Introduction

Driven by concerns over cost, quality, and overall value, accountability in higher education is an area of great and growing interest among policymakers and stakeholders, but also of considerable ambiguity and debate. While featured prominently on the agenda for the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA), the lack of consensus on an appropriate accountability framework and associated metrics to assess the performance and value of colleges and universities has hindered progress. Despite numerous Congressional hearings and bills; research and policy papers; proposals; conferences; and convenings, the conversation has stalled in the face of considerable complexity, inadequate and imperfect data, the specter of intended and unintended consequences, and a period of retrenchment of the federal role in education.

Nevertheless, the conversation has moved from whether more accountability is needed to how to do it. The purpose of this paper is not to add to the chorus of calls for greater accountability, the need for which has been clearly established and endorsed by both sides of the aisle. Rather, it is to make a contribution to ongoing efforts to break through the logjam by suggesting a path forward for designing an effective federal higher education accountability system that is practically feasible and politically viable, to the extent that officially stated objectives and commitments to doing a much better job protecting student and taxpayer investments in higher education are genuine.

First, the paper provides a brief overview of the current state of federal accountability and the need for change. This is followed by a summary of the landscape of state accountability reforms through funding structures for public colleges and universities. The paper then examines key questions or decision points that must be addressed in designing a federal accountability system and provides recommendations for each, in an attempt to form a set of guiding principles for thinking about the system’s objectives. The final sections provide a set of recommendations for both what needs to be measured and how, with a focus on the goals of completion, equity, and safeguards against risk to borrowers and taxpayers. Overall, the paper argues for a combined system of consequential and report-card accountability, with the former including both bright lines for eligibility and graduated sanctions and rewards for driving continuous improvement.