On this episode, we talk with three people who have worked for the past two years on NCSL’s Task Force on Higher Education Affordability and Student Outcomes in 2022. They explained how the project started and how the final report will help address key challenges in the system.
Recent polls find that many Americans have declining confidence in higher education, in large part because of the levels of student debt, the cost of college and concerns about uneven student outcomes.
To better understand these challenges, NCSL formed a Task Force on Higher Education Affordability and Student Outcomes in 2022. The group has now issued its report. The co-chairs of the task force – Senators Ann Millner (R) of Utah and Michael Dembrow (D) of Oregon – talked with us about what they discovered. Also on the show is Austin Reid of NCSL, a federal affairs adviser in the Washington D.C., office, who worked with the task force.
Reid explained the genesis of the task force and the importance of trying to better coordinate the efforts of state government, the federal government and institutions of higher education.
Dembrow and Millner explained how the bipartisan group of legislators on the task force came to understand the importance of a degree of value. The also expressed hope that the task force’s work will lead to greater coordination between state and federal officials.
Resources
Ed: Hello and welcome to “Our American States,” a podcast from the National Conference of State Legislatures. I’m your host, Ed Smith.
AR: NCSL felt that legislators were overdue to examine in today’s context the performance of our higher education system.
Ed: That was Austin Reid with NCSL, one of my guests on this podcast, along with Senators Ann Millner of Utah and Michael Dembrow of Oregon. All three joined me to discuss a just released report from NCSL’s task force on higher education affordability and student outcomes. Recent polls find that many Americans have declining confidence in higher education in large parts because of the levels of student debt, the cost of college and concerns about uneven student outcomes. NCSL’s task force was formed in 2022 and met with people concerned about higher education at the state and federal level and also with leaders in higher education. This bipartisan task force included 29 legislators and four legislative staff from 32 states.
Reid explained the genesis of the task force and the importance of trying to better coordinate the efforts of state government, federal government and institutions of higher education. Dembrow and Millner both expressed hope that the task force’s work will lead to greater coordination between state and federal officials. They also expressed enthusiasm for the notion of degrees of value which they explain in more detail in our conversation.
Here is our discussion starting with Austin Reid.
Austin, welcome to the podcast.
AR: Thanks, Ed. Happy to be here.
Ed: So, we are going to talk about this task force on higher education that you were working on with a group of legislators and I wonder this is the first time in nearly 20 years that a group of state legislators has convened to examine and address national issues of higher education. And I wonder what motivated NCSL and you to convene this task force and how did it come together?
AR: That’s a great question to start. I think there were two primary motivations behind the creation of this task force. One was to consider and address long standing challenges that we’ve seen in higher education particularly around affordability and outcomes. But in a more new and recent way to really examine the federal policy role in higher education compared to the state policy role. So, on the first motivation, you know NCSL felt that legislators were overdue to examine in today’s context the performance of higher education system. The last time that NCSL convened and nationally represented a group of legislatures was actually back in 2006 with the Blue-Ribbon Commission on Higher Education. And that had about 12 legislators that participated and they really looked at state policy matters. Many of the concerns that you would find in the report you know actually relate to affordability and graduation. Those are you know I think continual concerns today and they’ve arguably deepened over the past 20 years or at least situated a bit differently in today’s context. So, in recognition of these ongoing challenges, this task force was convened to kind of pick up maybe where that commission left off and our NCSL Executive Committee charged this task force with trying to find recommendations to make higher education more affordable, to increase completion rates and then to reduce the rates of students who are unable to repay their debts. And I think it’s this issue of student debt particularly repayment struggles that’s really the key difference between the last time the legislators convened and today. So, since 2006 the last time we convened cumulative student debt has actually tripled from a little under $500 billion to close to $1.8 trillion and this is a huge figure. It is the second largest form of consumer debt. Now I will note that when we are talking about student debt there are a couple of things that the task force found kind of notable in its studies. One they would note that half of this debt is actually for graduate education programs. And in fact, actually borrowing for undergraduate education is down 50% from a high that was set about a decade ago and I think that really colored their understanding of the scope of the challenges that we see within the loan program.
But as it related to the task force as charged, this rapidly growth of the loan program has kind of quietly expanded the federal footprint in higher education and that really led us into our second motivation for this task force which was to better understand the state and federal relationship in higher education and to articulate the roles and responsibilities of the federal government higher education. And this is probably the first time in a while that legislatures have actually engaged in this kind of conversation. You might be surprised to find that unlike K-12 education where there is a real formal partnership between states and the federal government, there really isn’t much of a direct relationship between the federal government and states. For the most part, the federal government works with institutions. So do states, but they very rarely work together and there is not much in the way of policy that binds them. You know historically, the federal government has played a complimentary role to states and this is mostly because states have provided the lion share of public support for higher education and are constitutionally the primary governing authority. But in the last five years, this is starting to change a little bit and it’s particularly because the student loan program has quickly gotten a lot more expensive than policymakers originally expected. So, you may know that federal spending on student loan relief or payment assistance and forgiveness over the past five years has totaled close to about $400 billion. And in some ways, this has sort of narrowed the gap between state and federal spending on higher education. And of course, these rising costs are creating this bipartisan pressure for an expanded role in higher education governance at the federal level and it’s particularly in the area of accountability. And so, we’ve seen the federal government either take on or signal a greater interest in aspects of college affordability and governance which we typically consider to be at the state roles and we’ve already seen some policies that have begun to overlap with where states would traditionally have the domain.
And so, all these developments have really brought into question and this traditional arrangement of the state and federal roles in higher education. So, this was something that NCSL being sort of stewards of good federalism really felt that legislators should look into and especially with the introduction of some pretty consequential legislation regulation that has already impacted states or could impact states in the future. You know also note this wasn’t an original motivation of the task force, but since the task force was launched a couple of years ago, we’ve seen an uptick in enrollment challenges or future enrollment challenges in higher education and a number of recent polls have spoken to the declining public confidence in higher education. So, this was a particularly meaningful time for the task force to weigh in on these 2 issues even though they are longstanding, they do have a little bit more contemporary relevance.
And so clearly there’s quite a bit at stake in terms of what this task force was really charged to do in the moment that it’s trying to meet. So how it came together, your second part of your question. NCSL had reached out to chamber leadership for more than 30 different legislatures and that those leaders nominated one of their members to participate on the task force and that ended up with about 29 different legislators and 4 legislative staff from more than 30 states that made up this task force. And of course, in NCSL fashion, these legislators represent both parties in equal measure and the states represent every part of the country. So, we had members from Hawaii all the way to Maine and from Minnesota all the way down to Mississippi. Most of the legislators on the task force are deeply experienced and most of them were the committee chair of a relevant committee in their legislature and so it was thanks to this broad engagement of legislatures across the country that we were able to convene a task force that really could speak with true credibility and authority at a moment where there’s quite a bit that’s on the table.
TM: 8:16
Ed: Well after this interview, I’m speaking with the cochairs at the task force and they were both deeply involved in education so I’m sure that’s reflective of the other folks. Let me ask you this. I’ve done a number of podcasts in recent years about individual states trying to pass legislation related to accountability, affordability and value of the degree. What’s the core difference between the task force approach and what states have been doing individually?
AR: So NCSL overall has, as you know, a dual purpose to strengthen the legislative institution and then also to act as the voice for state legislatures at the federal level. And usually, we convene legislators to think about either state policy or federal policy and sometimes a little bit of a connection between the two of them. But in this case, it was very natural that we considered both of these dual roles of NCSL. As I mentioned, this task force was very much motivated by understanding the federal role and then really delineating the responsibilities of the federal government to better guide its approach to policymaking. But this task force’s work wasn’t just about the federal role in isolation. It was really about the relationship to the state role and that brings into question some really big considerations. You know who is responsible for college affordability in our country. You know who is responsible for ensuring that colleges offer a quality education. You know these are really fundamental questions of shared governance and the ones that are actively being considered in the federal policymaking space and we are even seeing some consequences of that. So, it made sense that we brought legislators up to speed to get a better understanding of that federal role.
It was also important that they really considered their role as legislatures and that was particularly important so that we could clarify that for federal policymakers. You know practically speaking there are a lot of people that staff the federal government and work in the federal policy space that often don’t know the full parameters or the history of what that state role is. And so not only was this an important time to help legislators think about what their role is in 2024, but also to really communicate to a number of other stakeholders what that state role is and should be. But even more than this, this was also an opportunity for legislators to come together and to take stock of their efforts. As you mentioned, the states focus on policy within their states but we have 50 different states and that constitutes a national system of higher education and it was really important that we looked at how the collective actions of states were impacting the performance of our higher education system across state lines. You know when thinking about his system of higher education, the task force also felt that they wanted to broaden their scope of their work just beyond the state and federal roles. And that is because they are aware that higher education has a bit of a tradition of operating with a great deal of autonomy and it even has its own systems of self-governance that sit beyond the state and the federal legislatures. So when they were thinking about changes that they’d like to see in higher education and policymaking, the task force recognized that policy plays a really important role, but sometimes it plays a complimentary role and you know many of the things that define higher education that are of concern to policymakers are really and truly the primary responsibility of colleges than that can run the gamut from the types of degrees that are offered, how those degrees are taught and how much they cost. These are really things that sit within higher education’s domain. So, ultimately the task force felt that real change in higher education would require coordination and collaboration between not just state and federal policymakers, but higher education leaders as well. And I think that’s why you will see one part of the report that comments on the state/federal relationship in higher education. And then another that offers a vision for how states, the federal government and higher education can work together to make sure that we are offering students more degrees of value. I think the real emerging focus of the task force was about getting everyone on the same page and trying to move in the same direction knowing that this was a unique moment the first time in 20 years that we’ve really attempted to do this.
TM: 12:18
Ed: One of the beauties and challenges of NCSL is crafting bipartisan agreement on any number of issues and certainly on this one. So, you have the task force. You went out and did the investigation. Can you talk about how you created a bipartisan report and was that a difficult thing to do or did people kind of see things the same way?
AR: Yeah, I think if you talk about this with folks that are outside of the NCSL context they would think that there would be quite a lot of headwinds that would keep legislators from finding consensus on some of these challenges in higher education. But we in fact actually found the opposite. The conversations that we had throughout the life of the task force were highly bipartisan and we ended up having I think organically developed the three key ingredients that you need for bipartisan consensus. And so, the first, of course, is you need a common set of goals. They needed a common understanding of the challenges as well as a common understanding of the solutions that we would need to get towards those goals. And so, over the life of this task force we, of course, started with a common understanding of the goals that this task force wanted to achieve. These are really promulgated and thought about through our NCSL Executive Committee and again as I mentioned they really charged the task force with thinking about how can we make college more affordable; how can we have better student outcomes and how can we make sure that students are graduating with less debt or at least have the ability to successfully repay their loans. And of course, if you talked to any legislator, they will of course hardily agree that these are three important if not the most essential goals of our higher education system. So, that was you know the first ingredient was provided for the legislators and it was one that really had a lot of broad buy in.
But given that second ingredient in terms of that common understanding, that was really the first objective of this task force and so the task force met for the first time in Providence, Rhode Island, last year and the goal of that meeting was to come to a common understanding of the state of higher education outcome so the task force got together and they studied the data on affordability and completion rates and graduate success and student loan repayment. It was really a little bit of an institute to develop the understanding of the legislators and it was during this study and the day long conversations that we had that we were able to identify and then find consensus around the saliant challenges that faced higher education. And truly for the most part, there was really strong consensus about the challenges. You know there were some expected differences and how the legislators saw the root causes of those challenges, but those just allowed for I think productive discussion and they kept the conversations really sharp in a way that the good bipartisan dialogue should be.
Now normally once you get that kind of common understanding about the challenges you know state policymakers would jump right into exploring the solutions and providing recommendations. But this task force, again as I mentioned, kind of took on this broad charge to make recommendations on federal policy and to higher education. So, the task force paused and really thought that it was imperative to draw those leaders into their discussions early on partly to you know give them a better sense of finding cross sector consensus, but it was really to facilitate what they felt was a much-needed effort at coordinating and collaborating amongst the powers that be. And so, in December of 2023, the task force hosted the first of its kind convening it was called the Summit on the State Federal Relationship and Higher Education and they hosted it here in Washington, D.C. And what was really unique about this meeting is that the task force members invited a higher education leader in their state to join them for this meeting. And so, the task force members brought in leaders across the different sectors of higher education. So, we had leaders that really represented every part of higher education. There was a really incredible amount of geographic and institutional diversity in the room amongst both the legislators and the leaders that they brought in higher education.
Of course, as I mentioned earlier there isn’t a strong relationship between states and the federal government. So NCSL and the legislators also invited members of Congress and senior officials from the Department of Education and the current administration which included the current Secretary of Education and the former secretaries of Education. And so, across this convening, the task force hosted a series of roundtable discussions on those key challenges that they identified at their meeting in Providence. And this was really the first time in anyone’s memory that state legislators had actually formally convened with the federal government and especially with alongside higher education leaders. And this meeting really helped the task force work through what priorities they wanted to set and it also helped sort of define the parameters from where they thought bipartisan and consensus driven agenda could take place amongst the states and the institutions and the federal government. And so finally you know we’ve got the two ingredients. We’ve got the goal set. We’ve got a common sense of the challenges. And then we were working since that meeting on finding a common agreement to round the kind of solutions that we would like to see to meet the goals that our Executive Committee set out for the task force.
So, a few months ago, the task force met for their final meeting in Park City, Utah, and they really decided and deliberated on the extensive recommendations that you will see in the report. And ultimately the task force felt that their decisions needed to be unanimous or very much near unanimous so the ideas and the recommendations that you will see in the report really reflect broad bipartisan consensus. There is no idea or concept that shows up that is marginally bipartisan. This was something that really had the buy in of the members from this task force. And I think what you will find is that the breadth of ideas and findings in this report really speak to how much this task force was able to agree on. There’s quite a bit of findings and recommendations that span the entire gamut of the state and federal role of higher education and the institutional role we were able to be successful because of how much the legislators are really committed to bipartisan conversation and how well intended they were to be thoughtful and balanced with their recommendations in the hopes that they could really advance a better system of higher education.
TM: 18:32
Ed: Well, I think as your explanation demonstrates, bipartisanship is possible, but it takes a lot of work. I think sometimes people outside the context of NCSL think of it as pollyannish, but the truth is it happens all the time on all kinds of issues. But it does take a lot of work to get people on the same page. Now let me ask you the really hard thing to do. You’ve got this big report and I’m going ask you to give me what the recommendations are in the sort of Cliff Notes fashion, the brief approach. What will people and we will of course link to the report from the show notes and people can always go to the NCSL website, but what are the topline recommendations that people will see in there?
AR: And you are right. This is such a comprehensive report that being concise is a little bit of a challenge and I think one of the messages that we would like to bring with this report is that it is intended to really influence policymakers thinking for a number of years and so we wanted to make sure that it really had a comprehensive set of findings and recommendations. It could really give it some staying power. But in terms of the recommendations, there’s two parts of the report that I would draw your intention to. This is I should say a three-part report. It’s also summarized in what they call a report and brief which is a little bit of a running joke because it is not a particularly brief in brief summary of the report. But again, we think that you know this is something that is really worth everyone’s time in taking the effort to really read through.
The first part of the report really just outlines actually the findings that the task force had around the current state of outcomes in higher education and also gives a little bit of history around the state and federal policy roles in higher education. This part of the report was really something that we brought to the legislators and that they sort of developed through their conversations. And we think it’s actually a really good resource for legislators and legislative staff and even federal partners to visit just to get a sense of how higher education is performing and then you know get a sense of where the state and federal rules are there. But there are no real recommendations in that section. You would want to go then to parts two and three to find the real meat of this report. So, part two, the task force outlines their view of the state and federal relationship in higher education and they examined four key roles that states and the federal government play. Those roles being funding, finance, accountability and transparency. And so, when it comes to recommendations for federal partners in the way of funding, the task force expressed broad consensus and agreement that the federal approach to funding higher education through the Pell Grant which is need based financial aid is working and they find it a meaningful effort towards improving affordability in the states. The states also thought about their role in funding as well and I think for the most part the task force members felt like they were doing about as well as they could in terms of spending on higher education and that does show up in the data there. We are approaching nearly approaching all-time highs in students per people or in students spending in higher education and states have really increased collectively funding in higher education year over year for the last decade or so. And they feel like their roles were complemented by what the federal government does over in the Pell Grant.
Over in the role of finance, the task force felt that the federal role in finance has gotten a little bit convoluted and confusing. You know typically the federal role in finance is student loans. But as I mentioned, the student loan program has gotten rather expensive and that’s had some implications for the federal posture towards affordability in particular student loan repayment is actually expected to exceed the cost of federal spending on the Pell Grant over the next decade. And the task force really was thinking through the ethicacy of a federal role that provided as much support for backend loan repayment assistance as it would on upfront financial aid for students. And really wondering whether or not that would lead to the outcomes that we want to see in higher education and whether or not that would be a good expenditure of federal dollars. And so, the task force ultimately urged Congress to weigh in and to really clarify the role and the goals of the student loan program to make sure that the terms that borrowers are getting are fair as well as far as the terms that taxpayers are getting are fair as well.
On the roles of transparency and accountability, Cliff Notes there is that the task force felt that the federal government could be playing a greater role in terms of helping states understand outcomes in higher education and so they would welcome a little bit of an expanded role in transparency at the federal level but really did express a fairly deeply skepticism for the federal role on accountability of outcomes in higher education. I think essentially the task force felt that there are 50 states and there are many institutions in those states and many different types of degree programs and so for the federal government to being to start judging the quality of outcomes that is not something that it is well positioned to do and it is really something that is left up to the states.
And then the final thing in that section that I think is worth looking at is that the states also felt take a look at what their relationship was to the federal government and whether or not there should be more formal engagement going forward. And so, the task force certainly concluded that this dynamic that existed before the founding of this task force where the states and the federal government didn’t talk to each other was something they didn’t wish to continue and so they are hoping the states and the federal government can coordinate and collaborate on an ongoing basis going forward. In fact, generally they felt that the federal role should really attempt to complement what states are doing to improve student outcomes. They also thought about whether or not this should happen in a more formalized way. Didn’t come to any specific conclusions there, but did offer a lot of different thinking on what a limited state/federal partnership could look like in higher education. So that’s part two of the report really looking at that state and federal relationship, but I think the most exciting message and I think the message that really motivated the members of this task force is found in part 3 of the report. That part is titled a state led strategy to enhance the value of higher education. And I think that’s really the enduring message of this task force to study. You know when we were talking about the challenges that face higher education what the task force members really felt took all of those concerns together was this concept of value and that they really wanted every student to be able to get a degree of value. And the task force members felt that there was a lot of really expensive degrees in higher education that some would say are unaffordable that are actually really great values. But they also know there’s a lot of really expensive degrees that don’t payout very well for students. And then on the flipside, they know that there’s a lot of really affordable programs out there that lead to life changing outcomes for students. But there are also some really cheap programs that don’t lead to great outcomes and students really aren’t left better off. And so, they felt that rather than thinking about how we can get more degrees or make degrees cheaper, they really thought that we should think about the value of those degrees and really orient the way that we do policy around this concept of value.
And so, taking that real desire of the legislators, they outlined what they thought would be sort of a national framework for enhancing the value of degrees and they kind of came up with a common-sense framework that allows for a lot of different states and even the federal government to take a number of different approaches to increasing degrees of value. And so, what they said in the report is this that in order for a student to get a degree of value, 3 things have to be true. Number 1, they have to be able to get a degree that is meaningful and leads to a positive life and career outcomes. That’s true for many degrees but not necessarily all degrees. Two, and this seems sort of obvious that the student actually has to be able to get the degree and they have to be able to do it in a timely manner. One of the big statistics that motivated this task force was the fact that there are 37 million working age adults in the United States that have some credit, but no credential. So, these students have invested in higher education, but don’t have the degree and thus aren’t getting the payoff from their investment. And then finally, the task force felt that the student will get a valuable degree if the price they pay is reasonable and there’s a number of factors that they I think go into what makes a reasonable price, but certainly if students are paying too much for their higher education, they won’t get the full value out of their investment. So, from these three things that need to be true, the task force then tried to figure out what are different actions that states could take to make these three things true. What are different actions that higher education could take to make these things true and the same of the federal government. And the report, I think, outlines 33 different recommendations or suggestions for these three partners and leaders to enact to really see the task force’s vision come to fruition. And I think the key message is that you will see from the task force in those sections, one is this idea that higher education really needs to be the champion of its own change. The task force really felt that higher education could do a better job of adapting to the reality of the students that it serves in today’s higher education environment and outlines a number of different actions that they think higher ed could take to make that happen.
And then they also feel like the federal government has a role to play in helping states enhance the value of degrees. And so, they ultimately call on Congress to pass a higher education act that would complement state efforts in this way. I also note that the federal government has not passed a higher education act since 2008. It is well overdue and not only do states feel like congress should clarify the federal role through this reauthorization, but also feels like congress really does have a role to play and a timely and important role to play in increasing degrees of value. And so going forward, that’s really going to be the focus of the task force’s work is trying to help popularize this idea of really wanting to see more degrees of value and then helping legislators at both the state and the federal level to think through different strategies they can take to make sure that that’s true for every single student.
TM: 28:31
Ed: Well, I do think that that last section where you break it out into recommendations for each of the different areas the institution, the states and the federal government will be very interesting reading for people. I found that to be a really great organizing principle that you guys used in that. So, a final question, what happens now?
AR: The first order of business is that we recently released the report formally and did so with a series of events and meetings here in Washington, D.C., alongside some of the members of our task force. And this allowed us the opportunity to discuss the findings and the recommendations of the report directly with federal officials both in congress and the administration. The task force had the opportunity to brief the U.S. Department of Education. It also had direct conversations with the secretary of Education and the undersecretary of Education, who is the top federal official over federal higher education policy. While they were in town, they also met with the number of the different higher education associations that represent the various sectors of higher education and are really sort of the Nexus for leadership in higher education. And they met with those groups to get their feedback on the report and find ways that they could work together and of course if this task force wants to see federal policy change and update, it is really important that they work with the higher education associations to see that that change.
They also had the opportunity to meet with congress. They were able to convene a meeting bicameral and bipartisan meeting with many of the key staff members that staffed the committees of jurisdiction on higher education and were able to bring their message of urging congress to pass a new HEA to make sure that this is something that can really complement the work that the task force has done so far. And of course, we know that this is an election season so we are expecting of course a new congress and regardless of the election outcomes, we will see a new administration and so this report is really well timed to guide and influence federal policy for the next few years. And it is certainly a message that we will be working through with the new members, the new congress and the new administration I think in particular. This task force will be pushing federal policy to really think about how it can support more degrees of value and I think that this is really positive consensus driven by bipartisan message that could help move things forward at the federal level. The task force had quite a lot of guidance on the roles and responsibilities of the federal government so this extended guidance should really help NCSL and the task force productively engage with in a wide range of federal conversation for years to come. We might not see the higher education act reauthorized immediately, but it will happen at some point and now legislatures are well positioned to weigh in on that when it does move. And in fact, I think the task force does offer some new rationale for action and we are hoping that the bipartisan way kin which this report was created could maybe serve as an example out of congress to maybe motivate their own conversations and urgency towards this reauthorization. So, whenever this moves, we know that legislatures are in a much better position to shape this for the benefit of states.
And then of course the task force has elected to continue its work. This was originally intended to be two-year task force that it will study a federal policy, but of course the task force found that it worked itself into a broader strategy and that state led strategy to enhance the value of degrees is something that it wants to continue to explore. You know the recommendations in the report are brief recommendations and we think that the task force is going to be really interested in digging into some of those ideas and using this task force as a vehicle to continue to convene leaders across the higher education and policy landscapes and bring them together in the service of what we hope is a national and consensus driven movement towards a higher education system that awards more degrees of value.
TM: 32:30
Ed: Well, I would certainly recommend anyone interested in higher education policy in this country to get a hold to this report and read it. Austin, thanks so much. It sounds like there is certainly going to be more to come from this group so maybe we will be checking back with you on where this goes. Thanks again.
I’ll be right back after this short break with Senators Millner and Dembrow.
TM: 33:00
Ed: Senator Millner, Senator Dembrow welcome to the podcast.
AM: Thank you.
MD: Thank you very much.
Ed: Well, I really appreciate both of you taking the time to talk about this task force report. I’ve had a chance to read a brief version of it, not the entire thing. Senator Millner, let me start with you. You are a former college president and you’ve worked on education issues in the Utah Legislature for quite some time. Why did you find the work of this task force in particular important?
AM: I think it is important because we probably really never have looked at the relationship between the federal government and the state government in terms of supporting higher education in the way that we did here. Throughout history, federal government has played some role in trying to provide research funding and then trying to provide funding for making sure that all students had some opportunity regardless of means to be able to go to higher education. And probably a role in kind of the quality component of making sure working through crediting agencies that we’ve had quality higher education. But we’ve not really looked at that with respect to the states and the states really have taken primary responsibility for higher education on all levels. I mean obviously establishing the schools and the campuses. Establishing mission of the institution in their states. And in addition to that, funding and a significant amount of money related to both state support as well as sometimes supporting students and student tuition.
But it’s been this really interesting time so we’ve been going down our tracks, parallel tracks, and we are starting to see that there is some interaction in-between those 2 tracks at this point and I think it’s time to try and align our work where we can. I think we all know that people are questioning right now the value of higher education. We see the public kind of continue to raise concerns and when you see survey work you see that we’ve lost ground in terms of public support for higher education. And I think part of that is because of the cost. Part of that is not understanding the outcomes and in fact what’s my return on investment for participating in higher education. In this report, this study group really helped us step back and say we need to think about the value of higher education and we need to get much more focused in making sure that we are aligning our work around quality experiences in particularly in high demand areas in terms of workforce in our states at a quality price and in a sense that doesn’t keep students from being able to participate in higher education without a large loan debt which we think is much too high at this point.
Ed: Let me just follow-up with you with one question. You’ve been in this education role both professionally and as a legislator for a long time. Was there a single thing that surprised you?
AM: I think the thing that surprised the most was the agreement across both Republicans and Democrats that we had issues that we needed to deal with. Everybody came to the table and said we need to make sure that we have quality education systems in our higher education, but we need to do that at an affordable cost for those who participate and it can’t just be that it has an open checkbook. As a result of that, really think about and home in on how do we get accountability, how do we make sure we have the right outcomes, how to we measure those, how do we report those. Things that would give both consumers and policymakers and legislatures the opportunity to really be able to track performance.
Ed: Well, there’s nothing at NCSL that we like better than the testimony to bipartisanship so I certainly heard that. Senator Dembrow, I was surprised but not shocked to read in the report about this state/federal disconnect. I’ve done a fair amount of work at different times looking at this issue and I know that they do sort of go alone on 2 different tracks, but you guys really tried to dig in and understand that relationship and understand how to try to make it work better. And what did you learn from your conversations with people in the administration and in congress?
MD: Yeah, let me say we had a number of conversations either via Zoom or actually we had a summit in D.C. last December where we met face to face with the secretary, the undersecretary, other people from the department and a number of people from congress. They were very interested in the conversation I’m happy to hear. But I think they weren’t that intrigued by it as if really, they hadn’t thought in those terms necessarily. And I think that’s very understandable you know those of us who create policy we kind of get locked into our little bubbles and we think about you know what works for our state, what works for those that we represent. I’m sure the same thing happens in congress and in DC in general. Having this conversation was really very refreshing and what we heard from the secretary of Education for example was that he does meet fairly regularly with state legislators to discuss K-12 issues. But this has never really happened for higher ed. He seemed very interested in getting that going. And as is the case for so much of this work really, we need to kind of reshape our focus and start a new way of doing things. And I’m hoping that the work of this task force and the way that NCSL has set it up and brought us together to do this work is going to create something that is ongoing.
Ed: That really is my follow up question. Do you think there is a systemic way to change that relationship so that everyone is talking to one another and I know that this idea of some shared goals in terms of the value of degrees and that kind of thing would be part of that. What kind of structure do you think might work?
TM: 41:47
MD: Yeah, I think we need to go at it in both a formal and an informal way. You know one of the things first of all I’ll say that we learned from bringing these varied legislators together and we had almost half the states represented, Democrats and Republicans. Very different systems. You can’t really talk about the states as a model as you cannot talk about the federal government as a model it. The processes and priorities for Congress are very different from those of those administration and, of course, administrations change over time. And the same thing is true for our states. We have some states where, you know, really all their legislatures can focus on is their public education systems – colleges, universities. We have others that can also create policy that affects private institutions, independent institutions. We’re kind of all over the place. One of the beauties of this task force was as Senator Millner correctly put it, we found common ground, common priorities on a number of issues. But we have to understand our own complexity and create systems that get us there. This task force ended up with a number of recommendations which can really become the starting point for work done by the feds and the states in a systematic way. I really hope that it will get that going. But I will say one of the other things that we came to realize is there are informal things that we can do as well. You know when we were at this summit, I was joined there by the head of our higher coordinating commission which oversees all of post-secondary and workforce for the state of Oregon. And also, one of our congresspersons, Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici, who is the ranking member of the higher education committee. So, I should say that the three of us all served together in the Oregon legislature at one time. We know each other. We like each other. And yet, we never get together to discuss this issue of OK, as you are starting to think about crafting a good policy at the federal level, how will this impact the states and vice versa as we are crafting policy at the state level, where can the federal government help us or where is federal policy creating obstacles. We need to be stepping up and having those conversations with our own representatives in congress and figure out ways to do that in an ongoing manner.
Ed: Senator Millner, how about your view on that?What do you see as sort of the path forward in terms of trying to improve this state/federal relationship?
AM: I hope this report is the start of helping us do more work collaboratively. NCSL is very well positioned because all the states convene together around the issues. But it also has kind of a federal office that can help facilitate conversations between state legislators, between federal legislators and also the Department of Education. And I think the more we are able to take some of the issues that come from this report and dig deeper, I think we can find things that will work for our states and that we could align our policy. So, for example, most of us need more data about outcomes. And if we are going to make good decisions as policymakers in our states. If we want to know how well our institutions are doing. If we want to know we are doing in comparison to institutions in other states, we need that data to be on a common template with common definitions and the federal government already is the repository of much of that data. But we need to increase the outcomes-oriented data so it’s not just about enrollments; it’s about completions. It’s about placements. It’s about helping us really understand the continuum and I think our states would welcome that opportunity to be able to have the data generated so that we could measure our own performance in how we are doing. But the only way to really do that is in partnership with the federal government. So, I think that’s for me one example. Another example is thinking about we talked about making sure that we are facilitating transfer of credits at our institutions; that we are not creating barriers for our students. That we are in fact facilitating the adult that wants to return to school that may have some work experience, etc. That in fact they’ve built and developed competencies that align with the competencies that we have in coursework. So being able to give credit for those work and certification experiences. Being able to give credit for prior work at another college or university that when they are transferring in. Being able to align our work around that is extremely important in helping us develop processes in a sense that would accommodate that and we can do that in our states. So, we can say in our states you must, but there are many students who move state to state to state. And someone needs to help facilitate that across our states. And you know we do have examples of things that work. We have Sara which has allowed us to look at online education and develop reciprocity agreements from the Sara program. So, we need to be able to develop that same kind of reciprocity and framework for our students and particularly our students who want to return to school and make sure we are realigning it with the types of programs and outcomes and competencies that will help them succeed after they graduate.
Ed: Senator Millner, as you folks were looking at the performance of the current higher education system, I’m particularly interested in what legislators said to you. What were their concerns? What were the kinds of things that they brought up?
AM: So, the kind of issues we hear from legislators are what about students who drop out? What about students who have some college, but not graduate and they leave with student debt and that makes it even more difficult to repay that student debt when they don’t graduate. Why are our graduation rates as low as they are and what does that mean and how should we be scaffolding our students and also thinking about our universities, student support systems and policies that will help facilitate student’s success. They want to have a very talented workforce in their state. They want to have people who are effective members of their community and citizens of their state and the nation. How do we make sure that we are preparing students for those roles as a part of their academic experience that when they leave, they can be contributors in all facets of their life and work.
Ed: Senator Dembrow, let me ask you to go back to the state/federal issue. Are there other than sort of a systemic strategy and of course the more informal things you mentioned, are there things Congress could actually pass. Are there actually policies that would change things that you in any way think that you would look for that you would hope that that might be something coming down the road?
MD: Well, we’ve been waiting many years for the Higher Education Act to be reauthorized and we keep hearing every year or two that it’s just about to happen. And we wait and we wait. Since the Higher Ed Act was reauthorized last time, we have come to experience this crisis in student debt. We have seen a growing need for the kind of data sharing that Senator Millner mentioned. We have seen just discontinuities in terms of federal programs that are going to public institutions and private institutions. All of those really need to be addressed in the reauthorization of the Higher Ed Act. So, it is really important that that happen. And who knows. It could happen at any time. But I suspect, it’s not going to happen right away. What is really important, I think, is that in the leadup to the reauthorization, the kind of partnerships that we are talking about really get underway so that the states can be consulted as the different aspects of the reauthorization are considered. So, we are actually well timed to do this as we look at the kinds of issues that are being considered and to make sure that we have a high degree of state consensus around how those issues are going to affect us and how we can actually use it to remove barriers and advance student’s success. You know I will say that NCSL is a very well place to help us in this work and I’m hoping you know again that NCSL can become the anchor for those kinds of conversations. And first of all, you know as Senator Millner was just answering you before, I found my head nodding and nodding and nodding. It was really a kind of reminded me of our task force meetings where you’d look around the table and see all these legislators with their heads nodding because it was really a high degree of agreement. Going back to our need for data is one of our recommendations is that states develop good longitude in the data systems so they can really follow students from you know pre-K to K-12k into higher ed and then into the workforce. It is really important. Me and Oregon are creating I think a very good system, but it has its limitations and its limitations are precisely because students are mobile as Senator Millner mentioned and you know we have many people coming into Oregon from other states or leaving Oregon and going to other states. And we really can’t get a complete picture of how our systems are working if we don’t have access to that kind of data.
The other challenge that we face is interestingly we aim to understand that the federal government actually has more windows into our private colleges, our independent colleges than the state does. In order for us to really be creating state agendas around workforce development you know which involve all the different elements of higher education, it’s really important for us to be able to create a statewide strategy that involve both our publics and our privates. And the feds can really help with that.
Ed: I think in all the podcasts I’ve done on lots of different policy areas; good data is the one thing that everyone agrees on is absolutely indispensable so point really well made. Senator Millner, one notion in the report is the idea of a state led strategy to enhance the value of higher education these ideas of degree of value and I wonder if you could just kind of explain this strategy and why the concept of value resonated so much with the task force?
TM: 55:16
AM: I think we backed into the concept of value in some ways because we talked about how important it is for us to be able to make sure we have graduates who can meet the workforce needs of our state. Our programs need to be high quality in order to make sure that those graduates are prepared and ready. At the same time, we need students to be able to afford our programs. So, they have to be affordable and they have to be affordable to a wide range of students and many of us really are sensitive to that. We want to make sure all students have access and I think that’s the last piece is access. So, as we thought about value, in value, it was that is a term that actually encompasses high quality education opportunities at an affordable cost that are accessible in our states. And so, we didn’t start there. We ended up there through navigating through the issues that were important to us as part of this conversation.
Ed: And Senator Dembrow, how about for you. How do you see the value proposition?
MD: Well, I would say everything that Senator Millner said, but I would also add that we need to be thinking of value for the individual student for their families, but also for the community. We have a need for occupations that require advanced training, but don’t necessarily pay that well right. So, this needs to be kind of nuanced when we think about value. We need to recognize that and we need to make sure that those students who are going to be taking on really important work for us whether it’s in you know childcare or different kinds of public service that they don’t accrue a lot of debt that they can never repay because they are doing this important work, but it’s not high salary work. At least not for starting salaries. We really need to think about this in all its amplitude.
Ed: As someone with an English degree, I completely understand your point though. I think we all went to school at a time when the cost was a value that I don’t think any of us understood at the time and probably didn’t appreciate until later in life. As we wrap up here, I’d just like to ask both of you to kind of blue sky with me what you’d like to see happen in higher education, in policymaking as a result of this task force’s report. And is there an idea or two that maybe could be a bipartisan rallying point for people in other legislatures at the federal level. Senator Millner, why don’t you take a first crack at that?
AM: Well, I think one thing that there is lots of agreement about is we are very worried about the high level of student debt. And that we really do need to I mean an interesting the federal government’s the center for the loan program, the states really aren’t engaged in that. Yet, we see the kind of impact the people in our states who for whatever reasons accumulate large levels of debt may or may not graduate. May not be able to get a position that puts them in a place that they can afford to repay the debt. Then we also see the student loan program changing frequently. And so, nobody really understands what are the rules because we change them from administration to administration. We kind of put new components in. Right now, we are putting as much money or the federal government is putting as much money into the loan program as into the Pell Grant Program. Well, is that the right balance or should we be doing this differently and think more about the Pell program. We indeed think about these are loan programs that when you change them and all every administration, these loans that people are taking out they are expecting 8, 10 or 15 years. I mean they are long-term loans. And when you keep changing, they just don’t understand the implications of that. And then I think the third piece for some of us is we need to do a much better job of doing loan and financial counseling with our students so when they take out loans, they in fact are understanding what the implication of that is as they finish college and launch their careers and make sure they are balancing the long term with the short term.
Ed: Senator Dembrow, how about for you. What would you like to see come out of all of this with the results of this task force effort?
MD: I’ll mention a couple of things, but before I do, I just want to follow up on Senator Millner’s comments about the student debt. I really hope that the next administration and Congress are able to work together to come up with a system of student loans that can stand the test of time; can offer some stability and predictability. Right now, I feel as if loan holders and their families are just being kind of jerked around because of the administration is trying to take a broken system and make it work, but without adequate support from Congress, you know, stability from Congress. So, you know if something could have congressional support, it’s going to have a much better chance of standing the test of time. So, I’m really hoping that will happen.
Two of the areas I think we have a lot of agreement around and Senator Millner has touched on these is first of all the need to look not only at students coming straight out of high school into college, but those older potential students who are out there especially those who have some college and no degree. There are many millions. We were told there are 42 million Americans out there with some college and no degree and 15 million of those who have serious levels of debt have no degree making it very difficult for them to repay. We need a real partnership between the states and the federal government to get people back to school to remove the barriers. You know whether we are talking about transfer or we are talking about other obstacles that are there. Means of approaching those students and convincing them that it’s in their interest to come back to school which is a very difficult thing to do. I think you can appreciate you know especially for people who have families, who have salaries which may not be adequate, but it’s something. And to take on the difficult work of going back to school and the potential financial burden, we need to make that easier for them. And really create a national agenda around that.
The second thing is for the students who are enrolled, who are in college and you know especially those who are approaching the ends of their time in college or university, we’d have to give them more practical experience with the work world. Whether we are talking about work study or internships or apprenticeships. Giving them the opportunity to have really practical experience is something that I think whether its federal programs like the work study program which all too often people on work study are washing dishes or doing busy work around the colleges or universities. These could be used for really solid career-based experience. And the same thing with internships and apprenticeships where we can have a really coordinated system in our states and around the country that could really benefit students and prepare them for the world of work. I think we had a lot of agreement around both of those initiatives. And readers will find them in our report.
TM: 1:04
Ed: We will certainly link to the report from the end of the podcast so people can take a look at that. I want to thank both of you for your time and also for all the time you spent on this task force because I do know from a lot of years of working in this area that a task force report may look like a nice book, but there is just such a tremendous amount of effort that goes into it. And I want to thank you for that. So, take care.
MD: Thank you.
Ed: I’ve been talking with Senator Ann Millner of Utah, Senator Michael Dembrow of Oregon and Austin Reid of NCSL about a new report from NCSL’s task force on higher education affordability and student outcomes. Thanks for listening.
You can check out all the podcasts from the National Conference of State Legislatures by searching for NCSL podcasts wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast “Our American States” dives into some of the most challenging public policy issues facing legislators. On “Across the Aisle” host Kelley Griffin tells stories of bipartisanship. Also check out our special series “Building Democracy” on the history of legislatures.