Back to the Future (of Higher Education)

A little less than a month ago, I wrote a blog on the newly appointed Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The Commission had its first meeting this week (October 17, 2005). It was an interesting moment. Both the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education filed reports. The length and depth of their reports might indicate their respective sense of the value of the Commission.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings historicized the event by calling up the major federal drivers of higher education, The Morrell Act under Lincoln, the GI Bill under Roosevelt, the National Defense Education Act under Eisenhower, and the Higher Education Act under Johnson. Each of these acts drove higher education forward, and her invoking them suggested that the outcome of the current Commission’s work may result in another landmark action.

She, and other members of the Commission, also pointed to the exigency. United States Higher Education is not the all-out leader it used to be. With other countries development of higher education venues, we are not attracting as large a percentage of foreign graduate students as we used to. Major companies (some represented on the Commission) are going to other countries for their engineers, chemists, and other scientists. And we know that technical support is already outsourced to other countries.

Four areas were emphasized for the Commission’s study; accessibility, affordability, accountability, and quality. Several members of the Commission praised those choices. So, let’s historicize them. The Morrell Act, the GI Bill, and the Higher Education Act all addressed the issues of accessibility and affordability. The first by creating the system of land-grant institutions and the second and third by giving aid to students. The NDEA impacted quality by developing the research and development infrastructure. None of the previous major federal acts has addressed accountability.

Charles Miller, the chair of the Commission, said in his initial appointment that his middle name is “accountability.” Are we seeing a pattern here? If so, we need to question accountable for what and to whom. That will be decided by the Commissioners. Microsoft, IBM, and Boeing are at the table. Non-traditional higher education in the form of Kaplan and Western Governor’s University are present. Traditional institutional types are represented, often through emeritus presidents, with one current president of a community college. Disciplinary backgrounds in engineering, economics, and humanities are here. Voices promoting access for all students are part of the Commission. Ex-officio members come from Department of Energy, Department of Labor, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, and Department of Education.

Who isn’t here? Arts, social sciences, NEH or NEA, literacy, faculty—particularly in light of the shift from full-time tenured to large numbers of contingent faculty.

Accountable for what and to whom? Is this addressing a short-term high tech and aerospace need? Or is it going to address the major shifts occurring in higher education. What, after all, is the purpose of higher education for this country.

A message I got from this first meeting is that this is the moment in time when we must revitalize United States Higher Education. I repeat, for what end and to whose benefit? Follow the Commission’s work on their Web site