n September 2006, the Department of Education released a commissioned report entitled A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education also commonly referred to as the Spellings Report . U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings appointed 18 professionals across public and private sectors (i.e., former university presidents, elected officials, Fortune 500 executives, etc.) to synthesize the major challenges facing institutions of higher learning as well as set forth recommendations for revitalizing higher education in the 21 st century. The findings cited in the Spellings Report illustrate four emerging themes: (1) Issues of Access, (2) Costs and Affordability, (3) The Quality of Learning Outcomes, and (4) Accountability Measures. While each area is key to American higher education, the central aim of this article is to comment on and further problematize the Commission's suggestions regarding college access.

Is College for Everyone?

Given the divergent institutions that comprise the higher education community, it is arguable whether there could be agreement regarding the optimal capacity of colleges, which programs should be delivered, and who should be served. In the early history of American higher education, college was for the elite, not the masses. Less than one-fifth of high school graduates entered college prior to World War II (National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, 2004). With the passage of the GI Bill of Rights, enrollment in higher education began to expand. However, the increased college-going rates were primarily among White males (Gumport, Iannozzi, Shaman, & Zemsky, 1997). Fast forward to the millennium and changing demographics coupled with a knowledge economy make it imperative that barriers to postsecondary access be remedied for the U.S. to be globally competitive. For instance, the Spellings Commission asserts that "too few Americans prepare for, participate in, and complete higher education - especially those underserved and nontraditional groups who make up an ever-greater proportion of the population" (U.S. Department of Education, A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, 2006, p.8). Given the Commission's concern with the demography of U.S. citizens in relationship to the country's educational future, it is important to consider how the representation among the population has shifted.

Today, one in every three people is a person of color, over half of the populace is female and 12.5 percent of Americans live in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2004). Demographers project that by 2050 racial/ethnic minorities will become the new majority. Therefore, it is critical to note that certain group memberships further exacerbate issues of social class. The evidence of this is found in the higher proportions of racial/ethnic minorities living in poverty. Subsequently, the Spellings Report characterizes the gaps by race/ethnicity apart from socioeconomic factors and attends more pointedly to disparities by income. Pervasive hindrances to higher learning involve determinants of lower socioeconomic status and college costs in conjunction with the consequences of having memberships in disenfranchised groups.

The figure above elucidates the poverty rate among African Americans. It is nearly twice the national average. Similarly, figures for the Hispanic population also greatly exceed the national poverty rate. Because people with low incomes are most affected by spiraling costs, African American students are hurt more by the increasing cost of college than their White peers. Kane asserts that "because a higher percentage of blacks are from low-income families and, therefore, had been heavily subsidized by the federal government.Cuts in federal grants to them in the early eighties substantially raised their costs of a college education" (as cited in Becker, 2002, p.1).

While lower socioeconomic status intensifies with race and ethnicity, gender added to the pile of personal characteristics also amplifies social class inequities. According to the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan (2006), the poverty rate for households headed by single women is substantially higher than the overall poverty rate. For example, 28.4 percent of all single female heads of household live in poverty. In contrast 13.5 percent of male heads of household live in poverty. To further illuminate the interaction between race/ethnicity, gender and income, it is only necessary to look at the disproportionately higher percentage of single households headed by African American and Hispanic women. Nearly two-fifths of single African American and Hispanic women heads of household are poor. As the number of single-headed households has risen, it comes as no surprise that the poverty rate among children has risen to the highest level in 10 years (U.S. Bureau of the Census Bureau, 2004).

The unfortunate reality is that the poverty rate for children has exceeded the national poverty rate. The Spellings Report noted that much of the inaccessibility to postsecondary study is due financial hurdles, a lack of information about collegiate opportunities, and academic ill-preparedness. More often than not, those who are considered the least prepared for college-level work are first-generation students who do not know how to navigate the routes to college. Quite frequently those in need of remediation are coming from low-income and/or racially/ethnically diverse families. It is interesting when considering issues of access to note that opportunities appear to be thwarted for many students from the onset due to the nexus between race/ethnicity, gender and social class. The Spellings Commission did not adequately address the intersectionality of socioeconomic status with gender and race/ethnicity that often accompanies if not creates the gap in educational achievement for students from marginalized groups. Although the Commission cogently conveys the gaps in college access by race/ethnicity and income as troublesome, the report did not substantially move beyond problem identification. The Spellings Report was short on feasible solutions, concrete actions and strategic approaches to take in rectifying uneven entry to academia.

Higher Education and Investing in Human Capital

St. John and Chung (2005) contend that a "balanced access model" (p. 126) speaks to how the actual availability of financial aid and the expectation of aid shape students' decisions about whether college is a feasible or lofty goal. Years ago a first-generation African American female student I was mentoring shared that she would not be returning to college for her sophomore year. This student was very bright, capable and eager to learn. However, she could not reconcile that she would need to take out additional student loans to make up the difference in college costs. I explained to her that while she was indebted $3,000 for her freshman year, if she were to persist to degree completion, there would be an individual and a social rate of return realized. I shared that the investment that she would make in herself would pay off over a life time of earnings. In short, despite the subsidized student loan rates being at an all time low during this period (i.e., finance charges hovering around three percent) her pervasive belief was that college was not affordable. A Pygmalion effect produced a self-fulfilling prophecy making it improbable she would earn a baccalaureate degree because she considered the costs to be prohibitive.

Concerns addressed in the Spellings Report are justified if one considers higher education as an investment that tangibly increases the talents, skill set, knowledge, and dispositions of attendees which in turn increase our overall human capital as a nation. However, in weighing the personal and societal benefits of American higher education, suggestions from the report run counter to the exchange of teaching and learning at the collegiate level. For example, employment of standardized "Collegiate Learning Assessments" (U.S. Department of Education, 2006, p.23) across institutional types to determine learning outcomes would not be an effective practice. The Spellings Commission proposal to apply uniform assessments for the purposes of contrasting students irrespective of institutional type (public or private colleges, two- or four-year institutions, vocational versus liberal arts majors) stifles academic freedom relative to pedagogy and is part of the onslaught to increase federal regulation of higher education. One size does not fit all. The reform model proposed by the Commission parallels Secretary Spellings other educational reform in K-12, otherwise known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB has advocates and critics but by design it has homogenized K-12 curricular offerings and falls short of creating more seamless pathways to college. The recommendations in the Spellings Report call for data on student performance to be tied to matching federal dollars that would augment existing performance based funding formulas in state systems. On the other hand, there is ample commentary in the report on increasing access for those in the lowest economic quartile without any commitment to increase the range of federal aid.

One of the greatest strengths of American higher education is that the system is not monolithic but quite diverse reflecting the variation of learners from all walks of life. Understandably, as college costs continue climbing, there is additional scrutiny of higher education and growing calls for greater accountability. In theory, a managed learning system may allay concerns regarding the lack of data made available to the public. It is more difficult for colleges and universities to exemplify the strengths and weaknesses of postsecondary education without providing greater public access to institutional data. Nonetheless, federal data management of individual student progress is not necessarily the best vehicle for addressing eroding support for American higher education.

Measuring Up 2006, the national report card on higher education predicts that it is likely young Americans will continue falling behind their peers in other countries relative to college attendance and degree completion. It is crucial to consider the market forces (i.e., depressed economies, reduced opportunities in the labor force, coupled with the expense of postsecondary education) in the U.S. that have eroded the confidence of students and their parents about the feasibility of accessing higher learning. There has also been recent retrenchment on access policies, programs and practices (e.g., decreasing federal funding for TRIO programs, abolition of affirmative action at the state level [Proposal 2 referendum passage in Michigan November 2006], cuts in employment assistance to veterans, and so forth). The following table is a list of select educational and social service-related programs that were slated for termination last year.

Program Terminations - FY 2006 Budget Summary

Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005)

Similar to the situation involving nurses, the nation is experiencing a monumental teacher shortage. Community colleges are often cited as an appropriate response to the problem of preparing teachers to educate America. More programs are starting on campuses across the nation, typically in conjunction with fouryear institutions, with the goal of training teachers to be recruited more broadly. In January 2006 the major universities and colleges in Washington State entered into a direct transfer agreement with the state's community and technical colleges to partner in teacher preparation (Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges, 2005). Another response to the problem is the inclusion of community colleges into fast-track alternative certification programs (ACPs) (Center for Community College Policy, 2003). ACPs provide certification to those baccalaureate holders, regardless of discipline, who wish to teach but lack any experience or training in education methods. These programs are becoming more popular at community colleges as they generally are less expensive and shorter in term than those offered at four-year universities (Center for Community College Policy, 2003). But research is lacking to demonstrate if this method of supplying teachers will work. Will students trained through community college teacher preparation programs remain teaching in schools a decade later? Will these former community college students be more sensitive to today's children? Can community colleges provide quality teaching programs amidst their shrinking budgets?

Fault Lines: Systemic Pipeline Issues and Challenges to Educational Access

IAn unnamed lobbyist for a specialized association stated, "When the higher education community is fractured, lawmakers do whatever they choose" (as cited in Cook, 1998, P.115). To date, the strategies for reforming higher education scheduled in the Spellings Report are not entirely comprehensive and are quite contradictory in terms of efforts to transform higher education. The practice of cutting funding continues for many postsecondary initiatives that facilitate access. It is unsatisfactory that many programs/policies that seek to increase entrée to higher education are not consistently considered high-priority activities.

Although it is laudable that the Spellings Commission has called attention to the future of higher education, the practicality of performance-based ratings will not usurp the elitism among its players or flatten the stratification of its participants. Most would agree that the pathways to postsecondary education should be seamless, yet the curricular alignment called for in the Spellings Report includes expanding dual enrollment and AP course offerings which are not ground-breaking in the educational community What would be pioneering and transformative is not continued promotion of the Federal politics of paradox but authentic advancement of innovation in higher education with the backing of actual resources that reinforce college preparation. Instead, the Spellings Commission offers new sets of unfunded mandates. Programs such as the Perkins Act, the Workforce Investment Act, GEAR-UP, Upward Bound and Talent Search demonstrate recognition of the value of college readiness and access to achieving educational goals/career objectives for learners across the spectrum of differences. These programs are similar to the GI Bill which was one of the first forms of affirmative action. Each of the aforementioned programs is a call for strategic action affirming the presence of underrepresented and underserved populations in higher education.

In summary, examples of initiatives that could be revisited, revamped, and strengthened to reflect an integrated and not disjointed set of access policy objectives would encompass but not be limited to: Career Pathways, Tech Prep, Mentoring Programs, and Learning Communities. In addition to each educational tier stepping up outreach efforts through middle, high school and college collaborations, other strategies to increase access to underrepresented groups could include:

• Reducing fees associated with development education
• Tightening articulation initiatives between two- and four-year institutions of higher learning
• Offering scholarships and textbook awards for first-generation collegians
• Creating new pathways to earning college credit, offering flexible scheduling and alternate modes of instructional delivery

The overall scheme of the Spellings Commission was to brainstorm a plan for restructuring American higher education. The committee included highly talented individuals from a diverse group of colleges, but given this impressive effort, it is unsettling that logistical issues relating to increasing access to higher education were not more adequately addressed. What is the social contract between America 's community colleges and the 'ivory towers'? This very well may be the million dollar question. The work of the Spellings Commission is indicative of continued interest in the American system of higher education, but concrete, activist solutions are needed for grappling with the best way to meet the needs of all those who aspire to receive a higher education. That answer remains elusive.

Eboni Zamani-Gallaher is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Community College Leadership Program in the Department of Leadership & Counseling at Eastern Michigan University. Dr. Zamani-Gallaher received her Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration from the University of Illinois. She may be reached at ezamani@emich.edu.

References

Becker, G.S., (2002). Human Capital. In D.R. Henderson (Ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved March 15, 2007, from http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html

Cook, C.E. (1998). Lobbying for higher education: How colleges and universities influence federal policy. TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Gumport, P.J., Iannozzi, M., Shaman, S. & Zemsky, R. (1997). Trends in United States higher education from massification to post massification. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.

Measuring up: National report card on higher education (2006). Retrieved on March 13, 2007, from http://measuringup.highereducation.org/nationalpicture/.

National Poverty Center (2006). Poverty facts: Poverty in the U.S. Ann Arbor , MI: University of Michigan, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Retrieved on March 13, 2007, from, http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/.

National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good (2004). Who is college for? A community discussion guide. Ann Arbor, MI: Kellogg Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

St. John, E. P. & Chung, C. G. (2005). In E.P. St. John and M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales (pp.124-140). MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2004). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Report P60, n. 229, Tables B-1 and B-2, pp. 46-57.

U.S. Department of Education (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. higher education (2006). Washington, DC.