In today’s webinar unveiling the National Conversation Initiative’s recommendations, I introduced the NCI this way:

It has been one year since the NASFAA Board of Directors, reacting to Dr. Day’s enthusiasm, foresight and recommendations, unanimously approved moving forward on National Conversation Initiative.  Make no mistake, this is a “game changer” for NASFAA and places NASFAA once again in the forefront as the national leader in defining financial aid policy and providing the necessary training opportunities for the nations’ students and the financial aid profession to be successful. The National Conversation Initiative clearly places financial aid professionals across this country in the position to Lead rather than Follow in the important financial aid policy discussions and decisions ahead for this nation.

In just seven short months, NASFAA has performed what I view as a minor miracle in developing the thirty recommendations.  NASFAA has tapped into the wealth of experience, know-how, and commitment reflected in our membership – the professionals who know best about what needs to be done to improve the current system of Student Aid in this country.  Special thanks to the NASFAA Board of Directors who spent considerable time and provided detailed input into the review of the document you see before you.  Also, words cannot express my appreciation for the tireless dedication of the NASFAA staff in synthesizing and distilling nearly 5,000 pieces of data inputs in such a short period of time to produce this document.

Please understand that while this appears to be the end of a process, it really represents only the beginning of a continuing dialog as those of us committed to access and choice for the nation’s students will continue to discuss and refine these recommendations over the next few years.

So, how do you react to the NCI recommendations?  Do you see this as a watershed event for NASFAA?  Please give NASFAA your reactions and continued input as the NCI moves forward into the NCI process’ third and fourth stages.

Guest blogger Dave Gelinas is director of financial aid at Davidson College and the 2005-06 national chair

On October 6, I had the opportunity to attend the public hearing on regulating the Higher Education Opportunity Act which was held at Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte. A total of 19 individuals offered public testimony over the course of the day.

As an aid administrator, when I think of “Higher Ed Act,” (with or without the “Opportunity” attached), I think of the many financial aid programs authorized by that law. I think of the many requirements my office will be responsible and accountable for. What I don’t tend to think of, and what makes the Higher Ed Act so voluminous, is that “my” programs are mainly under just one of the titles in the act. You know, good old Title IV, as in “return to.” The entire HEOA, though, encompasses 11 titles, ranging from General Provisions (Title I) to International Education Programs (Title VI) to Studies and Reports (Title XI). AND, under each title are numerous sections and parts. What opened my eyes at the hearing was the realization that the Title IV aid programs I know and love are but a small sliver of the entire Act, and other interested parties in higher education (not from the aid office) have strong feelings about those other titles and their parts and sections.

Only eight of the testimonies were given by aid professionals. The other 11 ranged from accreditation issues to campus safety and security to TRIO programs to copyright infringement (the enforcement of peer-to-peer file sharing prohibitions generated significant interest) to revenue provisions for career colleges. It was fascinating to hear those concerns expressed; suggestions given as to how the regulatory process should now proceed; and the advocacy for which groups should be represented at negotiated rulemaking. I found myself wondering how all these competing interests could possibly be resolved. I also realized that as an aid administrator, I am but one part of how an institution complies with this law, and it truly “takes a village” to carry out this massively complex piece of legislation.

If you have the opportunity to attend any of the remaining public hearings, I urge you to do so. Read the summary of the HEOA provided by NASFAA. (Or, be a glutton for punishment and wade through the entire Act.) Think of what you might want to testify about. You can also review testimony submitted by NASFAA to give you some ideas about issues to raise. In Charlotte, you could sign up for a testimony slot when you came to the meeting site, so “pre-registration” wasn’t necessary. Plan to leave a copy of your remarks with the Department of Education officials so they may be correctly entered into the public record. (And remember: Your testimony will be part of the public record.) Let your voice be heard.

It’s been a long time since my civics lessons back in school. Being able to be a part of what those civics lessons taught was both illuminating and instructive. It also gave me a greater appreciation for the work that has to be done to produce federal regulations. It was a well-spent day out of the office.

Dave Gelinas
2005-06 National Chair

Things continue to be a little crazy out there. Recently we’ve had a university debate coach fired for mooning his competition during an argument. At the Olympics, the Redeem Team wins, but baseball and softball (all-American sports?) lose. However, nice guys do occasionally finish first as Hugh McCutcheon and his men’s volleyball team win after he loses his father-in-law to a knife-wielding assailant in China. And, as we turn our sights on the Democratic and Republican Conventions, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat will be very evident come November. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that there is something cosmically synchronistic about having the political conventions and the Olympics occur so close to one another? Maybe it’s another sign that the Apocalypse is near.

The Christian Science Monitor ran an editorial on August 20^th proclaiming that Congress has flunked in the passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. Their premise is that taxpayers know little concerning the return on their investment in awarding billions of taxpayer dollars to institutions. (Funny – I thought the dollars went to the students.) But their basic premise speaks to accountability for the billions of dollars spent and that schools and teachers should be measured on the results of their core mission - education.

So, I ask you, should colleges be required to report on how well their learning outcomes compare with competitors? Some schools are involved in the National Survey of Student Engagement. Is this the answer to the U.S. News and World Report surveys? How do you adequately compare institutions with so many differences in mission and clientele?

Let NASFAA know where you think the HEOP failed and where it does achieve needed reforms. Dr. Day recently outlined some of the highlights and lowlights of the HEOA in a letter to members. Do you agree with this assessment of the bill? NASFAA’s staff needs your input as we continue to address the needs of students underrepresented in higher education.

And even more pressing, now that the Olympics are over, the big question is “What to watch tonight – MLB or politics?” Easy answer – wait a moment while I go get my Cardinals jersey.