As Congress considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA), there is bipartisan interest in finding ways to address concerns about student debt and the quality of higher education. One possibility for bipartisan cooperation might be an attempt to provide more accountability in the higher education sector, including additional data and transparency about outcomes. Yet until recently, there has been little clarity around what such policies would look like, how they would work, and what metrics would be used to judge quality. In an attempt to explore these questions, seek common ground, and clarify points of principled disagreement, Third Way and the American Enterprise Institute gathered a small group of bipartisan experts from the Department of Education, the Hill, and academia to discuss what, if anything, Washington can or should do. Four key questions drove the conversation:(1) What should the federal government's goals be for higher education accountability; (2) What success metrics are appropriate for federal policy on higher education accountability; (3) What mechanisms (carrots and sticks) are appropriate or inappropriate for federal higher education accountability policy; and (4) What are the biggest concerns about federal policy designed to hold institutions more accountable? This report attempts to capture the spirit of these discussions and provide key insights into when there was some level of agreement, or (by contrast) stark disagreement, among experts who represent different perspectives on the ideological spectrum. These discussions uncovered several points of agreement, including concerns about inadequate transparency around higher education outcomes, high levels of non-completion, and the fact that higher education is, despite some perceptions, far from a free market. Areas of disagreement included how to address market failures in higher education, with Democrats voicing a preference for the federal government playing a more robust consumer protection role and Republicans expressing skepticism that the federal government could craft policy to stimulate positive institutional responses without creating perverse incentives. While there were significant, principled disagreements about how to approach HEA, it is also clear that stakeholders from the left and right agree on the opportunity to move forward. [This report was co-produced by Third Way.]