 

many of the issues you have raised. Because I think you are developing a roadmap of what we should insist upon if we are going to 

keep spending taxpayer dollars in these systems and financing the 

cost of college for students and for their families. 
48 

So thank you very, very much, Madam Chairman, for this hearing. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for your very fine 

comments; and you can count on our continuing to spend time on 

this issue. 

Now I would like to recognize Dr. Heck for his comments. We are 

blessed with three physicians here this morning asking questions 

and another person in the health care field. So we are very blessed 

in this area. 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank all of you for 

being here and for your testimony. 

I guess the one side of having three doctors is we all very much 

know—at least I do—the cost of education. And not to dissuade the 

students here, but I am still paying off my student loans between 

college and medical school. 

Mr. Pattison, in your testimony you talk about the increased cost 

of about 72 percent at a 4-year public university adjusted for inflation; and we heard from Ms. Lubbers some of the drivers of that 

cost, like technology, investment in infrastructure, employee benefits, and support staff. There are some that have theorized or postulated that as more financial aid money becomes available, whether it is through guaranteed student loans or Pell Grants, that that 

also is a driver of increasing costs at universities. 

Mr. Pattison, or everybody else on the panel, have you seen any 

evidence that supports that claim that as more money becomes 

available to pay for higher education the cost of higher education 

goes up? 

Mr. PATTISON. Well, what I will say—and I think this is really 

an important point as all of this is discussed—is there are so many 

factors obviously affecting the cost of education and tuition increases, but there are very few activities or ways of financing that 

create the incentives on the institutions to be as cost-efficient as 

possible. And I think the bottom line is, based on what you heard 

me say when I laid out the statistics of the tight budgets in the 

future, especially for States, it is unsustainable, in my view, that 

colleges and universities will be able to raise tuition at the rates 

they have. 

So I think something is going to have to come together, and there 

some great programs that have been talked to create the right incentives to focus not just on funding the additional cost increases 

but also funding results, completion, and so forth. 

Mr. HECK. I appreciate that. 

Then, to Ms. Lubbers, I guess I define cost and affordability 

maybe a little differently. To me, cost is what does it cost the university to provide the education. Affordability is whether or not the 

student cannot afford the cost. And so some of the things that you 

talked about, like streamlining the ability for transfer credits or decreasing summer tuition, guaranteeing or trying to secure on-time 

graduation, may address the affordability for the student, but what 

steps are being taken to control the costs to the university of providing that education? 

Ms. LUBBERS. Well, obviously, you have to approach this from 

both angles, and we are trying to do that in Indiana as we are looking at the cost structure itself. And you have mentioned some of 
49 

the things that I had talked about that were drivers of the cost of 

higher education and to the degree that we are able to successfully 

use technology, for example, to drive down costs. There is some 

question that in some institutions where the cost—technology is actually driving up costs. 

And so we are asking very, very specific questions about, you 

know, when can we reap some benefits from this technology where 

we can have academic rigor and costs won’t keep going up with 

technology? You know, do we need all the expensive facilities that 

we are building? Especially at a time in which many people will be 

getting their higher education perhaps not going to an institution 

any more. So do we keep building? Because there are some sectors 

of the market who want that particular part. 

So at some point you have to say not what do you want but what 

do you need. And I think that is where we are getting to the point 

right now. 

So we are very intentional about looking at the cost structure 

and rewarding things that we think are giving the kind of dividends that we want in Indiana. It is not easy. Turning it around 

is tough. But you know from being in health care many people are 

talking about higher education in the same way they talked about 

health care. Is it the next bubble? And we need to make sure that 

it isn’t by making sure that we do address the costs and the value 

proposition. 

Mr. HECK. I appreciate the catch-22 that sometimes technology 

causes. Because, like I say, as my daughter was going to the University of Nevada Las Vegas, she decided to take on line course 

which actually came with an additional fee for taking it on line, 

which you would think maybe it might be more cost-effective to the 

university to not have the person sitting in a classroom. 

Dr. May, you mentioned, among other things, the impact of credit hours. Can you explain what is it that is driving the increase of 

credit hours for a degree and whether or not those credit hours are 

actually necessary? Is it some way and somehow an attempt to increase the tuition dollars coming to a university? 

Mr. MAY. And I think that is kind of a universal challenge for 

colleges. Because we kind of have an add-on mentality and approach as new knowledge and skills and abilities are introduced. 

We don’t always go back and re-examine the entire curriculum. 

What we do is tend to add things on to the end of the curriculum 

so that students end up doing more. And while one course seems 

relatively minor, it doesn’t take long before it is two and three and 

four over a period of years. 

And so what we have done is make sure the learning outcomes 

stay the same. However, go back and reexamine all the courses 

that are in the program to make sure that, in fact, one, they align 

with the needs of business and industry, they do provide the skills 

that lead to jobs, and we do it in such a way, especially for those 

students that transfer, that they are not accumulating additional 

hours than what they really need. 

So I think it is one of many ways in which, as colleges and 

States, that we have to look at the cost structure, and that is a 

very basic way that pays dividends, improves time to a degree, reduces time, and cuts the cost to everyone involved in the process. 
50 

Mr. HECK. Thank you all again for being here on this morning. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Heck. 

Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. I thank the chairwoman for this 

very, I think, incredibly important hearing; and thanks to the witnesses who are here. 

I was going to go down one direction until the chairwoman pointed out all of the health care professionals on the panel, and I started to have flashbacks from my 30 years of health care with regulations and what that has done to our health care system in terms 

of driving up costs and decreasing access. 

And in front of me—I guess I was supposed to ask about something else, but in front of me there was an article that was put out 

by the American Council on Education and specifically has a lot of 

different things they have addressed in terms of the cost of education. 

But one had to do with regulation. So I wanted to—that is where 

I—the direction I want to go with my questioning. And specifically—and I want to get your response to this—this white paper 

from 2012, from this year, it talks about in recent years burdens 

imposed by colleges and universities by federal regulation have become increasingly complex, onerous, and costly. 

And so I guess my question will be whether you agree with that, 

disagree with it. It specifically referenced that the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 alone added over a hundred new 

regulations and a 2011 Congress mandated study found that 90 

percent of senior campus leaders reported the implementation and 

administration of regulations under the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 were burdensome. 

It goes on. It talks about a finding that in 2005 there were more 

than 7,000 federal regulations governing colleges and universities 

and the number of regulations having grown exponentially. So my 

question—I will open this up to the panel—is do you agree or disagree? Was your experience—is compliance with federal regulations 

on our higher education, has it become complex, onerous, and costly, as this article cited? 

We will start with Mr. Pattison. 

Mr. PATTISON. Well, what I think is important is that what we 

keep hearing from colleges and universities and, of course, through 

the State groups that we talk to is that every additional request 

like that is a burden. Now sometimes there is a benefit. So it is 

kind of a cost-benefit analysis. 

But what I think is important to remember is there is not a lot 

of extra capacity to comply with additional requirements. And I 

know it might sound trite to even suggest that money come with 

additional requirements, but I do know we continue to hear a lot 

of concerns that any additional requirements require additional administrative capacity that really doesn’t exist. They are just so 

tight right now, especially because we have had the recession and 

tight budgets over the last few years. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So if it is tight capacity, then that has to be 

funded somewhere, and that tends to be through tuition. The cost 

of compliance has an impact on tuition. 
51 

Mr. PATTISON. Especially during the last few years, again because the State support because of the recession has been shrinking. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Ms. Lubbers? 

Ms. LUBBERS. These are very complex enterprises, as we know, 

so trying to find a way to impact the system needs to be considered 

I think primarily at the State level and that the States are best 

suited to look at how these enterprises operate. 

Different States are different. We have a coordinating board. Our 

boards of trustees are primarily for the operations of the institutions. Some States have boards of regions or governing boards, and 

they operate differently in that regard, and they have more direct 

authority over what they expect those institutions to do. 

I guess my overall disposition on this issue is that, with the exception of financial aids that comes through Pell or Stafford loans 

or other ways that students receive funding, primarily this is a 

straight State-driven enterprise, and it is best directed at the State 

level. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Jones, any thoughts, cost of compliance on 

higher education? 

Mr. JONES. Well, I agree with Commissioner Lubbers that principally the money comes from the State level and principally that 

is where the responsibility—all the boards of trustees, the boards 

of regents are all appointed by governors, are authorized by the 

legislature, and that is the primary response. 

I will say from the federal government’s responsibility the two 

themes I would pick up is, one, more transparency in terms of information that is reported about students, as I mentioned, graduation rates for part-time students, for transfer students, for Pell 

Grant students. 

And the second is this other theme of, historically, for six decades, the federal government’s involvement has been about access, 

and that has been extremely successful. And reasonable expectations about a success agenda—if you are giving student loan subsidies, if you are giving Pell Grants, there ought to be reasonable 

expectations about students’ progress toward timely graduation. I 

think that that is where the federal government ought to weigh in 

as their primary responsibility because of the money that you are 

putting out there. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Dr. May. 

Mr. MAY. You know, almost always regulations are about preventing something from happening, and as Chairwoman Foxx said 

earlier, I think there are often unintended consequences with that 

approach. Where we see something that has occurred somewhere 

and we want to deal with that issue, but, unfortunately, we stifle 

innovation, we increase costs, and often work against the very 

things that we wanted to see happen within our institution. And 

I would certainly concur. 

I think that the States are much closer to what is going on in 

terms of how to impact the local economy, how to educate students 

and solve their educational needs as well as work within the workforce needs of the State. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Dr. May. 

Thank you, Chairwoman. 
52 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

And I want to especially tell Ranking Member Miller that I did 

not coach any of these witnesses to make those comments at all. 

It was all completely on their own. But I thank you very, very 

much for it. It just shows the wisdom of the staff in bringing in 

these witnesses. 

I would now like to recognize in Congresswoman Biggert from 

the great State of Illinois. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And I am sorry that I missed your testimony, because this is 

such a very, very important subject, but I just have a couple of 

questions that hopefully have not been asked before. 

But I wanted to address something that Concordia College and 

the University of Illinois are working on, maybe in partnership, but 

Concordia a little bit different. What Concordia is doing is, instead 

of trying to alleviate the time that students, as you have been talking about in Indiana like 3 years—but this is for them to offer online courses before students arrive to the university or the college. 

And I know that so many times there are so much remedial courses 

that students have to take. 

And I would just like to know what you think about that, where 

Concordia actually is having the on-line course, and the student receives college credit for it. And I think the University of Illinois, 

theirs is not credit, but at least it avoids another term maybe of 

college. 

Maybe, Dr. May, you could start with that. 

Mr. MAY. Sure. In relation to online, we have seen that the fastest growing part of our college enrollments over the last several 

years. And part of the reason for that we have also continued to 

see an increase in the age of students. Our average student today 

has been out of high school 8 years when they enroll. They are trying to balance work, family, job all together and also the inability 

to predict accurately a future in terms of their lives. So online has 

become very attractive for those individuals. 

And colleges are I think engaged in—and we certainly are in 

Louisiana—to really as a response to the needs of students and to 

make sure that we have the workforce that is in place to meet 

those needs. So it is increasingly important, and we expect that to 

continue to be the fastest growing aspect of our colleges. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Ms. Lubbers, maybe you could comment on that 

from Indiana. But I think that this really is addressing the student 

that really is maybe the traditional student you know that is just 

out of high school and could spend time before that, you know, 

doing some of the remedial or whatever these courses would offer. 

Ms. LUBBERS. Well, what is abundantly clear is that we need to 

a better job in however we are doing remediation and that it hasn’t 

been working the way we are doing it. And working with Complete 

College America and other organizations, Indiana is very committed to the redesign of remediation. It is devastating to a student 

when they have to take remediation, even more so when they don’t 

complete and they never continue with their work. 

So to answer to your question more specifically, I think on line 

work is turning out to be very effective. I know our community col-
53 

lege system, ID Tech, is using it with some pre-courses to get students ready so that they begin. 

Stan would offer, I am sure, that to the degree that we can get 

students immediately into credit bearing courses and if by the use 

of on line and giving them some of that remediation before they 

can start credit bearing courses more quickly saves them time, 

saves them money, encourages them so they can continue to keep 

going. 

You know, I think there are lots of different models, and I think 

that is a very important model as well as we effectively use on line 

to move students, increase their learning, and move them more 

quickly. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Do you, and maybe Mr. Jones, do you think they 

should offer just a regular, you know, the first course in there, 

what they want their degree in or anything, to do that on line before they get to school? Or is it just that we should use it for remedial? 

Mr. JONES. Well, I think three quick points. One is that the most 

developing effective strategies are blended courses that maybe have 

one-half with regular in person teachers and one-half on line or 

two-thirds in person and one-third blended are showing—the researchers are saying that is the best result, this balance. 

Second, almost any community college in the country will say 

that 50 percent—this is to your point, Congressman—50 percent of 

the students that graduated from high school in the spring start 

in remedial courses in the fall taking the same courses. That is 

where a lot of Latinos and African Americans are ending up. 

And the third point I want to make is it is highly ineffective. In 

Texas, 40,000 students at the community college start in remedial 

math programs. Three years later, only 15 percent have completed 

the first math course. And so I think that the on line learning has 

a great place as a blended strategy, and remediation is a great 

place to do that. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Pattison, do you have any comments on that? 

Mr. PATTISON. Well, it is interesting that what you have seen 

over the years is that before technology allowed online type of activities there have been many colleges and universities that bring 

students early that needed remediation or made remediation requirements, and it is nice to see that there is an ability with new 

technology to try to deal with that unfortunate issue and hopefully 

do it in a more cost-effective way and, frankly, a more convenient 

way, too. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. This is kind of a basic question, but how do these 

colleges that have students know who is going to be in a remedial 

program before they get there? 

Mr. JONES. The best strategy is their high school. There are 4 

years of record there. Those that have been out longer, as Joe talks 

about, they probably need some type of placement. But remediation 

at the college level simply is not working. We need different strategies there, different strategies in high schools to get them ready for 

college. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. 
54 

I would now like to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for closing comments. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I want to thank each of the panelists, because I 

agree with those before me that it has been a great discussion, very 

interesting, and something that really needs to be addressed. 

Our population in the country is over 310 million, and when we 

went into the recession in 2008 many who had had jobs 10, 20 

years with their respective employer lost their job. And we talked 

about retraining them for the jobs that would be available, and we 

found out here in Congress that some 40 percent of all of those who 

had lost their jobs had a third grade level of education on literacy 

in reading, and writing. So how could you retrain them if they 

couldn’t read? 

So several of us have started an Adult Education Caucus trying 

to help them out. The appropriators can’t see their way clear to appropriate money to do that. 

But I am going to reiterate and say that, Ms. Lubbers, you hit 

the nail on the head when you said that early reading plus writing 

equals success in school, and that was taught to us by members of 

our Education Committee who went to China to find out how it 

was that 97 percent of those who started kindergarten were graduating. And the response they gave us was that they started reading to those children from the cradle up to 3 and 4 years of age 

and that they could read by the time they were 4 years old. And 

we don’t seem to get it. As smart as we think we are, we don’t get 

it. 

And if we don’t correct that, this 310 million may become 400 

million, and we will be worse off than what has been shown by all 

of your statistics. 

So I want to say that I hope that somehow in the report that we 

address what countries that have one-fourth of the per capita income, such as China and India and South Korea, are graduating 

over 90 percent of their children and turning out far, far more college-ready students than we are. So it is not so much the money 

but that we raise the priorities as to where we are going to invest 

our money, and that is that early reading plus writing to be successful and college ready. 

I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts on how States and 

institutions can do more to rein in college costs and make higher 

education more affordable for our students and for adults. I look 

forward to working with you and other key stakeholders in the 

higher education community to address all of the issues covered 

here today. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

I want to thank again our distinguished panel of witnesses for 

taking time to testify before the subcommittee today. As you heard 

and you heard Mr. Miller say and all of us say on both sides of the 

aisle, this was a very good hearing, and we appreciate your taking 

the time to do this. I am very, very grateful to you for all of the 

comments that you shared with us. 

I would like to make just a couple of comments based on something Mr. Hinojosa said as well as build on some things you all 

said. 
55 

It is not the money. I am so glad to hear Mr. Hinojosa say that. 

We spend an awful lot of money on education in this country, and 

we are not getting the results we should be getting. And so I am 

glad to hear that as a bipartisan feeling, also, because that is not 

what we always hear. I think it is a matter of priorities, and I 

think it is a matter of accountability, and it is a matter of pay for 

performance, and many other things that you have mentioned. 

I am reminded every time I hear a panel like this of something 

that former Governor Bob Scott said when he was head of the community college system and I was a community college president. He 

met with the presidents and said to us—this was back in the 

1990s, early 1990s—he said, folks, I can no longer go to the general 

assembly and say we are doing the Lord’s work; now give us more 

money. He said, we have to prove that we are getting results. 

Well, I thought that, you know, nirvana was going to come a long 

time ago and that we were going to start having to show results 

across the board. I did that when I was a community college president. I could prove that the money I was spending was being well 

spent. But we haven’t moved as far along in that direction in higher education as I thought we would at that time. 

Somebody pointed out, but you all didn’t make it explicit, that, 

right now, only 25 percent of the students in college are in 4-year 

residential situations. So most of the time, though, people are 

thinking that is the model. And that isn’t the model that we need 

to be dealing with, and we have to change the mindset of a lot of 

people. And you all have brought out some of those issues today, 

but I think it needs to be explicitly said. 

On the issue of remediation, I not only was a community college 

president, but I helped set up remediation programs at Appalachian State University, and I know how those things work, also. 

If we will stop paying for remediation, if we will stop paying the 

elementary and secondary schools, Mr. Hinojosa, when they don’t 

do their jobs, then I think we will see a difference. Appalachian 

State University decided to put in what we call developmental 

math because they had students taking 4-hour math courses four 

times and not being able to pass them. That was very expensive 

for Appalachian State University. That got the attention of the 

math department. So they decided in self-interest to offer a remedial course to get the students up to par. 

Again, when it becomes efficient and it becomes worth their 

while, many of the colleges and universities will do these things. 

You haven’t touched today very much on programs in the high 

schools. I am a huge proponent of dual enrollment, both for community college credit as well as university credit. Again, Appalachian State University did this back in the 1960s and ’70s for 

high school students, some high school students graduating with as 

many as 24 hours of college credit. 

We need to be doing more of all of those things to bring down 

the cost. We know the answers, I think, in many cases. Because 

you all showed the models that are out there. Now I think the challenge to us is how do we offer incentives, not—I don’t want us to 

do more regulatory sticks, but how do we offer incentives or how 

do we help people see that it is in their self-interest to be doing 

the kinds of things that you are pointing out that are being done. 
56 

And I do think you have brought—all four of you have brought 

great ideas to us today, and I want to thank you for it. 

One other comment that I didn’t make. You talked about the 72 

percent increase in tuition or, in the case of Indiana, 100 percent. 

At the same time nationally that tuition is going up 72 percent, the 

average income of Americans has gone up only 34 percent, and so 

there is a huge gap there. And I don’t think the higher education 

community has been willing to deal with that reality in the past. 

Because we all want our children to have great educations. We all 

want that. And too many times, as Governor Scott said, you know 

the higher education community has been asking for a blank check, 

basically. We can’t continue to do that. So we have to figure out 

a way, as Mr. Hinojosa said, I think how do we get a better return 

on the money that we are spending in this area and taking from 

hardworking Americans. 

So thank you all again for being here. I want to thank all of the 

members of the committee for coming and the meeting is adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 
57 
58 
59 

Ms. Lubbers’ Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

CHAIRMAN JOHN KLINE

1. Providing better information to Hoosier students about the value of higher education and associated smart decisions about academic and financial preparation has 

been integrated into our strategic plan and our outreach efforts. Working with our 

K-12 colleagues and our higher education partners, we have coordinated our efforts 

to make certain students and families understand the implications of decisions they 

make about school and career choices. To that end, we have implemented a College 

Cost Estimator that allows them to compare the net cost of college versus the published cost. While the federal government has required higher education institutions 

to publish net cost data, our tool provides much more information to students and 

allows them to use it in a user-friendly, comparative way. We are in the process 

of expanding on this outreach to include a more comprehensive Return on Invest-
60 

ment Calculator that will highlight institutional performance and characteristics as 

well as information designed to assist students in making better decisions. It’s clear 

that finding the right fit for a college is directly tied to affordability/debt, completion 

and career aspirations. 

The federal government’s role in the oversight of higher education is limited, but 

there are certainly areas where there is an appropriate and important involvement. 

Working with the states to provide up to date data on financial aid, institutional 

quality and workforce trends is one important way. Just last week the U.S. Department of Education released its Financial Aid Shopping Sheet and is seeking voluntary use of the document among postsecondary institutions. Future iterations of 

the document might include information about the employment outcomes of students, as well as average earnings by the institutions’ graduates. Likewise, the 

whorl of data points about affordability and quality begs for improved aggregation, 

accessibility and transparency. States efforts should be complemented by a federal 

repository that allows for comparison of key data points, including better information on part-time and adult students. Mark Kantrowitz of FinAid.org released on 

August 1 a useful policy statement (Who Graduates College with Six-Figure Student 

Loan Debt?), in which he makes some cogent and specific recommendations for federal action. ‘‘The U.S. Department of Education should track and publish more information about student loan debt, such as college-specific delinquency, deferment 

and forbearance rates, repayment plan utilization and average debt at graduation 

figures (disaggregated by degree level).’’ Indiana supports well-reasoned measure 

that would augment the federal government’s role in supporting informational 

transparency on these very complex issues. 

2. Not surprisingly, there were mixed reviews when performance funding was introduced. While some concerns remain, by reaching out to the institutions and 

building our metrics around mission differentiation we have been able to sustain 

and increase performance funding. We are in the process of refining our formula to 

pay for what we value: completion, efficiency, affordability and a focus on at-risk 

students and STEM degrees. Again, we have done this in concert with our institutional partners. We have built strong legislative support and are committed to performance funding whether there are new dollars, flat funding or reductions in higher education. 

CHAIRWOMAN VIRGINIA FOXX

1. Indiana students borrow an average of $27,000 to finance a college degree and 

tuition has increased over 100% in the past decade. It is against this backdrop and 

the low per capita personal income of Hoosiers that we recognized the need to step 

up our efforts to tackle the affordability issue. At the same time that we’re telling 

people they need postsecondary credentials we need to ensure that the goal is attainable. 

2. While change is hard and we are asking our institutions to adapt to new realities, we have worked to overcome resistance by partnering with faculty members 

and school leaders. For example, when we stepped up our transfer efforts, we did 

so through a faculty led process that resulted in the seamless transfer of 85 courses 

throughout the system. Likewise, as we work to institute a 30 credit general education core, we are working to develop it based on the core competencies identified 

by faculty. 

Moving to a performance funding system has been challenging, especially in trying to fairly recognize the unique roles of our institutions—community colleges, research institutions and four year comprehensive teaching schools. This task has 

been made easier by integrating our formula into our higher education strategic 

plan that is focused on completion, productivity and quality. 

REPRESENTATIVE LOU BARLETTA

1. The work of improving educational outcomes and quality will be done in great 

measure at the institutional level. At our commission, we establish policies that are 

focused on student success, affordability, quality and productivity. In that regard, 

we drive our funding around those metrics. We also have an important role in providing clear information on the value of higher education, including institutional 

quality, financial aid and borrowing, career choices and workforce needs. Any new 

law or regulation from the federal or state government should be considered through 

the lens of improving student opportunity and success. 
61 
62 
63 

Dr. May’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

CHAIRWOMAN VIRGINIA FOXX

Can you discuss what led Louisiana to recognize they had problems in making college affordable for your students? 

Like much of the nation, Louisiana faces a mismatch between the skills of the 

workforce and the needs of employers. Today, most employers are looking for individuals that have some education beyond high school and less than a bachelor’s degree. 

One of the primary barriers to accessing higher education is cost. Yet, declining 

state budgets have caused states to place an increasingly larger burden on students. 

Following this trend, Louisiana has witnessed reduced state funding and increased 

student tuition. 
64 

As a state, we realized that simply shifting the burden from the state to students 

was unacceptable. Therefore, as a state, we began in-depth policy discussions to 

identify ways to serve more students while driving down the cost per student. 

The story of Aeisha Ross is an example of the reason why we focused on reducing 

costs. As a single mother with a mortgage payment, living on food stamps, and up 

to three part-time jobs, she struggled to meet the needs of her family. One day, she 

mumbled to herself, ‘‘I hate my life.’’ With this statement, she resolved to make a 

better life for her and her family. 

She soon realized that the only way out of her life situation was to get a good 

paying job. The only way to get a good paying job was to get more education and 

training. She then made the decision that changed her life. She enrolled in the process technology program at SOWELA Technical Community College in Lake Charles, 

Louisiana. 

Today, Aeisha earns a six figure income as a control room operator for Shell’s Onshore Gas Group. She cites that an affordable and accessible education was the key 

to not only a great paying job, but a great life. 

Therefore, despite budget challenges, the Louisiana Community & Technical College System is still the most affordable option for the first two years of higher education. We are pleased to continue offering quality programming throughout the 

state at a relative bargain compared to other institutions but we will not stand still. 

We will continue to improve in dual enrollment focusing on high school students, 

developmental education to prepare students for college level work, college transfer 

to feed into four-year colleges and universities and workforce training to provide the 

skills Louisiana requires to prosper. 

Did you encounter any resistance from institutions when Louisiana began to discuss higher education reforms? How did you appease the concerns of the faculty? 

What benefits have students and institutions realized since enacting the reforms put 

forward by Louisiana? How is the state working to ensure institutions receive the 

support they need to implement this initiative? 

As I stated in my previous testimony, we firmly believe that Louisiana’s community and technical colleges have no needs. That being said, students have needs, employers have needs, communities have needs, and states have needs. Higher education is the primary means by which many of these needs are addressed. 

With this philosophy, faculty at both two-year and four-year institutions have 

proven themselves to be the key to developing solutions that improve educational 

quality while reducing cost. Certainly every member of our faculty and staff are 

aware of the economic difficulties faced by Louisiana since 2008. By engaging all 

of our human resources to find workable solutions, we have reduced overall costs 

per student while improving educational quality. The strategies we utilized to 

achieve this goal included improving student transfer and articulation, reducing the 

hours needed to earn a degree, and, perhaps most importantly, aligning instructional programs with workforce needs to ensure that graduates can earn a sustainable and livable wage. 

As we have focused on keeping college affordable, we have had to make some important and sometimes difficult program decisions. Over the past four years, Louisiana’s community and technical colleges have closed over 700 programs and have 

added approximately a 150 new programs. The programs that were eliminated did 

not lead to good paying jobs in today’s economy. The new programs that were initiated all lead to good paying jobs that align with employer needs. 

The only way the state of Louisiana can ensure strong financial support for higher 

education is through job growth and economic development. The strong support 

demonstrated toward community and technical colleges by Governor Bobby Jindal 

and the Louisiana legislature is evidence of their commitment to improved access, 

success, and program quality. 

REPRESENTATIVE LOU BARLETTA

It is important to hold all institutions of higher education (public, private, and forprofit) to high standards. However, all too often our regulations and laws are written 

to prevent and subsequently penalize behavior of our institutions. What ways do you 

believe the federal government and states could incentivize local institutions of higher 

education to improve educational outcomes and increase the quality of higher education in our country without adding costs to the federal or state governments? 

With the exception of programs designed to improve student access, such as the 

Pell Grant Program, most laws, regulations, and policies are best implemented at 

the state level and local levels. As policies move to the national level, the likelihood 

of producing unintended consequences is increased. 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ