As congressional Democrats debate
amongst themselves how many new trillions the federal government should spend,
it is becoming increasingly
clear that, as my colleague Beth Akers put it, “many of the progressive
dreams of the primary, including free college, [are coming] to a screeching
halt.”
This is good news for those who
favor a market-oriented approach to higher education reform. But in the near term,
it will be up to state legislators and policymakers — not Congress or the
Department of Education — to take concrete steps toward a more efficient system
of higher education. To that end, AEI’s Conservative
Education Reform Network recently published a report by Michael Brickman, “The
missing element in education reform: State-based policies to improve
postsecondary outcomes.”
Brickman argues that earlier
state reform efforts “have too often been incremental rather than
transformational, reactive rather than proactive, and lacking in the type of
cohesive framework and vision often seen in K–12 education reform.” His report
outlines three areas where proactive reform could re-orient higher education.
First, state leaders have a
variety of tools at their disposal to fight credential inflation. Brickman
notes, for example, the lack of robust evidence justifying requirements or
bonuses for master’s degrees for K–12 schoolteachers. If state leaders
eliminated requirements or bonuses for teachers to obtain master’s degrees, it
would not only stop wasting money — it would also help to hedge against diploma
inflation. Brickman also argues that states can and should shift focus in
professional licensure from credentials to competencies. Utah, as one example,
took a step in the right direction by allowing its state licensing bodies to
allow applicants to accept a competency-based licensing requirement. Brickman argues
that other states should follow and extend Utah’s example.
Second, Brickman argues that
state leaders clarify community colleges’ missions. Many community colleges are
now re-orienting to promise students a cheap on-ramp to four-year bachelor’s
degrees, or offering more bachelor’s degrees themselves. Brickman argues that
this shift risks “distracting such institutions from their core mission” of
providing workforce-relevant training and skills. He argues that states should
require students pursuing associates degrees to choose a concentration tied to
an industry-recognized credential. A student could be required, for example, to
choose a 12-credit concentration (e.g., one yielding a Google IT certificate)
while being free to put remaining credits toward liberal arts subjects.
Finally, state leaders should
recognize that they have the power to make policy decisions to ensure that
universities are well-tailored to workforce needs. Indeed, “states must work
with universities to have candid, forward-looking conversations about which
programs are necessary and which are not.” Brickman recommends governors
appoint a state task force to examine duplicative programming, better align
academic offerings with employer demands, and evaluate the returns on investment
of various offerings.
The Obama administration
attempted to use a (since rescinded) federal “Gainful Employment” regulation to
shutter programs (in for-profit colleges only) that burdened graduates with
high debt and little economic benefit. Although Brickman stops short of
directly recommending that state policymakers review programs with an eye
toward shuttering low-performers, I’d argue that as stewards of taxpayer
dollars and overseers of higher education, they have a duty to consider doing
so.
If, as expected, the Biden administration’s free college agenda stalls, states will have some time and space to consider substantive reforms to their higher education systems that may actually pass and come at a lower cost to taxpayers. The time is ripe for state-based higher education reform to drive better outcomes for students and employers.
The post Three state-based higher education reform initiatives appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.