NEA on Academic Freedom

NEA opposes proposals such as the so-called "Academic Bill of Rights" that would chill free speech and academic freedom on college campuses.

• The quality and diversity of American higher education institutions flourish because the federal government, through the Higher Education Act, has focused on ensuring the greatest level of access for all students while abiding by a principle of nonintervention in the areas of curriculum and teaching.
  
  
• The so-called "Academic Bill of Rights" movement seeks to amend the Higher Education Act to make unnecessary, ideologically driven changes under the guise of further protections for students against purported, unproven bias by faculty.
  
  
• Colleges and universities already have sufficient policies and procedures to ensure the quality of education while guaranteeing the rights of students and faculty alike, including tenure and due process policies to protect academic freedom, statements of student rights and responsibilities, and student grievance procedures.
  
  
• Current law already has a provision addressing "Protection of Student Speech and Association Rights." This provision seeks to protect individual students from discrimination due to activities outside the classroom involving controversial issues or organizations.
  
  
• States have declined to implement similar provisions. Over the last four years, 28 states have considered legislation aimed at correcting an alleged "political bias" at their state colleges and universities. After examining the evidence and assessing existing institutional policies, no state enacted this legislation, regardless of which party held a political majority. Last fall, after a year-long inquiry, a Select Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives found "legislation requiring the adoption of a uniform statewide academic freedom policy … is not necessary."
  
  
• The Academic Bill of Rights sets the precedent of promoting federal standards for how colleges and universities make academic decisions, would send a chilling message to our nation's professors, and would stifle the open debate and free exchange of ideas so fundamental to higher education.
  

I'm ready to take action:

I need more info:

• Issue Overview: Higher Education
• NEA's Higher Education Web Site

Letters to Congress

• Joint NEA/AFT letter on priorities for reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, 4/29/08
• Letter to the House on the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (H.R. 4137), 2/7/08
• Letter to the Senate supporting an amendment on the DREAM Act expected to be offered to the DoD bill, 9/17/07
• Letter to the full Congress supporting the higher education reconciliation conference report, 9/6/07
• Letter to higher education conferees working out differences on college affordability bills, 8/2/07
• Letter to the Senate on the Higher Education bill, 7/23/07
• Letter to the House of Representatives opposing the Westmoreland amendment, which would prohibit printing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid in any language other than English, 7/19/07
• Letter to the Senate in support of the Higher Education Access Act, 7/18/07
• Letter to the Senate supporting the DREAM Act, 7/16/07
• Letter to the House of Representatives on the College Cost Reduction Act, 7/10/07
• Letter to Chairman George Miller on the College Cost Reduction Act, 6/13/07
• Letter to Representative Miller regarding Virginia Tech, 4/20/07
• Letter to Senator Kennedy regarding Virginia Tech, 4/20/07
• Letter to the Senate opposing the Kyl amendment, 1/25/07
• Letter to the House of Representatives supporting the College Student Relief Act of 2007 (H.R. 5), 1/16/07

NEA on Loan Interest Rates: Reduce Student Loan Burdens by Cutting Interest Rates

NEA supports the College Student Relief Act of 2007 (H.R. 5), which would cut the current interest rates on subsidized undergraduate student loans in half.

• Access to higher education opportunities allows individuals to succeed in jobs with career potential and upward mobility. Higher education is the stepping-stone out of poverty for many Americans.
  
  
  
•  It is estimated that a person with a college degree will earn 50 percent more over his or her lifetime than someone with a high school degree.
  
  
  
•  Federal student loan programs provide critical access to postsecondary education to low- and middle-income students and their families.
  
  
  
•  With college costs on the rise, more students have to take out greater loans to cover their tuition and other college costs, while incurring record student debt. In 2003-04, the median student debt borrowed to finance a bachelor's degree was $19,300.
  
  
  
• H.R. 5 will help ease some of the burden students face by phasing in interest rate cuts over five years for undergraduate borrowers of new subsidized student loans from a fixed rate of 6.8 percent to a fixed rate of 3.4 percent. Once fully phased in, the interest rate cut is estimated to help ease the financial burden of more than 5.5 million undergraduate students.

I'm ready to take action:

I need more info:

• Issue Overview: Higher Education
• Video of NEA Student Program Chair Anthony Daniels Speaking on College Affordability
• NEA's Higher Education Web site

NEA on the Adjunct Teacher Corps: Opposed

NEA is concerned about the creation of the Adjunct Teacher Corps because it fails to take into consideration the quality and support needed for all teachers and students to succeed in the classroom.  

• The program assumes that anyone with subject matter knowledge can be a good teacher. This is simply not true. Teachers need to know their subject matter, but this is not enough. It is equally important that they know how to best teach the subject matter to students.  This requires the knowledge of pedagogy based on the best research into how students learn and the content-specific teaching methods shown to be most effective with all types of students. Given the fact that classrooms are more diverse than ever, a far greater level of pedagogical expertise is required to deliver challenging academic content successfully.
  
  
• By exempting the adjunct teacher corps from the highly qualified definition, the program undercuts the goal of the No Child Left Behind Act to have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.  In addition, it places adjunct teachers in the highest need schools, the very schools that need the most highly qualified teachers.
  
  
• The program would allow—in addition to school districts—a public or private "educational organization or business" to recruit and train the adjunct teachers. This is the responsibility of the local education agency and should not be outsourced.  Furthermore, there appear to be no provisions to ensure that private entities doing the recruiting and training do not discriminate in the manner in which they conduct these activities.
  
  
• The program allows grant recipients to "reimburse outside entities for the costs associated with allowing an employee to serve as an adjunct teacher, except that these costs shall not exceed the total cost of salary and benefits for teachers with comparable experience or expertise in the local education agency." In collective bargaining states, this is a clear violation of state laws that specify that compensation is the first area covered by collective bargaining.
  
  
• Finally, there are 14 states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia [certain local governments], Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island [certain local governments], and Texas certain local governments]) affected by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) of the Social Security Act. The WEP reduces the Social Security benefits of people who worked both as public employees in jobs not covered by Social Security and in jobs in which they earned Social Security benefits. For example, the WEP affects educators who do not earn Social Security from their jobs in the public schools, but who change careers, moving from a job in which they earn Social Security benefits (private sector jobs) to a teaching job in a state that is not covered by Social Security. The continued existence of the WEP serves as a disincentive for many mid-career professionals to leave successful private sector jobs to enter the classroom and would negatively impact many individuals moving from the private sector into teaching as part of the Teacher Adjunct Corps.

I need more info:

• Higher Education Overview
• NEA's Position on the DREAM Act
• NEA's Higher Education Web Site
• Letter to Senate HELP Committee
• Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee
• Letter to the House Opposing Final Passage of H.R. 609 (House 3/30/06)

NEA on the Adjunct Teacher Corps

NEA opposes the Adjunct Teacher Corps because:

• The Adjunct Teacher Corps assumes that anyone with subject-matter knowledge can be a good teacher. This is simply not true. Teachers need to know their subject matter, but this is not enough. It is equally important that they know how to best teach the subject matter to students. This requires the knowledge of pedagogy based on the best research into how students learn and the content-specific teaching methods shown to be most effective with all types of students. Given the fact that classrooms are more diverse than ever, a far greater level of pedagogical expertise is required to deliver challenging academic content successfully.
  
  
• The proposal undercuts the goal of the No Child Left Behind Act to have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. In addition, it proposes placing adjunct teachers in the highest-need schools, the very schools that need the most highly qualified teachers.
  
  
• The program would allow — in addition to school districts — a public or private "educational organization or business" to recruit and train the adjunct teachers. This is the responsibility of the local education agency and should not be outsourced. Furthermore, there appear to be no provisions to ensure that private entities doing the recruiting and training do not discriminate in the manner in which they conduct these activities.
  
  
• The program undercuts state collective bargaining laws by allowing grant recipients to "reimburse outside entities for the costs associated with allowing an employee to serve as an adjunct teacher, except that these costs shall not exceed the total cost of salary and benefits for teachers with comparable experience or expertise in the local education agency." In collective bargaining states, this is a clear violation of state laws that specify that compensation is the first area covered by collective bargaining.
  

NEA on Academic Freedom: Protect Free Speech and Academic Integrity

• NEA opposes proposals that would that imply a federal role in directing, evaluating, promoting, or cajoling any aspect of speech in education by students, professors, classroom teachers, or anyone else.

• NEA agrees with the fundamental principles of fairness, openness, and liberty in student speech in postsecondary education. We steadfastly defend the rights of all citizens, including all students and educators, to express their views under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

• States, universities, community colleges, and K-12 systems have their own policies and practices for determining curricula, evaluating programs and employees, and resolving problems or disputes about fairness and protection of free speech. 

• NEA also opposes politicization of professional programs on campus through creation of an International Higher Education Advisory Board. Establishment of this new board would undermine a longstanding bipartisan consensus that the federal government should respect academic freedom and independence. 

• Current policy has been successful and should not be abandoned. The proposed Board could intrude into academic conduct and content of higher education and could impinge on institutional decisions about curriculum and activities.

• Indeed, the powers vested in the proposed Board make it more of an investigative, rather than an advisory, body. At best, the Board would be duplicative — at worst, it would tarnish the Title VI program’s professional reputation in the university community both here and abroad. 

I'm ready to take action:

I need more info:

• Issue Overview: Higher Education
]]>http://www.nea.org/lac/highered/iheposition.htmlhttp://www.nea.org/lac/highered/iheposition.htmlMon, 18 Jul 2005 04:00:00 GMT

NEA on the Definition of 'Institution of Higher Education': Retain Two Separate Definitions

 

• NEA opposes proposals currently under consideration in the House that call for a "single definition" of an "Institution of Higher Education" (IHE), thereby making all IHEs, including for-profit institutions, eligible for a wide range of federal education programs such as the Higher Education Act's Title III and Title V.
• Title III and Title V of the Higher Education Act are intended to foster development of public and private nonprofit institutions serving special populations and addressing national needs.  
• The limited funds available for these programs should not be diverted to for-profit institutions, which, by definition, need to concentrate primarily on the bottom line.
• Maintaining separate definitions for public/nonprofit institutions and for-profit institutions recognizes the different missions of the two types of institutions, while still allowing students at for-profit institutions to take advantage of federal student assistance programs.   

I need more info:

• Issue Overview: Higher Education
]]>http://www.nea.org/lac/highered/hedposition2.htmlhttp://www.nea.org/lac/highered/hedposition2.htmlFri, 01 Oct 2004 04:00:00 GMT

NEA on Higher Education for Immigrants



NEA supports legislation that would allow states to determine their own residency requirements, thereby permitting them to offer in-state tuition and higher education benefits to undocumented students.

• Each year, over 50,000 undocumented students who have lived in the United States for at least five years graduate from U.S. high schools. Among these students are class valedictorians, straight-A students, and idealistic youth committed to bettering their communities.
• Current federal law restricts states' ability to provide in-state tuition or higher education assistance to these students, who often have no recourse to regularize their immigration status. As a result, many of them are unable to pursue higher education.
• The current law denies students with tremendous promise the opportunity to excel. In fact, many promising students drop out of school because they know they will be unable to continue on to college.
• The loss to these students, and to society as a whole, is significant.
• The bipartisan DREAM Act/American Dream Act (S.774/H.R. 1275) will address federal barriers to education and work confronted by the U.S.-raised children of undocumented immigrants.

 NEA supports this proposal.

Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to give talented students the opportunity to excel and contribute to our country by passing the DREAM Act/American Dream Act. 

I'm ready to take action:

E-mail Congress:

I need more info:

• Issue Overview: Higher Education
• NEA's Higher Education Web site
• Letter to U.S. House of Representatives Urging Cosponsorship of the American Dream Act, 4/24/06
]]>http://www.nea.org/lac/highered/hedposition.htmlhttp://www.nea.org/lac/highered/hedposition.htmlFri, 01 Oct 2004 04:00:00 GMT

NEA on Student Aid:
Help More Low-Income Students Attend College



NEA supports increasing the Pell Grant maximum award and shifting the balance of federal aid from loans to grants to help more low-income students attend and finish college.

• Access to higher education opportunities allows individuals to succeed in jobs with career potential and upward mobility. Higher education is the stepping stone out of poverty for many Americans. It is estimated that a person with a college degree will earn 50 percent more over his or her lifetime than someone with a high school diploma.
• Expanding postsecondary education opportunities also helps ensure the well-educated workforce our nation needs to compete in the 21st century. Ensuring and expanding access to higher education is particularly important given the continuing rise in college tuition and the increasing difficulty for low-income families to afford a college education.
• Since their inception 40 years ago, Pell Grants have enabled millions of disadvantaged students, most of them first-generation college students, to attend postsecondary institutions and earn degrees. These individuals have gone on to make extraordinary contributions to our society.
• Unfortunately, while tuition at higher education institutions has continued to rise far faster than the cost of living, the maximum Pell Grant award has remained virtually constant. With a maximum of just over $4,000 and an average amount of $2,400 per student, Pell Grants no longer provide enough assistance for working families to pay for college.
• The relative balance among various kinds of federal student aid has shifted over time. While in the 1970s the ratio of grants to loans was 70 percent to 30 percent, this ratio has effectively reversed, with 75 percent of federal aid now in the form of loans.
• The shift from grants to loans has meant a dramatic increase in the number of students facing significant debt upon completion of postsecondary education.
• This heavy debt burden often limits career choices and prevents many talented students from pursuing careers in public service, including as teachers.

I need more info:

• Issue Overview: Higher Education
• NEA's Higher Education Web site
]]>