Document Category: Testimony

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.