Senate and House reject student loan interest rate bills. With student-loan interest rates set to double from 3.4% to 6.8% on July 1, lawmakers are pushing for the adoption of different proposals which would stop the rate hike but have not come to agreement on an approach. On Thursday, the Senate declined to consider legislation (S. 953) introduced by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) which would keep the rate constant for two years, giving Congress time to negotiate a permanent solution. Identical legislation (H.R. 1595) introduced in the House by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) hasn't moved out of the Education and the Workforce Committee but Democrats have petitioned for its consideration. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who objected to consideration of the bill in the Senate, has introduced legislation (S. 1003) that would tie rates to the Treasury note rate plus 3%. That structure is similar to the president's proposal. The administration's proposal would tie student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note and add 0.93 percent for the subsidized portion of the loan, 2.93% for the unsubsidized portion and 3.93% for graduate loans. Coburn said he would work with Reed to bring the president's proposal to the floor for consideration. On May 23, the House passed a GOP bill (H.R. 1911) that would peg the interest rate to the 10-year Treasury note rate, plus 2.5% for the subsidized and unsubsidized portion of the Stafford loan and plus 4.5% for graduate loans. Those rates would be capped at 8.5% and 10.5%, respectively, and would be calculated annually.

As a member of New England Council, we publish the DC Shuttle each week featuring higher ed news from Washington. This edition is drawn from the Council's Weekly Washington Report Higher Education Update, of June 17, 2013.

Founded in 1925, the New England Council is a nonpartisan alliance of businesses, academic and health institutions, and public and private organizations throughout New England formed to promote economic growth and a high quality of life in the New England region. The Council's mission is to identify and support federal public policies and articulate the voice of its membership regionally and nationally on important issues facing New England. For more information, please visit: www.newenglandcouncil.com.

Harkin introduces ESEA reauthorization. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced a bill (S. 1094) that would update the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), making changes to the previous reauthorization, known as No Child Left Behind. The 2001 No Child Left Behind law expired in 2007. Harkin's bill is designed to give school districts more flexibility in creating personalized student accountability systems and evaluation systems for teachers and principals and in intervening to improve failing schools. The legislation also includes language that would require states to expand early childhood education initiatives, such as guidelines for what children should know and be able to do prior to kindergarten entry to reduce gaps in school readiness, as well as incentives for states to provide full-day kindergarten if they don't already. The bill largely mirrors legislation approved during the previous Congress by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Harkin chairs. While No Child Left Behind was criticized for being strict and standardized, its data-collection provisions have been met with some praise and are expanded in this bill. Harkin's bill would require school districts to continue separating student achievement data across subgroups to highlight any potential disparities and expand the categories to include gender and English proficiency. The bill also includes a provision that would alter the way funding is dispersed for the Title 1 program for school districts that serve low-income students. The provision would ensure that local and state resources per pupil for Title 1 schools are equal to or greater than the average combined local and state funds per pupil in non-Title 1 schools. The Obama administration's waiver program has freed 37 states and the District of Columbia from many of the requirements in the current No Child Left Behind law's accountability system. Harkin's bill takes that into consideration by allowing a state to continue to use its Education Department-approved accountability system. Unlike last year's bill, the bill Harkin introduced Tuesday includes language requiring states and local school districts to develop their own teacher-evaluation system. The bill would write into law the Obama administration's signature competitive education grant program, Race to the Top, which was created with funding from the economic stimulus program and has been funded by appropriators since then, though it has never been written into law. It also writes into law another competitive grant program, Investing in Innovation, created with stimulus funding. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is scheduled to markup Harkin's proposal on Tuesday. Among others, Senators Christopher Murphy (D-CT), Bernard Sanders (D-VT) Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have signed on to cosponsor the bill.

Alexander and Kline introduce ESEA reauthorization. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, introduced an alternative proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known in its current form as No Child Left Behind. The bill (S. 1101) would give states and local school districts more control over how they spend federal education dollars by consolidating the law's various programs into two large block grants. House Education and the Workforce Chair John Kline (R-MN) introduced similar legislation (H.R. 5) in the House, which would consolidate most funding into one block grant, and scheduled a June 19 markup. The proposals would eliminate the current accountability system and allow states to develop their own academic standards and assessments.

STEM education hearing. The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing on STEM education policy. Lawmakers agreed that the government should be doing more to promote STEM education. The Obama administration has proposed reorganizing 226 programs at a dozen agencies as way to better target $3 billion worth of STEM education investments. The proposal, contained in the administration's 2014 budget request, would concentrate resources at three agencies; the Department of Education for elementary and secondary school programs, the National Science Foundation (NSF) for undergraduate and graduate programs, and the Smithsonian Institution for informal and public science activities. In opposition to the president's proposal, lawmakers from both parties also agreed on concerns related to the proposal, including the reduced funding for STEM education programs at NASA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

As a member of New England Council, we publish the DC Shuttle each week featuring higher ed news from Washington. This edition is drawn from the Council's Weekly Washington Report Higher Education Update, of June 10, 2013.

Founded in 1925, the New England Council is a nonpartisan alliance of businesses, academic and health institutions, and public and private organizations throughout New England formed to promote economic growth and a high quality of life in the New England region. The Council's mission is to identify and support federal public policies and articulate the voice of its membership regionally and nationally on important issues facing New England. For more information, please visit: www.newenglandcouncil.com.

Student Success Act
This draft would replace No Child Left Behind’s Annual Yearly Progress requirements with more flexibility for states to define achievement standards and targets, including the ability to develop alternative standards for students with “the most significant disabilities.” Other changes include:
·         States would define their own system for turning around underperforming schools, lifting federally intervention requirements;
·         All funding for the Education Department’s School Improvement Grants to turn around failing schools would be diverted to increase funding for Title I programs;
·         The Secretary of Education’s powers to impose regulations on states and school districts would be significantly curtailed; 
·         Funding for specific programs including low-income schools, English language learners, and rural education would be merged into Title I general funding, and could be used for any education programs at the discretion of states and local school districts;
·         The federal requirement that teachers be highly qualified would be repealed; and
·         Funding authorization would be limited to recently-passed FY 2012 levels.

Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act
This draft eliminates and consolidates over 70 existing ESEA programs and allows for more flexibility at the state and local levels for using the law’s current more rigidly defined funding streams. Other changes include:
·         Looser requirements for teacher-evaluation systems;
·         Capping the funding which can be used to reduce class size;
·         A New Local Academic Flexible Grant program, which provides funding for programs other than those provided at traditional public schools; and
·         Eliminating any programs and provisions targeted at specific national organizations in order to comply with the House ban on earmarks.

Democratic Response
Congressman Kline’s Democratic counterpart came out against the proposed drafts. Education and the Workforce Committee Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA) said that the proposal would “eliminate critical programs and funding that promote a balanced education.” He also expressed disappointment that the Republicans “opted to walk away from bipartisanship and craft partisan legislation.” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has said that he is waiting on a bipartisan proposal from the House before moving for a floor vote on his version of ESEA legislation, which garnered the support of three Republicans on the Committee. The only bipartisan legislation to pass either chamber of Congress during the broad attempt to reauthorize ESEA is H.R. 2218, which would provide funding to replicate successful charter school models. That bill passed the House in September 2011.

As a member of New England Council, we publish the DC Shuttle each week featuring higher ed news from Washington. This edition is drawn from the Council's Higher Ed Committee Update of Jan. 10, 2012.

Founded in 1925, the New England Council is a nonpartisan alliance of businesses, academic and health institutions, and public and private organizations throughout New England formed to promote economic growth and a high quality of life in the New England region. The Council's mission is to identify and support federal public policies and articulate the voice of its membership regionally and nationally on important issues facing New England. For more information, please visit www.newenglandcouncil.com.

The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers in 2009 enlisted experts to draft common standards to encourage all students, regardless of background, to be ready for college or career after high school. The common core standards have been adopted by 44 states and the District of Columbia. (Alaska, Texas and Virginia have signaled they would not take part.)

On Thursday, Sept. 22, and Friday, Sept. 23, NEBHE convened about 70 education administrators and state legislators in Newport, R.I., to discuss "Common Core Standards & Assessing College Readiness."

One thing is certain at this point: The common core standards will have a major impact on curricula, textbooks, testing, and teaching and learning.

Longitudinal data systems

The first session began with "Best-in-Class School to College and Workforce Longitudinal Data Systems: A New Model for States and the Region," featuring Karen Levesque, director of K-12 School Improvement and Robert Fitzgerald, senior research associate both at MPR Associates Inc., and Douglas Shapiro of the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC).

Levesque noted that the NSC has data on 93% of college students in the country, whether they went to public or private institutions. The data are owned by the institutions, but MPR is able to share basic “directory” information, while states can provide detailed information on coursetaking. State longitudinal systems in the three pilot sites—Florida, Georgia and Texas—were really warehouses holding data that have never before been linked. Fitzgerald explained that the analysts began to use "algorithmic magic" outside zealously guarded Social Security numbers in order to match students and to tell a fuller story.

Levesque explained the “Create Reports” function in the MPR Advance data platform, using as an example, a look at how Citrus County, Florida, compared with Florida as a whole. She noted that 60% of students, in this example, are enrolled in Florida’s vibrant two-year public colleges. She said a high percentage of students who score proficient on high school assessment need remediation in college math—a gap that is less significant in English.

Not surprisingly, student persistence was lowest among students who were economically disadvantaged. Levesque said MPR is talking to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation about how to scale up from the current three pilot sites to 10 or so.

Shapiro spoke of linking education data to workforce data—an endeavor in which community colleges have been pioneers. He said NSC has faced obstacles getting wage data based on Social Security numbers in part to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), but states can get more data. Additionally, using Social Security numbers at all creates a big bias because you get only students who went to college.

State readiness

"What is the state capacity in higher ed?," asked Aims McGuinness Jr., senior associate at the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS), as he began a session on "State Readiness for Common Core Standards and College Ready Assessment Implementation: Recent Research Findings."

The key ingredients to state success in implementing common core assessments, McGuinness said, include having a solid partner to work with chief state school officers on the common core across a broad spectrum and a record of leading academic change in areas such as remediation, relationship with K-12 and adult education

He noted that Texas has implemented "the most outlandish intrusion on higher ed" with its seven principles of what higher ed ought to do.  "Texas has rejected the common core," McGuinness said, "but has done an amazing job on assessments."

McGuinness said the researchers constantly heard that the new assessment was interfering with what already exists in states. New England states have, in fact, been deep into assessment and they’ve been trying to correlate (their assessments) with the common core. (As one panelist told me, states work hard to improve assessment and then when they finally get it, the core standards change.)

McGuinness added: The track record on P-20 is limited. Just forming structures is one of the weakest indicators. There's no way New England is going to form structures across states the way Kentucky has within one state. There also needs to be more recognition of student mobility across states in New England.

How we got here and the road ahead

On Thursday evening, attendees heard Dane Linn and Travis Reindl of the National Governors Association's Center for Best Practices explore "Common Core Standards: How We Got Here and the Road Ahead."

Linn walked the audience through myths and facts about the common core. He said it is very important that higher education be at the table and be aware of the challenges because we’ve never tried anything like this on a national level. New England, he said, has an opportunity to do more than just talk about collaboration. He added that it is a myth that many new governors are questioning the common core—not one has rescinded what a predecessor did in terms of the common core.

Debate about content vs. skills is also false, Linn said. The common core should be about both. And it doesn’t mean a national curriculum. It does entail defining what students should know and be able to do based on standards benchmarked against countries including Singapore, Australia and Finland that perform very well on PISA and TIMMS, but also against leading states such as Massachusetts.

Reindl said adoption of the common core will not eliminate the need for remediation in postsecondary education. "Be ready for the remedial spike," he said. "It may or may not happen but that’s a prime place where wheels will come off the wagon … what would we do if it went up 10%?"

Duke Albanese, senior policy advisor with the Great Schools Partnership, led a panel of respondents, saying this great opportunity is going to happen ... the country is behind it.

Michael Meotti, executive vice president of the Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education, said when a smaller effort was tried 20 years ago the problem arose in actually bringing the standards to classrooms and campuses. Chancellor Edward MacKay of the University System of New Hampshire warned that New England is no longer a talent magnet and that the compact that there’s a public good to higher education is becoming unraveled. Wanda Monthey, the Maine Department of Education's team leader for PK-20/Adult Ed and Federal Programs, lamented that teachers need support to integrate their teaching practices with the new common core standards.

During a somewhat heated exchange, Vermont State Colleges Chancellor Tim Donovan asked if labor was at the table? Linn said the best feedback in the process came from the American Federation of Teachers. Donovan said he’d never heard that assertion in all the common core discussions he’d witnessed.  He also said that colleges should be judging applicants based upon competencies rather than grades. Donovan then added that so many students are now homeschooled, New England could make a statement that no student who comes with such a nontraditional record will be disadvantaged. Mackay said that would be a challenge because we can only compare applicants with others from their schools. David Ruff of the Great Schools Partnership countered that we know the grades teachers give are based on almost anything and that a competency-based system will give colleges a better assessment of the capabilities of college applicants.

Harry Osgood of the Maine Department of Education asked if now was the time for a common high school transcript.

View from the statehouses

Pam Goins, director of Education Policy at the Council of State Governments, ran through the various approaches states are taking.

In response, Connecticut Rep. Roberta Willis, noted that Connecticut has the widest achievement gap in the U.S., because it has the richest and poorest communities. Right now, colleges pay for some of the burden of closing the gap; but with common core, we’ll be pushing it on to schools, she said, reminding the audience that New England already has an incredibly strong tradition of local control.

We have wonderful testing already in Connecticut, said Willis, one of the best in the U.S., but we don’t really use it … it’s aggregate information, doesn’t focus on specific students. Taxpayers just see the data and think we’re spending too much on education. Also, how does special education fit into this? What happens with students who can’t meet the new standards?

Rhode Island Rep. Joseph McNamara said there is a misconception that teachers today are not focused on reform. An English teacher in McNamara's district said common core is not that different from "grade level expectation" we already use and post in classrooms. It seems as if every two years we have major reform … only wish we had time to see if how the latest reform affects performance.

McNamara added that the rollout of the federal Race to the Top competition left a bad taste for some Rhode Islanders. First of all, to compete, states were asked to adopt the standards though they hadn’t been developed yet. And the first Rhode Island meeting was in Massachusetts—an affront to New England individualism especially in a time of sky-high unemployment for the Ocean State. Meanwhile millions of dollars are leaving Rhode Island to pay consultants in Texas to develop the curricula. McNamara also wondered: Will textbook publishers overly influence the choice of materials? Will increased rigor develop need for increased programs that states can’t pay for at this time?"

Goins countered that states did have a chance to see and comment on the standards before the deadline for Race to the Top grants, but the review window was small.

New Hampshire Rep. Randy Foose said the problem is the process is being implemented at a point where there’s an interest in further reducing state budgets. New Hampshire Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, a former NEBHE chair, noted that in his district of Manchester, the largest in New Hampshire, the school board chair is the mayor. We’re all laboring with budget problems. But what he wants to do is save money, cut taxes … but you’re proposing things that would cost us money."

Aside from money, there's very little critical analysis about the move to common core state standards. But one might wonder if the core is a bit too common and how an un-common core emphasizing softer but no less necessary areas like emotional intelligence and character development might also fit in.

Moreover, Donald E. Williams Jr., president pro tempore of the Connecticut Senate, pointed out that states must keep their eyes on other priorities, including issues affecting school performance such as neonatal care and universal pre-K, rather than simply focusing on the flavor of the month. McNamara agreed, emphasizing that school breakfast is not some communist plot; it’s modest proven ways to help the kids we’re investing in.

New opportunities to assess college readiness

NEBHE then heard from the two assessment consortia boiled down from an original eight, ultimately chosen to work in the six New England states.

Jeff Nellhaus, director of PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers), whose managing partner is Achieve Inc. was chosen for Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

There was healthy skepticism in Massachusetts about whether the common core would lower our standards. Nellhaus explained that the Bay State decided to move to the common core to get good information on a full range of students—even in difficult-to-assess areas such as speaking and writing—and to show student growth over time Tools will be developed to help teachers assess students during the school year. It will all be computerized and include a summative assessment.

Tony Alpert, chief operating officer of SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium, whose managing partner is WestEd in San Francisco, was chosen for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut.

Alpert noted that Oregon is bringing everyone to the table and making consistent interventions and supports, for example, for students with disabilities. The system will include a summative assessment, but also performance tasks and accountability tools so students can manage their own learning better. Also formative assessment that looks more like instruction than a test and is labeled as a "digital library." Adaptive tests add value beyond assessment, for example matching students’ needs, even with Braille.

Donovan asked if the assessment results become part of student records? Alpert said yes it will be delivered to a state, but not across states.

Southern Vermont College President Karen Gross asked about the cut scores, or passing scores. “That's the $64,000 question," said Nellhaus. “That cut score will be determined by cumulative assessments,” he said. In other words, according to PARCC’s design, each level of performance in the formative assessments will be added to an end-of-the-year summative assessment with cut scores attributed to the cumulative formative results.

Gross asked how the assessment would interact with the ACT, SAT and other tests. Nellhaus said the consortia are not looking to replace admissions tests, but rather to help with placement. The consortia planned to meet with State Higher Education Executive Offices (SHEEO) to identify what standards should be emphasized on assessments to be unveiled in three years

McNamara noted that math tests online without a pencil and paper can be difficult at least for my generation. Alpert said the advocacy the two consortia are able to engage in is tremendous; collaborating on a readiness survey to learn what type of computers and bandwidth is available. Nellhaus added that the vision is not marching students into a computer lab, but rather using tools students will use everyday.

Creating strategies and regional working groups

NEBHE then convened New England SHEEOs and Chief State School Officers to discuss creating strategies and regional working groups to consider:

•    Longitudinal data system development and regional data sharing
•    Aligning Common Core to gateway English and math courses
•    Teacher education and developing a New England reciprocity agreement
•    College completion study with the National Student Clearinghouse

New Hampshire Education Commissioner Virginia Barry noted that rapid turnaround will come from our teacher-preparation; we don’t heave teacher portability in New England, she said, and that’s a huge workforce issue

Barry also gave a nod to "move on when ready"—the concept of allowing qualified 11th and 12th graders to leave high school and enter college. This idea emerged a few years ago in the Tough Choices Tough Times report released by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce.

Aundrea Kelley, the Massachusetts deputy commissioner for P-16 Policy and Collaborative called for a new approach to remedial education that is competency-based, allows students to master only content they are deficient in, rather than taking a three-credit developmental course. Jim Breece, vice chancellor for Academic Affairs, at the University of Maine System commented that we should take a page from the private colleges who imbed remediation into existing gateway coursework.

Most of those gathered in Newport agreed: This may be the closest the states will ever come to making common cause on education standards.

Sens. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Richard Burr (R-NC) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) released a legislative package on Wednesday to update portions of the NCLB law. The initiative is being spearheaded by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), former secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush. Their efforts are entirely separate from those of HELP Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Chair Harkin, and more closely resemble the piecemeal approach of House Republicans. Sen. Alexander stressed that he still hopes for talks to result in comprehensive, bipartisan legislation, and the efforts that he is spearheading represent an alternative track to move the education reform discussion. One bill mirrors the one passed by the House on Tuesday, to encourage the replication of successful charter school models. Another bill would collapse 59 education programs into two block grants: one for the "improvement of teaching and learning" and one to promote "safe and healthy students." A third bill would also target the training and recruiting of effective educators, and allow states to establish their own teacher evaluation systems. The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments Act would not completely rewrite the NCLB version of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Sen. Alexander said that he wants to retain the law's student achievement reporting requirements, but with benchmarks set by the states and local school districts rather than the U.S. Education Department. This bill would also impose "college- and career-readiness" goals for students. Sen. Alexander also introduced a bill (S. 1568) on Thursday to prevent the Education Department from granting waivers from NCLB benchmarks in exchange for states implementing Administration-approved reforms.

From the New England Council's Weekly Washington Report Higher Education Update, Sept. 19, 2011. NEBHE is a member of the Council and publishes this column each week.

Founded in 1925, the New England Council is a nonpartisan alliance of businesses, academic and health institutions, and public and private organizations throughout New England formed to promote economic growth and a high quality of life in the New England region. The Council's mission is to identify and support federal public policies and articulate the voice of its membership regionally and nationally on important issues facing New England. For more information, please visit www.newenglandcouncil.com.

On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. ruled to strike a newly implemented Education Department regulation on online higher education programs. The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities filed a lawsuit in January on behalf of their for-profit members to challenge several of the department's new "gainful employment" regulations. The court ruled against the rule requiring colleges to be approved by every state from which they enroll students in any online program, but upheld regulations restricting incentive pay for college recruiters based on enrollment and prohibiting misrepresentation of college programs and outcomes. In the case of the state approval rule, the court found that the Education Department failed to give sufficient notice of the inclusion of online programs in the rule and allow for comments.

From the New England Council's Weekly Washington Report Higher Education Update, July 18, 2011. NEBHE is a member of the Council and will publish this column each week.

Founded in 1925, the New England Council is a nonpartisan alliance of businesses, academic and health institutions, and public and private organizations throughout New England formed to promote economic growth and a high quality of life in the New England region. The Council's mission is to identify and support federal public policies and articulate the voice of its membership regionally and nationally on important issues facing New England. For more information, please visit www.newenglandcouncil.com.

Idaho, Montana and South Dakota are rejecting the adequate yearly progress (AYP) benchmarks established by the 2001 NCLB law, according to letters sent to the U.S. Education Department. State officials write that unless Congress passes changes to the much-criticized law, they plan to hold to the 2009-10 targets rather than proceed through the law's stair-stepped yearly targets which culminate at 100% proficiency by 2014. In this way, they hope to reduce the number of schools which are judged "failing" by the law's more rigorous standards and lose federal funding. An Education Department spokesperson responded to the letters on Tuesday, noting that the agency has already proposed a "Plan B" which would "offer relief in exchange for reform to states who desperately want flexibility from NCLB's broken provisions" in the event that Congress does not finish work on the law before the beginning of the 2011-12 school year.

From the New England Council's Weekly Washington Report Higher Education Update, July 11, 2011. NEBHE is a member of the Council and will publish this column each week.

Founded in 1925, the New England Council is a nonpartisan alliance of businesses, academic and health institutions, and public and private organizations throughout New England formed to promote economic growth and a high quality of life in the New England region. The Council's mission is to identify and support federal public policies and articulate the voice of its membership regionally and nationally on important issues facing New England. For more information, please visit www.newenglandcouncil.com.

On Wednesday, the House Education and Workforce Committee voted 27-11 to approve legislation (H.R. 2117) repealing two college regulations which are scheduled to take effect on July 1. A recent bundle of new regulations from the Department of Education includes rules requiring online and distance learning programs to be authorized by every state in which they operate, and establishing a federal definition for a college credit hour. The bill would repeal both of these regulations, which Committee Chair John Kline (R-MN) said constitutes "too much federal overreach into postsecondary education." Supporters of the repeal measure said that the state authorization requirement would prevent colleges from offering online and distance courses in certain areas, and that a federal credit hour standard could discriminate against non-traditional learning programs. Committee Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA) argued that the Education Department's new rules were necessary to ensure that federal student financial aid was being used wisely and protected against waste and abuse.

From the New England Council's Weekly Washington Report Higher Education Update, June 20, 2011. NEBHE is a member of the Council and will publish this column each week.

Founded in 1925, the New England Council is a nonpartisan alliance of businesses, academic and health institutions, and public and private organizations throughout New England formed to promote economic growth and a high quality of life in the New England region. The Council's mission is to identify and support federal public policies and articulate the voice of its membership regionally and nationally on important issues facing New England. For more information, please visit www.newenglandcouncil.com.