U.S. Under-Secretary of Education Ted Mitchell discussed an initiative to improve the equity of higher education by creating a national college ratings system at the 2015 National Legislative Summit held by the Association of Community College Trustees Tuesday.
In a letter to the Department of Education, University President Teresa Sullivan initially endorsed the overarching goal of the ratings system — to extend access to college to more Americans — but advocated revisions to the metrics.
The ratings system was first suggested in 2009 as a part of President Barack Obama’s American Graduation Initiative, which focused on improving access, affordability, quality and completion of post-secondary education in the United States.
In 2013 President Obama called for the federal government to incorporate a system of rating colleges by the 2015-16 school year. The goal is to readjust federal aid to institutions based on the exhibited values of the rating criteria.
Mitchell emphasized the need for transparency as a way to better improve the system.
“Designing a new college ratings system is an important step in improving transparency,
accountability, and equity in higher education,” Mitchell said in a December press release. “The public should know how students fare at institutions receiving federal student aid, and this performance should be considered when we assess our investments and set priorities.”
A major concern during initial planning stages was the ratings system would not be equitable. Community colleges feared they would see funding cuts because four-year institutions would easily trump them in the ratings.
However, the rating system will compare four-year and two-year institutions independently, and the criteria are not limited to academic prestige. Many metrics intended to rank schools focus more on affordability and access.
Varied responses from all spheres of the academic realm will all be taken into account, Mitchell said.
“We're working with everyone — students, parents, states, the higher education community, researchers and experts — to make sure we do this well,” Mitchell said in the press release.
The U.S. Department of Education has established several variables to consider in the process of rating schools, which it has determined by adopting ideas put forward by stakeholders from all corners of higher education.
At the moment, the metrics include the percentage of students receiving Pell Grants, family income quintiles, expected family contribution gap, average net price of attendance and completion rates.
The department is considering establishing three overall rating levels: high-performing, low-performing and a yet-to-be identified middle area. The rating categories and metrics are still in the development phase, and the department has opened the debate to comments from the public until Feb. 17.
“As a nation, we have to make college more accessible and affordable and ensure that all students graduate with an education of real value,” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in the press release. “Our students deserve to know, before they enroll, that the schools they've chosen will deliver this value.”
Sullivan's letter affirmed the initiative's overarching goals.
“We appreciate the focus on access and affordability, particularly since we have met 100 percent of our families’ demonstrated need since the inception of our AccessUVA financial aid program in 2004-2005,” Sullivan said in the letter.
But, in a series of point-by-point responses to the metrics being used, Sullivan underlined what the school considered shortcomings of the current version of the ratings system and offered its own solutions. The University’s position generally promoted that transparency and accountability would be required for the ratings system to be equitable — in particular, reliability of the data.
“Due to the absence of one central source of credible information on several of the proposed metrics, we are concerned about the reliability of data on certain proposed metrics,” Sullivan said.
Sullivan also said the data could be misconstrued and therefore not offer a fair evaluation of a certain school.
“We remain concerned, however, that the proposed ratings system will provide a limited view of each unique institution and its contribution to its student population and its greater community,” Sullivan said.
While the Education Department’s stated goal is to rate — not rank — colleges, many associations and institutions said they are worried there is no clear distinction between the two. The American Association of Community Colleges is one of many groups involved in the debate which have responded with skepticism about the value of the upcoming initiative.
The AACC opposes the ratings system for a host of reasons. Primarily, they say results are likely to be incomplete and therefore misused because many community college students are place bound, meaning they only choose from colleges within their community. This lack of opportunity for community college students, for economic or other reasons, may translate to data skewed against two-year institutions.
The initiative is still in its developing stages, and Mitchell said the implementation would not be without fault from the start.
“The system will be not perfect,” Mitchell said. “This is the first iteration.” Much is left to be determined before the system for rating is put in place in early summer.
Read More
Student Council hears from Director of Diversity Education, talks parking fines
By Vyshnavi Tatta | 19 hours agoLaw Rep. Kasey Michaud introduced a bill encouraging students to donate food to local pantries by offering reductions in parking fees as an incentive.
10 years later — student journalists discuss retracted “Rolling Stone” article
By Merrill Hart | 20 hours agoThe graphic narrative ignited protests both on Grounds and at a national level.
U.Va. launches National Security Data and Policy Institute
By Sophie Long | 20 hours agoThe institute will develop AI-driven tools to process large data sets and aid analysts in identifying advancements and potential national security threats.
