[House Report 113-83]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-83
======================================================================
IMPROVING POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION DATA FOR STUDENTS ACT
_______
May 20, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Kline, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1949]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 1949) to direct the Secretary of
Education to convene the Advisory Committee on Improving
Postsecondary Education Data to conduct a study on improvements
to postsecondary education transparency at the Federal level,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Postsecondary Education Data
for Students Act''.
SEC. 2. STUDY ON IMPROVEMENTS TO POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION TRANSPARENCY
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
(a) Formation of Advisory Committee on Improving Postsecondary
Education Data.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall convene
the Advisory Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education
Data (in this Act referred to as the ``Advisory Committee''),
which shall be comprised of 15 members who represent
economically, racially, and geographically diverse populations
appointed by the Secretary in consultation with the
Commissioner for Education Statistics, including--
(A) individuals representing different sectors of
institutions of higher education, including individuals
representing undergraduate and graduate education;
(B) experts in the field of higher education policy;
(C) State officials;
(D) students and other stakeholders from the higher
education community;
(E) representatives from the business community;
(F) experts in choice in consumer markets;
(G) privacy experts;
(H) college and career counselors at secondary
schools;
(I) experts in data policy, collection, and use; and
(J) experts in labor markets.
(2) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall appoint the Chairperson
of the Advisory Committee.
(b) Study Required.--The Advisory Committee shall conduct a study
examining--
(1) the types of information, including information related
to costs of postsecondary education, sources of financial
assistance (including Federal student loans), student outcomes,
and postgraduation earnings, the Federal Government should
collect and report on institutions of higher education to
assist students and families in their search for an institution
of higher education;
(2) how such information should be collected and reported,
including how to disaggregate information on student outcomes
by subgroups of students, such as full-time students, part-time
students, nontraditional students, first generation college
students, students who are veterans, and Federal Pell Grant
recipients under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a); and
(3) the ways in which the Federal Government may make such
information more readily available to--
(A) students and their families in a format that is
easily accessible and understandable, and will aid
students and their families in making decisions; and
(B) States, local governments, secondary schools,
individual or groups of institutions of higher
education, and private-sector entities.
(c) Scope of Study.--In conducting the study under this Act, the
Advisory Committee shall, at a minimum, examine--
(1) whether the current Federal transparency initiatives on
postsecondary education--
(A) are reporting consistent information about
individual institutions of higher education across
Federal agencies; and
(B) are similar to transparency initiatives on
postsecondary education carried out by States,
individual or groups of institutions of higher
education, or private-sector entities;
(2) whether--
(A) the collection and reporting of postgraduation
earnings by the Federal Government is feasible, and if
feasible, the options for collecting and reporting such
information;
(B) collecting and reporting such information would
improve the use of Federal transparency initiatives and
ease decisionmaking for students and their families;
and
(C) collecting and reporting such information would
have an impact on student privacy, and if so, how such
impact may be minimized;
(3) whether any other information, including information
relating to student outcomes or identified under the review
required under subsection (d), should be collected and reported
by the Federal Government to improve the utility of such
initiatives for students and their families, and if so, how
such information may be collected and reported, including
whether the information should be disaggregated by subgroups of
students;
(4) whether any information currently collected and reported
by the Federal Government on institutions of higher education
is not useful for students and their families and should not be
so collected and reported;
(5) the manner in which the information from Federal
transparency initiatives is made available to students and
their families, and whether format changes may help the
information become more easily understood and widely utilized
by students and their families;
(6) any activities being carried out by the Federal
Government, States, individual or groups of institutions of
higher education, or private-sector entities to help inform
students and their families of the availability of Federal
transparency initiatives;
(7) the cost to institutions of higher education of reporting
to the Federal Government the information that is being
collected and reported through Federal transparency
initiatives, and how such cost may be minimized; and
(8) the relevant research described in subsection (d).
(d) Review of Relevant Research.--In conducting the study under this
Act, the Advisory Committee shall review and consider--
(1) research and studies, if any, that have been conducted to
determine questions most frequently asked by students and
families to help inform their search for an institution of
higher education;
(2) the types of information students seek before enrolling
in an institution of higher education;
(3) whether the availability to students and their families
of additional information on institutions of higher education
will be beneficial or confusing;
(4) results, if any, that are available from consumer testing
of Federal, State, institution of higher education, and
private-sector transparency initiatives on postsecondary
education that have been made publicly available on or after
the date that is 10 years before the date of enactment of this
Act; and
(5) any gaps in the research, studies, and results described
in paragraphs (1) and (4) relating to the types of information
students seek before enrolling in an institution of higher
education.
(e) Consultation.--
(1) In general.--In conducting the study under this Act, the
Advisory Committee shall--
(A) hold public hearings to consult with parents and
students; and
(B) consult with a broad range of interested parties
in higher education, including appropriate researchers,
representatives of secondary schools (including college
and career counselors) and institutions of higher
education from different sectors of such institutions
(including undergraduate and graduate education), State
administrators, and Federal officials.
(2) Consultation with the authorizing committees.--The
Advisory Committee shall consult on a regular basis with the
authorizing committees in conducting the study under this Act.
(f) Reports to Authorizing Committees.--
(1) Interim report.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Advisory Committee shall prepare
and submit to the authorizing committees and the Secretary an
interim report describing the progress made in conducting the
study under this Act and any preliminary findings on the topics
identified under subsection (c).
(2) Final report.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Advisory Committee shall
prepare and submit to the authorizing committees and
the Secretary a final report on the study, including--
(i) recommendations for legislative,
regulatory, and administrative actions based on
findings related to the topics identified under
subsection (c); and
(ii) a summary of the research described in
subsection (d).
(B) Consultation with nces.--The Advisory Committee
shall consult with the Commissioner of Education
Statistics prior to making recommendations under
subparagraph (A)(i) with respect to improving the
information being collected and reported by the Federal
Government on institutions of higher education.
(g) Availability of Funds.--The amount necessary to conduct the study
under this Act shall be made available from amounts available to the
Secretary for administrative expenses of the Department of Education.
(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act:
(1) Authorizing committees.--The term ``authorizing
committees'' has the meaning given the term in section 103 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1003).
(2) First generation college student.--The term ``first
generation college student'' has the meaning given the term in
section 402A(h) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1070a-11(h)).
(3) Institution of higher education.--The term ``institution
of higher education'' has the meaning given the term in section
102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002),
except that such term does not include institutions described
in subsection (a)(1)(C) of such section 102.
(4) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has the
meaning given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Education.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the term
in section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1003).
(7) Student.--The term ``student'' includes--
(A) a prospective student;
(B) a student enrolled in an institution of higher
education;
(C) a nontraditional student (as defined in section
803(j)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1161c(j)(2))); and
(D) a veteran (as defined in section 480(c)(1) of
such Act (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(c)(1))) who is a student or
prospective student.
PURPOSE
H.R. 1949, the Improving Postsecondary Education Data for
Students Act, directs the Secretary of Education to convene an
Advisory Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data to
conduct a study on improvements to postsecondary education
transparency at the federal level.
COMMITTEE ACTION
As the Committee on Education and the Workforce continues
to evaluate the appropriate role of the federal government in
higher education, we are committed to ensuring students have
access to relevant and helpful information about colleges and
universities.
112TH CONGRESS
Hearings--First session
On March 9, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C. entitled, ``The
Budget and Policy Proposals of the U.S. Department of
Education.'' The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the
fiscal year 2012 budget proposal for the Department of
Education. Testifying before the committee was the Honorable
Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C.
On November 30, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C. entitled ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Discussing Ways Institutions Can
Streamline Costs and Reduce Tuition.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to highlight a number of innovative practices
institutions of higher education are implementing to keep their
costs down, thereby limiting tuition increases for students.
Testifying before the subcommittee were: Ms. Jane V. Wellman,
Executive Director, Delta Project on Postsecondary Costs,
Productivity, and Accountability, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Ronald
E. Manahan, President, Grace College and Seminary, Winona Lake,
Indiana; Mr. Tim Foster, President, Colorado Mesa University,
Grand Junction, Colorado; and Mr. Jamie P. Merisotis, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Lumina Foundation for Education,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Hearings--Second session
On March 28, 2012, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C. entitled
``Reviewing the President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Proposal
for the U.S. Department of Education.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to discuss the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal for
the Department of Education. Testifying before the committee
was the Honorable Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C.
On July 18, 2012, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C. entitled, ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Exploring State Efforts to Curb Costs.''
The purpose of the hearing was to highlight a number of
innovative practices occurring at the state level to assist
postsecondary institutions in keeping costs affordable and
promote accountability of public funds. Testifying before the
subcommittee were: Mr. Scott Pattison, Executive Director,
National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO),
Washington, D.C.; Ms. Teresa Lubbers, Commissioner for Higher
Education, State of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana; Dr. Joe
May, President, Louisiana Community and Technical College
System (LCTCS), Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Mr. Stan Jones,
President, Complete College America, Zionsville, Indiana.
On September 20, 2012, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C. entitled,
``Assessing College Data: Helping to Provide Valuable
Information to Students, Institutions, and Taxpayers.'' The
purpose of the hearing was to examine data being collected by
the federal government from institutions of higher education,
including requirements put in place during the last
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Testifying before
the subcommittee were: Dr. Mark Schneider, Vice President,
American Institutes for Research, Washington, D.C.; Dr. James
Hallmark, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Texas A&M
System, College Station, Texas; Dr. Jose Cruz, Vice President
for Higher Education Policy and Practice, The Education Trust,
Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Tracy Fitzsimmons, President,
Shenandoah University, Winchester, Virginia.
113TH CONGRESS
Hearings
On April 16, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C. entitled, ``Keeping
College within Reach: The Role of Federal Student Aid
Programs.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
federal role in higher education and lay out the pros and cons
of shifting the focus of federal student aid programs from
enhancing access to improving student outcomes. Testifying
before the subcommittee were: Mr. Terry W. Hartle, Senior Vice
President, Division of Government and Public Affairs, American
Council on Education Washington, D.C.; Ms. Patricia McGuire,
President, Trinity Washington University, Washington, D.C.; Mr.
Dan Madzelan, Former Employee (Retired), U.S. Department of
Education, University Park, Maryland; and Ms. Moriah Miles,
State Chair, Minnesota State University Student Association,
Mankato, Minnesota.
On April 24, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C. entitled, ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Enhancing Transparency for Students,
Families, and Taxpayers.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
examine ways to improve the information provided by the federal
government to inform students and families about their
postsecondary education options. Testifying before the
subcommittee were: Dr. Donald E. Heller, Dean, College of
Education, Professor of Education, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan; Mr. Alex Garrido, Student, Keiser
University, Miami, Florida; Dr. Nicole Farmer Hurd, Founder and
Executive Director, National College Advising Corps, Carrboro,
North Carolina; and Mr. Travis Reindl, Program Director,
Postsecondary Education, National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices, Washington, D.C.
Legislative action
On May 13, 2013, Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN) introduced H.R.
1949, the Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students
Act. The bill directs the Secretary of Education to convene an
Advisory Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data to
conduct a study on the factors students and families want,
need, and already consider when choosing a higher education
institution.
On May 16, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce considered H.R. 1949 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a voice vote. The committee considered and
adopted the following amendment to H.R. 1949:
Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN) offered an amendment in
the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1949 to include individuals
who represent undergraduate and graduate education, college and
career counselors at secondary schools, experts in data policy,
collection, and use, and experts in labor markets to the list
of individuals required to be represented on the Advisory
Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data; ensures
individuals on the advisory committee represent economic,
racial, and geographically diverse populations; requires the
advisory committee to examine information related to the
sources of financial assistance, including federal student
loans, as part of the required aspects of the study; requires
the advisory committee to examine how information regarding
student outcomes should be disaggregated for first-generation
students; and other conforming and technical changes to the
bill. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
Below is a summary of H.R. 1949.
SUMMARY
The Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students Act
directs the Secretary of Education to convene an Advisory
Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data. The
advisory committee is to be comprised of 15 members
representing economic, racial, and geographically diverse
populations consisting of representatives of higher education
institutions, experts in higher education, state officials,
students, representatives from the business community, college
and career counselors, experts in data policy, experts in labor
markets, and experts in consumer choice and privacy.
The advisory committee is required to conduct a study
examining the types of information on institutions of higher
education the federal government should collect and report, and
the best way to make that information available and easily
accessible to students and families. In conducting the study,
the advisory committee is required to examine whether current
federal transparency initiatives are reporting consistent data
and whether those efforts are similar to existing federal,
state, institutional, and private-sector transparency
initiatives. The advisory committee is also required to explore
the value and privacy risk of reporting post-graduation
earnings, the best manner in which useful information could be
made available to students and families, any activities
currently underway to help inform students of the availability
of federal transparency initiatives and the sources of federal
financial assistance, and the cost to institutions of reporting
information to the federal government.
Additionally, the legislation specifically directs the
advisory committee to explore opportunities to provide better,
more consistent, and effective data to the public, while also
identifying data that is no longer useful and should be
considered for elimination. The advisory committee is further
required to complete a review of relevant research on this
topic to inform its study.
In the process of preparing the study, the advisory
committee must hold public hearings to consult with parents and
students, as well as consult with a broad range of higher
education stakeholders and the appropriate authorizing
committees in the House of Representatives and Senate. Within
180 days of enactment of the Improving Postsecondary Education
Data for Students Act, the advisory committee must submit an
interim report to the authorizing committees and the Secretary
of Education. Within one year of enactment, the advisory
committee must submit a final report to the authorizing
committees and the secretary. The final report is to include
recommendations for legislative, regulatory, and administrative
actions made in consultation with the Commissioner of Education
Statistics as well as a summary of relevant research.
COMMITTEE VIEWS
Introduction
In recent years, the federal government has taken steps to
improve data collection and transparency in higher education.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act, the 2008 reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act, included several provisions to
provide students and their families with the information needed
to make informed decisions about their postsecondary education
opportunities.
For the first time, the law required colleges and
universities to make information about price, financial aid,
and basic facts and figures, such as demographics and
graduation rates, readily available to the public. Students
also now have access to a number of products designed to help
them learn about their higher education options, including the
College Navigator, financial aid shopping sheets, net price
calculators, and the College Scorecard.
While many of these initiatives are helpful resources,
students still report confusion when researching their
postsecondary options and trying to choose an institution that
is best for their unique situation. Meanwhile, higher education
leaders have raised concerns about the overwhelming amount of
federal data and reporting requirements, some of which are
duplicative of state and local efforts and may partially
contribute to the increase in college costs.
Improving postsecondary education data for students
To help shine a spotlight on the challenges and
opportunities in higher education transparency, Representative
Luke Messer (R-IN) introduced H.R. 1949, the Improving
Postsecondary Education Data for Students Act. The legislation
directs the Department of Education to convene an Advisory
Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data to conduct
a study on the factors students and families want, need, and
already consider when choosing a higher education institution.
The bill directs the advisory committee to issue its
recommendations within a year of enactment to assist
congressional efforts to reauthorize the Higher Education Act.
The legislation requires the advisory committee to review
existing federal, state, institutional, and private-sector
transparency initiatives to determine which initiatives are
most helpful to students as they research their postsecondary
education options. In its review of these existing transparency
measures, the advisory committee is tasked with exploring
opportunities to provide better, more consistent, and effective
data to the public, while identifying data that is outdated,
confusing, or obsolete and should be considered for
elimination.
During an April 24, 2013 hearing entitled, ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Enhancing Transparency for Students,
Families, and Taxpayers,'' the Subcommittee on Higher Education
and Workforce Training explored opportunities to improve
student access to relevant higher education data. At the
hearing, Mr. Travis Reindl, Program Director for the Education
Division at the National Governors Association, urged Congress
to take up such an effort:
Simpler and clearer should be a goal for federal
efforts. The upcoming reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act provides a prime opportunity for the
Congress to review all of the existing dashboards,
report cards, and data tools for postsecondary
education to determine whether and how they are being
used, and if there are opportunities for streamlining
or consolidation . . . We encourage a thorough review
of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), with the goal of identifying and eliminating
surveys and survey items that are rarely used. This
would provide needed relief for states and their
colleges and universities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=308347
Additional experts testifying to the subcommittee stressed
the importance of consumer information in the decision making
process. Nicole Hurd, CEO of the National College Advising
Corps, works with over 300 staff working every day to counsel
low-income and under-represented high school students on
college. Mrs. Hurd reflected that, while some fine-tuning may
be in order, Congress must move forward in providing more tools
for students when considering college:\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Ibid.
Think about what choices you can make when you can
actually see a school's graduation rate, loan default
rates, median borrowing, grants and scholarships, net
costs so our families, especially our low income
families can see what this is really going to cost
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
them.
The committee notes there are a number of federal agencies
in addition to the Department of Education that collect and
publicly report information on colleges and universities. The
committee urges the advisory committee to conduct a
comprehensive study of federal transparency initiatives,
including, but not limited to, the Department of Veterans
Affairs and the Department of Defense. The committee urges the
advisory committee staff to meet with the relevant authorizing
committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate prior
to finalizing its scope of work, holding public hearings, or
providing the required interim and final reports.
Making higher education data relevant for today's students
Over the last 10 years, the dynamics of higher education
have shifted dramatically. According to the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES), non-traditional students now make
up approximately 70 percent of all undergraduates. This trend
is expected to continue in the coming years; in fact, NCES
expects enrollments of students older than 25 will rise by 20
percent between 2010 and 2020.\3\ Non-traditional students
often have different reasons for obtaining a postsecondary
education and may use different factors than typical high
school graduates in trying to seek out their institution of
choice. The Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students
Act requires the advisory committee to examine traditional,
non-traditional, and first-generation students, including
student veterans, to determine the information each group wants
and needs to assist their search for the right college and
university. The legislation also directs the advisory committee
to solicit feedback from students and families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, states, researchers, business leaders, and
Members of Congress have discussed the possibility of reporting
the salaries of college graduates from public and private
universities. At a September 20, 2012 Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Training hearing on ``Assessing College
Data: Helping to Provide Valuable Information to Students,
Institutions, and Taxpayers,'' Mr. Mark Schneider, Vice
President of the American Institutes for Research (AIR),
argued, ``While improving measures of student learning and
student progress are important, ultimately, we need to assess
the extent to which labor markets are validating the usefulness
of the skills college graduates possess.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=330710
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently the federal government developed a resource
(www.mynextmove.org) to provide individuals with regional
employment and salary information; however, many individuals
are interested in gathering more specific post-graduation
earnings for individual academic programs. To that end, H.R.
1949 requires the advisory committee to explore the feasibility
of reporting post-graduation earnings data and whether that
information will improve the usefulness of federal transparency
initiatives for students and their families. The legislation
also instructs the advisory committee to consider the
implications such information will have on student privacy.
Evaluating current efforts before layering more requirements
In addition to requiring the advisory committee to
determine what additional information is helpful when students
are making college financing decisions, H.R. 1949 also requires
the advisory committee to determine if there is information
that is already being collected that can be eliminated by the
Department of Education and/or Congress. Every time Congress
reauthorizes the Higher Education Act, it seems to add
additional reporting requirements to the law. These statutory
requirements lead to additional regulations and informal
guidance, both of which hamper efforts to simplify the nation's
student aid programs.
During the 2010-2011 academic year, institutions dedicated
826,632 hours and almost $29 million to filling out IPEDS
surveys. This estimate increased to 850,320 hours and almost
$31 million for the 2012-13 academic year.\5\ Once the advisory
committee determines what information students want to know
about individual institutions of higher education, Congress and
the department have to be willing to forego such reporting
requirements in an effort to streamline the information
available to students and their families. In his testimony
before the subcommittee, Mr. Schneider summarized the current
situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. IPEDS 2011-2014 Supporting
Statement Part A, OMB Paperwork Reduction Act Submission (OMB No. 1850-
0582 v.10). Submitted February 2, 2011.
The reauthorization of HEA [is] an ideal opportunity
for Congress to start cleaning out the IPEDS attic.
There's just stuff in there that may have been
important at one time or seemed important at one time .
. . We need to ask the question, what's the compelling
national interest in collecting [some of] the data?\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=308347
The committee is hopeful the advisory committee will
provide thoughtful recommendations about ways to streamline or
eliminate reporting requirements that are no longer useful for
students and families. The committee notes the past work of the
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance to review
and analyze federal regulations to determine if they are overly
burdensome as required under the 2008 reauthorization, and the
Government Accountability Office's recent report entitled
``Higher Education: Experts Cited a Range of Requirements as
Burdensome.''\7\ The committee urges the advisory committee to
expand on this expertise within the framework of what
information is helpful to students and families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-371
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving the delivery of information for students and families
The Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students Act
requires the advisory committee to examine the current delivery
of information to students and families searching for the
institution of higher education that best fits their unique
needs. In its efforts, the advisory committee is charged with
developing recommendations for improving the delivery of
information in a more consistent and understandable medium.
The proliferation of federal transparency initiatives in
the past few years has been promising, but improvements can
clearly be made. When interviewed, students and families often
cite different areas and modes of research than what policy
makers in Washington believe they should be examining. Students
often rely on information from friends and family or directly
from institutions, or simply choose the school that is closest
to their home. More often than not, students and families rely
on information based on personalized effects, than empirical
information provided by the federal government. At the April
24, 2013 Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training hearing, Mr. Alexander Garrido, a student at Keiser
University in Miami, FL, stated, ``I was not aware of any
navigation tools from the Department of Education, which was
why my decision was based mostly on my visit and the support of
my friends and family.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=330710
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students and families may be deterred from using federal
transparency resources due to a variety of reasons, including
their exceptional length or complicated and inconsistent
delivery. At the same hearing, Dr. Donald Heller, Dean of the
College of Education at Michigan State University, summarized
the current task before policymakers:
The Internet has greatly helped to democratize access
to information. What it has not done as successfully,
however, has been to help people get access to the
right information to meet their needs. And it is
critical that we help prospective students to get the
right information in their hands at the necessary
times.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students Act
will take an important step toward strengthening higher
education transparency and ensuring all students have access to
the data they need to choose the right college. The advisory
committee's report will assist the House Committee on Education
and the Workforce's efforts to reauthorize the Higher Education
Act. During this process, the committee plans to take a
comprehensive approach to maintain and strengthen the
information found to be most useful to students, families, and
taxpayers, while streamlining the regulatory and reporting
burden imposed on colleges and universities.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
States the short title as the ``Improving Postsecondary
Education Data for Students Act.''
Section 2. Study on improvements to postsecondary education
transparency at the federal level
Directs the Secretary of Education to convene an Advisory
Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data to review
existing federal, state, institutional, and private-sector
transparency initiatives to determine which programs are most
helpful to students as they research their postsecondary
education options.
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch. H.R. 1949 directs the Secretary of Education to convene
an Advisory Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data
to conduct a study on improvements to postsecondary education
transparency at the federal level.
UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement of
whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded
mandates. This issue is addressed in the CBO letter.
EARMARK STATEMENT
H.R. 1949 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of House Rule XXI.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the
goal of H.R. 1949 is to provide for market-based interest rates
for certain federal student loans. The Committee expects the
Department of Education to comply with these provisions and
implement the law in accordance with the stated goal.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
No provision of H.R. 1949 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS
The committee estimates that enacting H.R. 1949 does not
specifically direct the completion of any specific rule makings
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received
the following estimate for H.R. 1949 from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2013.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1949, the
Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Justin
Humphrey.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1949--Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students Act
H.R. 1949 would authorize the Secretary of Education to use
administrative funds to form an advisory committee and produce
reports on the types of postsecondary education data that the
Department of Education should collect and how that information
should be collected and disseminated.
Based on funding levels for similar activities of the
Department of Education, CBO estimates that implementing the
bill would require about $1 million in fiscal year 2014,
assuming the appropriation of the estimated amounts.
Enacting H.R. 1949 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.R. 1949 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Justin Humphrey.
The estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 1949.
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.