Last week, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education released a report (PDF) on the future of higher education which details perceived problems in our higher education system and proposed solutions. But the recommendations threaten to damage postsecondary education much as No Child Left Behind damaged K-12.

Eighteen of the nineteen commissioners selected from various fields signed the report which will be delivered to Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings next month. The one voice of dissent represents nonprofit colleges, although even his dissent is not strong as he cautions against the “slight” tendency toward a “one-size-fits all” approach to a system which is very diverse.

The report begins well enough, highlighting America’s achievement in higher education since its inception. We are losing ground quickly, it informs us, and draws on data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development which puts us in ninth place in higher education attainment. Since this seems to be the basis for the already abundant “troubling signs,” I can’t help but ask what exactly this means.

Higher eduction attainment is a kind of neutral factor to analyze. It simply tells us how many citizens have attained this level of education and tells us nothing of the quality of education they received, the help they received to get there or the barriers they needed to overcome. Nor does it tell us anything about those who failed to attain this level of education. Quite often, the reason is personal choice, like well-known college drop-out Bill Gates. A closer look at the statistics put out by the OECD is quite interesting.

Amongst 55 to 64 year-olds in the United States in 2003, 85% had completed upper secondary education. That is an indication of what things were like in the period roughly 40 to 50 years ago and no other OECD country matched this rate. The rate of completeion of upper secondary education among 25 to 34 year-olds in 2003, indicating the way things were roughly 10 to 20 years ago, was 87% in the United States, placing it in 9th position. The rate in the United States had not declined in the intervening period; it had essentially not grown while those in eight other countries had grown past it. — OECD (PDF)

So this statistic more reflects the success of other nations rather than the failure of our own. Europe, which now prefers to be viewed as a single entity rather than a conglomerate of nations, has pegged the United States as number one in the knowledge economy and is taking steps to rival our position. They have already outranked us in a number of other measurements, yet they continue to lag behind the United States in this coveted position. Is this due to education or other factors? Flexibility of the U.S. market compared to the fairly stagnant, centrally planned economy of much of Europe is given as one possible (and in my mind highly probable) reason for the discrepancy.

The report also glosses over one of the very unique aspects of American higher education: the incredible diversity of post-secondary education options available to our youth. Many go the traditional route of a four year college, either private or state, and an increasing number are enrolling in community colleges. Online and correspondence courses are flourishing and many prospective students are not seeking degrees at all, but merely marketable skills in their fields of interest. It seems that market forces are already working to improve choices and accessibility of higher education. Those who desire the prestige or general knowledge base available at a traditional university have that option. Those more interested in marketable skills have increasing options available to them. I do not understand why the Department of Education sees the need to pressure institutions to accommodate a demand that is already being met through alternative sources.

The need for reform is not well-defended. While I do not contest that there are problems in higher education, defining clearly what those problems are will do more to help arrive at a solution than basing reforms on studies which may only highlight the improvements being made by other countries (some of whom are copying our system to some degree) rather than the deficiencies of our own. Still, the reforms recommended are many, focusing on access, affordability, quality and accountability. From the regular benchmarks proposed to the responsibility laid on the university for student success, the reforms sound very much like the main tenets of No Child Left Behind, now being forced on a system which has always been highly decentralized and at least semi-private. Almost every institution of higher education receives federal money of some sort, however, even if only through the acceptance of students with federal aid packages. Few, therefore, will escape these reforms if they are realized.

The commission focuses entirely on preparing students for the global workforce. Is this really the ultimate purpose of education? While supporting the report overall, one member of the commission, Richard Vedder, touches on the central issues that we should be asking when analyzing higher education. But the solutions to these problems look very different to the ones laid out by the commission, and are in many ways antithetical to the final product.

We do not speak about the deplorable lack of intellectual diversity and the stifling of freedom of expression on some campuses. We say nothing about the hedonistic culture and the lack of high performance expectations at some universities, as is symbolized by such phenomena as grade inflation.

We do not speak of concerns raised by Harry Lewis and others about the indifference of faculty at some campuses about the broader moral, cultural, and civic development of young adults. We say nothing about the lack of coherence in our curriculum. And perhaps we overly stress in this report the vocational dimensions of higher education relative to other objectives such as the furtherance of the advancement of western civilization in its broadest dimensions.

We do not say enough about research — a point made by some other university people. And with respect to research, we say nothing about the deplorable current tendency of politicians — and I will name names, members of — well, I won’t name names, there’s too many of them– members of Congress to politically interfere in the rational allocation of research resources. — Meeting Notes from the Secretary of Education’s Commision on the Future of Higher Education (PDF)

These issues not mentioned are the central issues facing America’s higher education system. If we are to fit our citizens for life in our country — for respect toward those institutions which make us free — rather than as trained robots for the factory floor, these are the issues which should be brought to the forefront rather than buried in the minutes of a meeting. And the solution is to decrease the role of the federal government, allowing these instittutions to adapt to the needs of the students rather than the demands of the state.

Online Education Guide Comprehensive Guide to Online Degrees and Online Universities