Postsecondary Institution Ratings System- Testimony to Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (2014)

iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In August 2013, President Obama announced an initiative to mak e colleges more affordable and valuable fo r students and families. The plan invo lved creating a ratings system to identify institutions that provide the best value based upon measures such as ac cess , affordability, and outcomes. The ratings would allow comparison of institutions wit h similar missions to identify those t hat improved their performance and helped underrepresented or disadvantaged students. In December 2013, th e U.S. Department of Education (ED) publi shed a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register to gather expertise on the proposed ratings system – referred to as the Postsecondary Inst itution Ratings System (PIRS). The Department was primarily interested in the followi ng areas associated with the proposed rating system: • Data Elements, Metrics, and Collection • Weighting or Scoring • Development of Comparison Groups • Presentation of Ratings Information • Existing Ratings Systems • Consumer Information vs. Accountability Systems While respondents commended the Department’s desire to address problems in the p ostsecondary education system, many questions were rais ed about how PIRS would be designed – issues that wer e also raised in other venues: ED’s Open Forums on Co llege Value and Affordability, ED’s PIRS Symposium, and a forum held by the Association of Public and Land - grant Universities. T o help address these questions and ensure that PIRS fulfills its objectives, the Advisory Committee held its Summer 2014 Heari ng on September 12 th at Trinity Washington University in Washington DC. The hearing provided an opportunity for members of the public to o ffer strategies and techniques for designing the system in a manner t hat achieves objectives while minimizing unintend ed effects. Given its legislative charge, the Advisory Committee was especially interested in how the ratings system might be designed to minimize unintended negative effects on low - income students. Testimony at the hearing further illuminated ED’s areas of interest. Panelists utilized their expertise in various areas of the higher education community to provide ED with recommendations on the best ways to proceed with PIRS given the information available. The full transcript of this hearing, a modified ver sion of which comprises the body of this report, reveals a wealth of information for policymakers to consider in th e creation of a ratings system. Later this fall, ED plans to release a draft of the ratings system, also known as PIRS version 1.0, for feed back from the higher education community. The Committee hopes that this transcript will be useful in creating the draft system.