,,iv  #aacth ,,congress  #b;d ,session  
,h4 ,,res4 #fad  ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of
 ,,representatives  ,june #aj1 #bjad    
,mr4 ,goodlatte 7for himself and ,mr4   
,capuano7 submitted the following       
resolution2 which was referred to the   
,committee on ,education and the        
,workforce  ,,resolution  ,strongly     
supporting the quality and value of     
diversity and innovation in the         
,nation's higher education institutions1
 and strongly disagreeing with the      
,president's proposal to create and     
administer a ,postsecondary ,institution
 ,ratings ,system4  ,whereas the        
,nation's diverse higher education      
system1 which includes community        
colleges1 public and private four-year  
colleges1 faith-based colleges1 research
 universities1 career training schools1 
work colleges1 land grant universities1 
historically ,black colleges1 women's   
colleges1 ,hispanic serving             
institutions1 institutes for the arts1  
and many other specialized institutions1

 offers opportunity and innovation in   
postsecondary education and for lifelong
 learning that is unmatched anywhere in 
the world2 ,whereas this diversity of   
institutions reflects the plurality and 
history of our people1 and the diversity
 of the ,nation's ideas and ideals2     
,whereas many of these institutions are 
the intellectual homes to our great     
traditions of faith1 social service1    
research1 arts and humanities1 all      
flourishing in the ,nation's free       
marketplace of ideas2 ,whereas public1  
private non-profit1 and for-profit      
institutions all compete in the         
marketplace for students causing        
postsecondary institutions to constantly
 innovate and adapt in order to meet the
 evolving needs of the ,nation's        
students2 ,whereas the ,department of   
,education already collects large       
amounts of data and metrics each year   
from postsecondary institutions with    
much of this information made publicly  
available to prospective students1 but  

not in a useful way2 ,whereas most      
,states are better equipped to          
distribute meaningful information       
regarding the postsecondary institutions
 within their borders2 ,whereas the     
,federal ,government has focused its    
investment in higher education in       
providing grants1 loans and work-study  
funds to help low and middle income     
students1 who are academically qualified
 for college and who are willing to work
 hard1 attend college1 but has left the 
choice of institution1 and the          
responsibility of effort for success1 up
 to students and their families2        
,whereas institutions that educate      
students who receive these funds are and
 shall continue to be accountable for   
the appropriate use of those funds1 and 
must already go through private         
accreditation1 ,state authorization1 as 
well as ,federal eligibility            
certification processes to be able to   
participate in the ,federal student aid 
programs2 ,whereas the amount of        

,federal aid a student receives is      
determined by ,congress through need    
analysis formulas in the ,higher        
,education ,act and through the annual  
appropriations process1 and may only be 
adjusted on a case by case basis by a   
campus ,financial ,aid ,officer1 and may
 not be adjusted by the ,administration2
 ,whereas the development of a          
,postsecondary ,institution ,ratings    
,system has been proposed by the current
 ,administration to rate and compare the
 value of colleges1 and to base the     
amount of need a low-income student     
receives not exclusively on need1 but1  
also1 on the ,administration's rating of
 the college that student chooses to    
attend2 ,whereas the ,administration has
 suggested this rating system will put a
 particular emphasis on graduates'      
earnings1 suggesting that institutions  
that produce graduates who go into      
public service1 the military1 ministry1 
non-profit work1 or who stay at home to 
care for family are somehow less worthy 

of support than institutions that       
produce graduates who go into more      
lucrative fields2 ,whereas the          
,administration has said the rating     
system will also give consideration to  
graduation rates of traditional         
students1 thereby disadvantaging        
institutions that have a mission to     
serve students who are first generation 
to college1 persons with learning       
disabilities1 veterans and other adults 
who are resuming education while also   
working and caring for families2        
,whereas a rating system built around a 
handful of factors chosen by the        
,department of ,education is likely to  
lead to greater standardization1 less   
choice1 and less innovation2 ,whereas a 
rating system built around a handful of 
factors chosen by the ,department of    
,education is reductionist in nature and
 will overlook many of the qualitative  
benefits that accrue to individuals and 
communities from a college degree1      
including1 but not limited to1 greater  

civic participation1 better health1     
greater appreciation of the arts and    
culture1 and critical reasoning skills2 
and ,whereas a ,federal rating system   
will likely carry an image of validity  
that will mislead the people of the     
,united ,states on college choice1      
decrease the ability of colleges to     
openly compete with each other in the   
marketplace1 and replace the free       
choices of students and their families1 
informed by their values1 with monetary 
measures determined by the ,federal     
,government3 ,now1 therefore1 be it     
,that it is the sense of the ,house of  
,representatives that--  7#a7 students  
and families should maintain the right  
and responsibility of determining where 
to enroll for postsecondary education2  
7#b7 the ,federal ,government1 in       
conjunction with ,states and            
accreditors1 has a responsibility to    
ensure that the significant taxpayer    
funds that are invested in student aid  
each year are appropriately spent1 and  

has tools such as program reviews and   
eligibility and certification procedures
 that should be better targeted to those
 purposes2  7#c7 the ,federal           
,government also has a positive role it 
could play in making information        
available to enable informed choices    
about postsecondary education available 
to prospective students and the         
,administration should work             
collaboratively with the higher         
education community to make that        
information more consumer friendly and  
accessible to those students and their  
families2 and  7#d7 the                 
,administration's proposal to rate      
postsecondary institutions through an   
oversimplified ,federal rating system   
that is not supported by postsecondary  
institutions1 statute1 or by the ,house 
of ,representatives1 will lead to less  
choice1 diversity1 and innovation1 and  
should be rejected4