Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Education Department's Activist Agenda

November 1, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings continues to try to counter the twin perceptions of her Education Department as lax on enforcement on the one hand and inappropriately meddling in the affairs of colleges on the other.

During a news conference Wednesday, Spellings listed a "litany" of steps her department had taken in recent months on a range of regulatory and policy fronts -- "scratching lots of itches," as Spellings put it in her down-home manner of speaking. Several of her efforts -- like the release today of final federal rules to govern the relationships between lenders and college officials and a ratcheting up of the department's scrutiny of universities where most students borrow from a single lender -- seemed designed to challenge the view (favored by some Democratic members of Congress) that the Bush administration had let abuses in the student loan industry to develop by being asleep at the switch.

And other parts of Spellings' presentation -- her review of the department's recent grant to three higher education associations to develop better ways of measuring student learning, for instance -- sought to leave the impression that the secretary is fulfilling her vow to work "with" colleges on issues of accountability and transparency, rather than stick it "to" them, as some higher education officials have complained. At various turns, Spellings appeared to want to portray the department as an activist, yet collaborative, federal agency.

Most of the efforts Spellings discussed will be old news to faithful readers of Inside Higher Ed, including:

  • Today's release in the Federal Register of a final version of new federal rules designed to govern the interactions between lenders, college officials and prospective borrowers, regulations that the department proposed in June and on which financial aid officers and lenders commented in August. Among other things, the rules, which take effect next July, will bar gifts of anything of more than nominal value from lenders to financial aid officers; require colleges’ lists of preferred lenders to contain at least three unaffiliated loan providers; and would require significantly more disclosure to students about their rights as borrowers. Spellings said the department was preparing a "Dear Colleague" letter urging the student loan industry and campus administrators not to wait until the rules become final to start carrying them out.
  • The secretary's attempt to jumpstart conversations among various federal agencies about who is responsible for what in overseeing the market for private student loans, which Spellings has argued is largely outside the purview of the Education Department, which has direct authority over federally backed loans. Spellings said the "interagency work group" that she had assembled -- including the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency -- planned a second meeting next month, and that her agency and the Federal Trade Commission had begun monthly meetings to consider the best ways to respond to consumer complaints about the student loan industry, an issue that has been raised by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.
  • The department's awarding of a $2.4 million grant to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges to help them assess existing, and develop new, tests and other tools to measure student outcomes on a wide range of skills. Officials of the agency and of the higher education groups heralded as a breakthrough in government-higher education collaboration.

If there was a nugget of new news in what Spellings and Under Secretary Sara Martinez Tucker discussed Wednesday, it was that the department had followed up a batch of letters it sent to 921 colleges in July expressing concern that at least 80 percent of their federal student loan volume was held by one lender. Department officials have characterized a single lender’s domination of a college’s loan volume as a red flag, providing evidence that the institution is directing prospective borrowers to that lender (which usually appears on its list of “preferred lenders") and raising questions about why.

Tucker said on Wednesday that the department had sent new letters to 55 colleges, all of which had at least $10 million in federal loan volume and most of which distributed at least 95 percent of their federally subsidized through one lender, as well as to 23 student loan providers with which those colleges did business. Tucker said the letters (a sample of which can be found here) requested additional information about their arrangements with lenders, to make sure that "nothing untoward" has been done to consumers and that students are given a choice of lender, as federal law requires. "We are not accusing [the colleges] of anything illegal at this point in time," Tucker said. Department officials said they would release a list of the institutions and lenders that received the letters only in response to a federal Freedom of Information Act request, which can take several weeks to fulfill.

Spellings also effusively praised the plan formally unveiled Wednesday by the National Association of System Heads and the Education Trust in which 19 public college systems have agreed to cut in half within eight years their gaps in college-going and college graduation rates for low-income students and those from underrepresented minority groups. Spellings called those behind the effort "true leaders and pioneers in the academy."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Education Department's Activist Agenda

  • Private student loans and the Department of Education
  • Posted by feudi pandola on November 1, 2007 at 8:55am EDT
  • The Department of Education can't have it both ways. Schools are legally required by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as revised, to make sure that students do not receive more in financial aid than the Cost of Attendance warrants. Under the law, the Secretary of Education is ultimately responsible for the lending practices of this industry, plain and simple. Secretary Spellings denies this responsibility and that denial has lead to the scandalous, predatory behavior we've seen over the past five years from many of these lenders. If the Department continues to insist that schools follow the law, then the Department must force all players within the system to foillow the law. That means that the same certification procedures and safeguards that exist for Title IV funds must be extended to the private educational loan industry. Period.

  • Day late, dollar short
  • Posted by DS on November 1, 2007 at 9:42am EDT
  • No matter what your business or your responsibilities, if you react to problems rather than taking action to prevent them from happening, you'll be ineffective. If Spellings really believes that 95% of loan volume with a single lender is an indicator of a violation of inducement rules, why wasn't she doing something about it years ago? Could it be that she's just trying to save face after Andrew Cuomo exposed her Department as being either asleep at the wheel, or worse yet, compliantly allowing this to happen thanks while hiring a bunch of Sallie Mae executives to watch over it all?

    Again, Spellings has everything backwards. First the Department regulates laws that don't exist, then tries to punish schools retroactively for violating regulations that weren't on the books at the time this happened. She's distinguished herself as one of the most grossly ineffective members of Bush's entire cabinet, and that's a bar that's been set awfully low.

  • Posted by Enough Already on November 1, 2007 at 9:42am EDT
  • Yawn. Ms. Spellings and Ms. Tucker are Lame Ducks. Hopefully, duPont Circle will wall them in for the next 12 months and the media will just leave them alone. This administration has lost all credibility (see FEMA, Justice, and State Depts. for starters). Ms. Spellings' only reference to higher ed is being a parent to a child at Davidson. How nice. And didn't that Commission go well.

    One hopes that the next administration will care enough about competence, process, and familiarity with the subject to appoint a Lamar Alexander or Richard Riley to the Secretary position. Education can truly be a non-partisan subject - but only if we start with honest discussions about the challenges we face and the collaborative responses we need.

  • Private should mean Private
  • Posted by Dr. Pat Watkins , Director of Financial Aid on November 1, 2007 at 10:05am EDT
  • Alternative loans have been around for over twenty years when the Bank of Boston unveiled the Alliance Loan, which was serviced by TERI. Seeking guidance from the Department of Education, aid officers were told that these private loans must be treated as a resource, but could replace the EFC. That decision haunts us now. In retrospect, perhaps that was a wrong decision.
    I am not a proponent of private loans. However, when families decide that they don't want to use the federal program or when the federal loan programs are not sufficient, this is an option that the family and their financial advisers - not financial aid advisers - can exercise. I see no difference between a private education loan and a parent using a second mortgage; home equity credit line of credit, a credit card or a loan from grandma to pay for college costs. We don't consider these other forms of payment as a resource. Why are we considering an alternative loan a resource? Let people make their own financial choices. Parents have not properly saved for college and are borrowing or have their children borrow alternative loans to fill in the gap. We can counsel them on what are better options. But let's make private loans a private transaction between the lender and the borrower. - Just Borrower beware.

  • Posted by michael on November 2, 2007 at 5:40am EDT
  • What is a shame is that Secretary Spellings is giving credence to the blackmail scheme of Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo has done nothing other than destroy the lives of some hard working financial aid officers. In addition, Cuomo is sucking up the dollars from lenders and schools like there is no tomorrow, and to what purpose? Name an initiative where he has put that money to work. It all just seems to disappear after the press conference where he announces the latest ransom payment. How about some accountability for the millions collected thus far, Mr. Cuomo?

  • Borrower Beware??
  • Posted by kgotthardt on November 2, 2007 at 11:10am EDT
  • Oh yeah. That's a great and ethical policy, especially considering most loan contracts are written in a foreign language--Legalese or Bankerese. Families who borrow over the phone or online don't get good translations. For that matter, neither do some students who receive face-to-face-help.

    Furthermore, whether Ms. Spellings is late or not, I am sure students are grateful. Or at least they will be when they start seeing some of their complaints and problems clearing up. Hopefully, she will consider time lost when deciding how best to handle troubled student borrowers both past and present.

    Finally, anyone know where we can find the list of colleges that received those letters?

  • Michael - you are clueless
  • Posted by frank on November 6, 2007 at 5:05am EST
  • Andrew Cuomo didn't ruin lives - those people electing to be corrupt ruined their own lives.

    David Charlow of Columbia, Ellen Frishberg of Johns Hopkins, Lawrence Burt of U ot Texas, Timothy Lehmann of Capella, Daniel Pinch of Emerson, Catherine Thomas of USC, etc. - these people all made bad decisions to become corrupt and take cash, stock or other benefits from the loan industry. They didn't lose their jobs because their misdeeds were pointed out - they lost their jobs because of their misdeeds.

    The indignation and arrogance of the NASFAA is ridiculous. Dallas Martin had to be b*tch slapped by an Attorney General before he acknowledged a problem. They cleaned up the national convention - but not the regionals. We currently have people coming back with documentation from the Regionals - we're attacking that next.

    The membership of the NASFAA was entrusted by students and parents and much of the NASFAA violated that trust. Continue this arrogance - it only plays into our hands.

    This industry will be reformed and the NASFAA has lost their place at the table owing to a lack of integrity and unwillingness to acknowledge the problems.

    Get a clue Michael - we're not even close to finished in this issue.