Conclusion

In the search for an effective accountability system, the key question remains whether there is political will to hold colleges and universities accountable for results. Any proposal will be modeled to estimate effects on institutions and thus get screened through the political lens. Each side of the aisle will be concerned about the impact on certain sectors and each member of Congress will look to see how the institutions in their jurisdictions would fare under each scenario, necessarily bringing political considerations. However, what needs to be agreed to from the outset is that change is necessary; business as usual is neither sustainable nor desirable. That means that an effective accountability system should lead to a significant shift in institutional priorities, practices, policies, and focus. Unless there is agreement on this premise, and thus on the need to compromise ideological and political bright lines, then the exercise is academic and ultimately futile.

A new accountability system, albeit imperfect, is desperately needed, not to punish, but to drive system-wide improvement while weeding out the worst performers to protect federal investments in student aid, and by extent, students, families, and taxpayers. We have assumed in this paper that there is consensus on the need to reverse long-standing trends of runaway costs and questionable value, poor student outcomes, and virtually no accountability. While the discussion on the specifics will involve major disagreements and vigorous debate, hopefully a balanced approach can emerge that focuses on the major federal policy priorities and objectives, adheres to the principle of simplicity, and anticipates the need for further refinement. By building on developments in the states and focusing on completion, equity, and risk, the proposed framework here represents a modest attempt to chart a path toward consensus.