A renewal of the legislation, passed earlier this month by the House Education and Labor Committee, would tighten accreditation policies and seek to curb rising tuition costs by creating a "higher education price index." The Senate also passed a reauthorization of the act in August. Both bills would require universities to disclose "preferred lender" lists and ban some of the inducements lenders give to colleges. The bills would also create a number of new grant programs, and the House bill would target illegal file sharing on college campuses.
Though higher education institutions like Brown might welcome the increased Pell Grant funding that could be part of the reauthorization, universities are concerned about the House bill's potential changes to accreditation policies, said Director of Government Relations and Community Affairs Tim Leshan.
The House bill had previously given universities room to set their own accreditation policies, but an amendment removed the provision, effectively creating standardized accreditation guidelines. The bill would also create a federal "accreditation ombudsman" to settle complaints. The Bush administration has sought to impose guidelines on a national level through accreditation organizations for several years, meeting fierce resistance from universities, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported on Nov. 23.
National accreditation standards would likely not be specific enough to affect Brown's New Curriculum, Leshan said. Still, he said the University is "really concerned" about the amendment because it could "ultimately have an effect on how we measure educational value here at Brown."
But, Leshan added, the House Education and Labor Committee is "really ready to work with the higher education community" to change the bill's language.
A provision that would create a list of the 25 institutions with the highest levels of illegal downloading has also sparked concern among universities, Leshan said. The legislation would urge colleges to offer alternatives to illegal downloading and look into "technology-based deterrents," as well as require universities to inform students annually of their copyright infringement policies. In addition, the bill would authorize grants for universities to create programs to curb illegal file sharing.
Leshan said he is concerned that these provisions will make Brown "the police of illegal file sharing."
"We don't condone it," he said. "But we, like every service provider, don't think it should be our job to regulate that."
Moreover, Leshan said, enforcing these rules and regulations would impose an additional financial burden on universities.
Other parts of the House bill might also cause colleges to incur costs. Policies intended to increase transparency - such as disclosure of transfer-of-credit policies, arrangements with lenders and tuition increases - could be expensive. While transparency is important, Leshan said, "unfunded mandates" like these would force universities to bear the financial burden of increased reporting.
To combat rising tuition, both the House and Senate bills would direct the departments of labor and education to develop a "higher education price index" and require the secretary of education to rank colleges based on tuition increases.
Institutions with overly large tuition increases would be placed on a watch list and would have to report factors contributing to the increase, as well as develop a plan to temper rising costs. The House bill would additionally award more Pell Grant aid to institutions with the smallest tuition increases and withhold federal administrative funds from states that cut funds from higher education.
In another effort to decrease college costs, a study of the size and use of university endowments has been proposed as part of the reauthorization of the act. In part, the study would investigate a theory that universities with large endowments do not use enough of their endowments to lower costs, Leshan said. Depending on how the study would be conducted, he said, it could have "negative consequences for the way Brown spends its endowment."
As bipartisan concern centers on rising college tuition costs, Congressional testimony has sparked discussion about potentially requiring universities to spend a portion of their endowment on financial aid. Though neither bill incorporates such a policy, Leshan and Vice President for Public Affairs and University Relations Michael Chapman both expressed distaste for the proposal.Chapman said the idea reflects Congress' "deep misunderstanding" about the nature of endowments and how their proceeds may be used.
As the University's in-house lobbyist, Leshan travels to the Capitol once a month to lobby officials and meet with the higher education interest consortium, the Association of American Universities. Though individual universities are probably more concerned about some provisions in the bill than others, he believes other Ivy League schools and research institutions share Brown's concerns about the legislation.
The House is expected to vote on its version of the reauthorization in December or January. The legislation will then head to conference, where the House and Senate will reconcile the bills' differences.
