Bill Overview
Title: Higher Education Innovation Act
Description: This bill establishes an alternative authorization process for institutions of higher education (IHEs) and other education providers to participate in federal student-aid programs. The Department of Education must approve innovation authorizers to authorize IHEs or other education providers that promote student success outcomes and cost-effectiveness, agree to outcome-based oversight and reporting requirements, meet performance metrics, and comply with other specified requirements. Authorization by an innovation authorizer is deemed recognized accreditation for purposes of participation in federal student-aid programs. An IHE or education provider may be both accredited by a recognized accrediting agency and authorized by an innovation authorizer, if it meets the requirements of both.
Sponsors: Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]
Target Audience
Population: Students and educational institutions involved in federal student-aid programs
Estimated Size: 21000000
- The bill affects institutions of higher education and other education providers by changing the process through which they can access federal student-aid programs, allowing for a new method of authorization through innovation authorizers.
- Students attending IHEs and other education providers will be directly impacted, especially those relying on federal financial aid, as the bill potentially increases the number and types of institutions eligible for financial aid programs.
- If more institutions can qualify for federal student-aid programs, a broader range of students might be able to pursue higher education with the help of financial aid, making this relevant to many prospective and current students.
- Educational providers who traditionally rely on recognized accrediting agencies may face new competition from those authorized by innovation authorizers, affecting their operations and student recruitment strategies.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts a large and diverse demographic including millions of current and prospective students reliant on financial aid, alongside thousands of educational institutions.
- Given the budget constraints, we must evaluate both immediate and long-term effects on stakeholders, appreciating that immediate support might roll out to competitive institutions that apply early and meet innovative criteria.
- In addition to students, the policy affects faculty and administration at colleges and universities which may need to adapt to the new requirements of innovation authorizers.
- Varied regional impacts are anticipated, given disparities in existing higher education access across different states.
Simulated Interviews
High School Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful that more financial aid options will be available since every college I look at is super expensive.
- If this innovation thing makes it easier for new colleges to offer aid, maybe I'll get into a school that fits my interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm a bit skeptical but excited that this can create opportunities to study at specialized tech institutions.
- More competition might bring down costs, and increase innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Community College Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this might help smaller institutions like ours attract new students by showcasing innovative programs that aren't the norm at typical universities.
- We could face challenges keeping up with reporting requirements though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Lecturer at Private University (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that existing reputable colleges will lose students to untested programs just because they have federal support.
- It might push us to innovate more, which is good but also stressful and resource-intensive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Dean of Admissions (Remote/Rural College in South Dakota)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could enhance our outreach, making our specialized online courses more appealing nationally.
- However, diverting resources to meet new authorizer demands could be tough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student Loan Advocate (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act holds the potential to democratize education, but needs robust checks to prevent exploitation.
- It's a step towards broadening access, which is essential for minorities and marginalized groups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired (Cincinnati, OH)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the changes mean more options for my grandkids to find affordable and quality education.
- We need them focused on education not debt.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Mature Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that can bring innovative adult-learning programs with federal aid is beneficial for non-traditional students like me.
- I am looking forward to seeing new types of programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Part-time Worker / Prospective Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased access to innovative programs could mean more affordable and relevant vocational training options.
- Hope to see more targeted efforts at helping students like me plan for the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Researcher in Educational Policy (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Higher Education Innovation Act seems to streamline processes, possibly bringing much-needed reform.
- Needs careful implementation to avoid market overcrowding or lower standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 3: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)
Year 5: $190000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $240000000)
Year 10: $250000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $320000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $700000000)
Key Considerations
- Administrative costs and complexities associated with setting up and validating innovation authorizers.
- Monitoring and enforcement of performance-based metrics could require significant ongoing federal involvement.
- Potential long-term savings if efficiency gains result in the discontinuation of aid to underperforming institutions.
- The impact on traditional accrediting agencies and how they interact with innovation authorizers needs to be evaluated.