News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Nov. 16, 2007
The House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee unanimously approved legislation to renew the Higher Education Act Thursday — a measure about which college officials have ambivalent feelings.
The House panel backed the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (H.R. 4137) by a margin of 44 to 0, after voting on a half dozen amendments on which the committee ran out of time during its marathon 10-hour drafting session Wednesday at which it debated and considered much of the bill. In total, the panel adopted 27 amendments to the legislation that was originally introduced late last Friday afternoon, and the committee’s fast track consideration of the behemoth bill — voting on it three business days after the 747-page monster was introduced — left the overarching impression that some lawmakers were voting on it and its amendments without completely understanding all of their implications.
The committee’s Democratic and Republican leaders praised each other for their ability to work together in a relatively bipartisan manner, which stood in marked contrast to their contentious discussions two years ago when they considered an earlier version of the Higher Education Act legislation. “The road to higher education reform has been a long one, with many hard-fought battles,” said Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon (R-Calif.), the senior Republican on the committee. “It has taken time to build a coalition in support of these reforms, but the legislation is stronger because of it. Chairman [George] Miller [D-Calif.] deserves great credit for his willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to develop a consensus bill.”
The bill they produced is a mixed bag for colleges, and higher education groups remain generally noncommittal about it. with college leaders and lobbyists citing things that they both like and dislike about the measure. They are generally pleased by the high spending ceilings that the measure would set for many college programs, its call for a year-round Pell Grant, simplification of student aid application and delivery, and new programs for all sorts.
But they are deeply troubled by provisions aimed at shaming colleges that raise their tuitions by above average rates and scores of new reporting and other requirements that they say will increase their costs. Educause, the higher education technology association, is openly opposing language on illegal downloading that it says would inject the federal government into yet another area of college operations, and nonprofit colleges are upset about an 11th-hour change that stripped language from the bill that would have given colleges primary responsibility for deciding how to measure what their students learn.
Some of those and other issues may be revisited on the House floor, probably in December, or when lawmakers from the House and Senate meet — probably early in 2008 — to craft a compromise between the House measure and the parallel bill in the Senate.
Also Thursday, the full House failed to muster enough votes to override President Bush’s veto of a 2008 spending bill for education, health and labor programs. Fifty-one Republicans joined 226 Democrats in voting to pass the bill, well short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, despite vigorous lobbying by colleges and other groups.
Democratic leaders said they had begun working on an omnibus bill that would include the education, labor and health legislation and would split the difference in spending levels between the Congressionally passed bills and the president’s budget proposal. Such a plan would mean about $750 million less money for the National Institutes of Health than is contained in the bill passed by Congress, among other things.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Mr. McGhee wrote: “This role [to ‘develop guidelines... to identify degree-granting institutions as legitimate or fraudulent degree-granting institutions for Federal purposes’] is, and has been, the sole perogative [sic] of the federally designated accreditors...”
Note that the Task Force can address the troubling matter of supposedly foreign institutions which are, in reality, diploma mills operating from an offshore base. The USDE scope of recognition of accreditors is restricted to the accreditors’ activities regarding domestic universities. Since many diploma mills pretend to be foreign schools, the Task Force will be able to address a problem that is presently outside the domain of the USDE-supervised accreditation system.
Mr. McGhee wrote: “...it is unclear to me what Sec. 851-856 would accomplish, other than destabilize an already fragile regulatory scheme.”
Here are some (but not all) of the things accomplished by Sections 851-856.
Section 851 (PURPOSE; DEFINITIONS) casts into law a clear definition of the term “diploma mill.”
Section 852 (RECOGNIZED ACCREDITING AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS) instructs USDE to collect and organize information concerning foreign institutions so that degrees from foreign schools can be considered for use in a federal context. This will allow the federal government to draw a clear distinction between the University of Liberia and, say, St. Regis “University” for purposes of immigration and employment.
Section 853 (ACCREDITING AGENCIES) puts the weight of law behind what is presently nothing more than a recommendation from the Federal Trade Commission. I am referring to “Guides for Private Vocational and Distance Education Schools, Part 254″ ( http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/vocation-gd.htm ): see “254.3 Misrepresentation of extent or nature of accreditation or approval.” The FTC views this as recommendation, rather than regulation.
Section 854 (TASK FORCE) creates a mechanism for consideration of some of the more challenging issues regarding the suppression of diploma mills including enforcement strategies. This, to my mind, is one of the most important subjects for the Task Force.
Section 855 (SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING USE BY STATES OF THE FEDERAL PLAN AS GUIDE LINES) allows a direct comment by the federal government to the states regarding the importance of attention to this issue. As it is, we have a few states with standards that are so lax and enforcement so ineffective that they provide safe haven for diploma mills involved in launching fake medical schools into the world. Do recall that a number of customers of the “St. Luke School of Medicine” have been incarcerated for their activities, but that the (American) operators of this supposedly Liberian, Ghanaian, Californian, Texan, and Kentuckian monstrosity are out and about, selling patent medicines, issuing degrees, and selling stock in a company that claimed to market a cure for skin cancer.
Section 856 (UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES REGARDING DIPLOMAS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS) instructs the FTC to develop a plan of action. At the present time, the FTC’s model of culpability as it pertains to diploma mills is too indirect to allow them to go after the mills. See the FTC’s material concerning the 2003 action against the University Degree Program for more information on this subject.
George Gollin, Professor of Physics at University of Illinois, at 12:45 pm EST on November 18, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
Ranked seventh among U.S. News and World Report’s top public universities, the Georgia Institute of Technology is one of the ... see job
Assists Financial Aid students or prospective students with computer-based processes, such as Free Application for Federal ... see job
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
The main function of the Knowledge Manager is oversight for NCSMC-wide knowledge sharing so that the Center’s expertise, ... see job
Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job
The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job
Loyola’s office of Marketing and Communications has an opening for a Web Content Manager. This position provides strategic ... see job
Working Title: Associate Director — Student Financial Aid
Posting Information: The purpose of the WCU ... see job
Responsible for coordinating and directing all functions related to the day to day customer service and external ... see job
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
SWAT team unleashed?
Aside from typos and reference errors, this version of H.R. 4137 that left committee includes provisions for establishing a Task Force (Sec. 854) that can be unleashed on colleges and universities:
“The Task Force shall develop guidelines, to be used for the development of Federal legislation, to identify degree-granting institutions as legitimate or fraudulent degree-granting institutions for Federal purposes.”
This represents a breach in the delicate balance of powers and duties of the Higher Education gatekeeping triad, something to be feared by institutions as well as their accrediting agencies.
This role is, and has been, the sole perogative of the federally designated accreditors since the accreditors carved out this regulatory function in the “Veteran’s Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952,” and earlier for the transfer of college credits earned during WWII.
Furthermore, it is unclear to me what Sec. 851-856 would accomplish, other than destabilize an already fragile regulatory scheme. Bringing the federal government in to begin to make decisions pertaining to the accreditation of individual instititions represents a level of interference to be feared and resisted.
Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project, at 9:40 am EST on November 16, 2007