February 7, 2008

Little-Noticed Provision in Higher Education Act Would Abolish Key Advisory Committee

Washington — Buried in legislation to reauthorize the Higher Education Act that the U.S. House of Representatives is debating today is a provision that would abolish an influential Congressional advisory committee in 2011.

In a report explaining its decision, lawmakers said they appreciated the contributions the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance had made over the last 20 years but felt that its work had become “duplicative” with services provided by the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office.

Rachel Racusen, a spokeswoman for Rep. George Miller, a Democrat of California, said it was her boss’s idea to abolish the committee, which counsels Congress and the Education Department on student-aid issues.

“Chairman Miller believes that this committee has outlived its usefulness, and that the taxpayer dollars used to fund this committee could be put to better use: Increasing vigorous oversight of the federal student-aid programs and helping implement the critical protections this bill would provide for students and families,” she wrote in an e-mail message.

That decision was opposed by the chairman of the House’s higher-education subcommittee, who said it was “essential that Congress maintain a mechanism for ongoing independent analysis and advice on the implementation of the student-aid programs.”

“What has made the Advisory Committee an invaluable source of technical expertise and advice … has been its independence — both from the administration and from outside interest groups,” said Ruben Hinojosa, a Democrat of Texas, in a statement in the report.

William J. Goggin, executive director of the committee, said the committee would not fight Mr. Miller’s proposal.

“Congress created us, and Congress has to decide whether to reauthorize us,” he said, adding, “we’ve lasted a lot longer than most advisory committees.”

The committee will meet behind closed doors today and tomorrow to discuss, among other things, the “history and legislative charge” of the committee and to hear an “update on legislative developments.” But Mr. Goggin insisted the retreat was “not going to be a strategy session.”

“The purpose is to bring the three new members up to date on the committee’s work and discuss future directions,” he said.

Mr. Goggin denied a reporter’s request to attend the meeting, and said that it was not required to be open to the public under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. —Kelly Field

Comments

1. “Managers” “manage” and how can you do that if you have “unmanageable” people on some committee seeing things differently than you and doing things you would not do. It is all a matter of “control”. Here, as in billions of other instances, we have a “manager” whose “managing” is made “unmanageable” due to diverse datasets, viewpoints, and perspectives. Life is SO much more manageable when everyone but we ourselves has been exterminated or sent to a labor camp, so that the pure, clean glory of our personal virtue shines unsullied by human plurality into the distant corners of eternal tyranny.

   Perhaps I overstate and it is merely the swinging glands culture in half the human race, wanting his territory to be, after all, his. Monkey see, monkey do.

   — Richard Tabor Greene    Feb 8, 08:51 AM    #

2. Another example of those inside the beltway not wanting to be confused with facts from the real world outside the beltway.

   — hawkeye    Feb 8, 09:40 AM    #

3. Given that the student financial aid program is a tangled mess of competing and overlapping programs, just how useful or “influential” has this committee been? The financial aid application for students is longer and more complicated that the IRS 1040! What was the committee’s advice about that? I am also a bit incredulous with respect to Hinojosa’s assessment that this committee has not been influenced by outside interest groups. This is Washington after all. I think Congress may have actually gotten this one right.

   — M.    Feb 8, 10:26 AM    #

4. M raises a good question. Does the committee weigh in on proposed legislation? Three new ridiculous- to-admininster Federal Aid programs have come to life in the last year. What was the committe’s role in bringing these little devils to life?

   — scotteebee    Feb 8, 11:33 AM    #

5. As a former member of this Committee, I would like to answer several questions raised above. 1) The Committee devised major improvements to the FAFSA by holding hearings across the country where parents and students told us what was especially hard about the FAFSA form. Many of the changes the Committee recommended to Congress were enacted in legislation last fall, and you will begin to gradually see them implemented. 2) The Committee is only authorized to take up topics requested by Congress. The latest topic just completed was on textbook costs. The Committee was not, to my knowledge, asked to respond to the 3 new Fin. Aid programs referenced by the last questioner. The ideas embodied in these 3 programs were never suggested by the Committee to my knowledge. . 3) The Committee’s value in my opinion is especially emboded in its focus on the important role of Fin. Aid in giving access to low-income students, commissioining major research studies and critiquing them. The data produced have helped make the case to Congress for more dollars in Pell grants. That in itself is a major accomplishment in moving higher education toward successfully developing the next generaion of leadership. The Committee members who are current Financial Aid officers at various kinds of colleges and universities are bringing accurate information to an often muddled subject. – Kathleen Ross, President, Heritage University, and member of the Committee 2003-2006

   — K. Ross    Feb 9, 01:33 AM    #

Previous: Professor at Israeli College Threatened With Dismissal Over Uniformed Student
Next: Polytechnic U. Board Postpones Vote but Says Yes to Merger With NYU