The U.S. Department of Education has assembled a new commission to develop "a comprehensive national strategy" on the future of the United States' post-secondary education system.
In a speech from the University of North Carolina in Charlotte, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said that the commission will focus on the issues of steadily rising enrollment, declining affordability of higher education and the role of universities in America's global intellectual competitiveness, according to the New York Times.
In a press release issued by the office of the secretary after the speech, Spellings emphasized that her office is "not advocating for a bigger role for the federal government in higher education," but rather would like to start a discussion about the government's goals.
Nick Savino, a senior in the Washington Semester Program, said he is wary of the implications of greater aid.
"I wouldn't support larger financial aid packages if it meant the state had a proportionately larger say in what I learn in class," he said.
A correlation between government funding and control in the classroom is unlikely, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. The government is responsible for one-third of all spending on higher education, compared to 10 percent of spending in elementary and secondary school. The federal government exerts more control over elementary and secondary schools than colleges and universities, which are nearly autonomous.
Some in the academic community said they find it likely a change in the role of the federal government could possibly translate into intrusion of the college curriculum.
David Sadker, a professor of education at AU, said he believes the relative independence enjoyed by colleges and universities allows professors to teach student to learn to live, not just learn to test.
According to Sadker, an increased government role would lead to a sort of censorship, possibly imposing limits on what teachers can and cannot teach. The federal government's incursion on K-12 has "served to convert the joy of education into the pain of testing and failure," he said.
Matthew Villalobos, a junior in the School of Communication said he would not want to be educated based on what popular factions deem important to learn.
"It would be ridiculous to be paying for an education on 'the intelligent design' or something like that - it isn't like the whole country is full of Ward Churchills," he said.
David Longanecker of the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education said he is concerned that the freedom enjoyed by higher education institutions in the U.S. may not be the best thing for the system.
"I think it's very important that we raise to a national level and a federal level a discussion about what's happening to our competitiveness," he said in a Washington Post article.
Rob Ianelli, a junior in the School of International Service, said he thinks Longanecker's point is valid.
"If what is in the curriculum is leaning one way or the other towards a certain set of beliefs, then we could be losing a step in comparison to other countries with more rigorous academic standards in their systems," Ianelli said. "I think it is a positive thing to make sure that we are getting the most out of our institutional potential"
