What the Spellings Commission did and did not accomplish will provide fodder for a host of case studies on how not to proceed if you seek a genuine transformation of higher education. My own take on this aspect of the enterprise boils down to three basic lessons.
Don’t vilify. Higher education is not going to be changed by outsiders. The only ones who understand, who really know where the bodies are buried, are inside the academy. Broad-scale attacks that are long on “strong language” and short on realistic prescriptions can only isolate those within the academy who seek reform. Isolate enough of us and you make meaningful change impossible.
Don’t play games. One of the tragedies of the Spellings Commission is that its commissioners were used too little and that too much of the real work was in the hands of its chair, his handpicked consultants, and the department’s staff. Too many of our meetings were for show rather than substance. Too much time and attention was devoted to “testing” and to a proposed unit record system we all knew in advance would not receive Congressional support.
Start with a viable strategy for change. I didn’t realize until we were done that as a commissioner I had never been part of a discussion, real or otherwise, on how to change higher education. Had we had that discussion we might have actually looked for a couple of key leverage points on which to focus our recommendations. A couple possibilities were suggested — “nuking” the federal system of student financial aid and pushing for a three-year baccalaureate were quietly put on the table — only to be submerged in discussions of what was wrong and what needed to be fixed.
