Commission on the Future of Higher Education

It proposed several solutions to the problems facing higher education today, corresponding to the primary concerns of the commission: access, affordability, quality, accountability, and innovation.

In response to those figures, the Commission proposed linking the expectations of college professors for incoming freshmen to the criteria required for students to graduate from high school by increasing communication between the two groups.

Another dilemma that the Commission faced regarding access to higher education was the availability of low-income families and, to a lesser extent, students of minority groups.

The authors stated, "There is ample evidence that qualified young people from families of modest means are far less likely to go to college than their affluent peers with similar qualifications."

State funding for higher education has fallen to the lowest levels the nation has seen in two decades, and the Commission proposed that Universities be held accountable for their "spending decisions... based on their own limited resources."

The Commission urged colleges and universities to embrace innovative ideas for new teaching methods, such as distance learning, to improve the quality of higher education.

The Commission advocated that "policymakers and educators need to do more to build America’s capacity to compete and innovate by investing in critical skill sets and basic research.

The Commission found that the results of scholarly research on teaching and learning were rarely translated into practice, especially for those working at the grassroots level in fields such as teacher preparation and math and science education" (15).

Additionally, universities and government officials enacting policy and controlling monetary resources have been slow to adapt to the future and reluctant to provide the resources necessary for creative ventures, "with the exception of several promising practices, many of our postsecondary institutions have not embraced opportunities for innovation, from new methods of teaching and content delivery to technological advances to meeting [sic] the increasing demand for lifelong learning.

Commission member David Ward refused to sign the final version, citing "several issues of serious concern" including the report's tendency to attribute problems with multiple causes entirely to the state of higher education.

Although the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education is not directly affiliated with the commission, there is significant overlap in not only the areas of concern, but in some of the membership (notably James B.

This push for tangible changes in the remainder of her term has included: The Higher Education Opportunity Act (enacted August 2008) has stated: Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Secretary to establish any criteria that specifies, defines, or prescribes the standards that accrediting agencies or associations shall use to assess any institution’s success with respect to student achievement.