California Leads Nation in Unaccredited Colleges

California leads the nation in unaccredited colleges, The New York Times reported. Nearly 1,000 unaccredited or "questionably accredited" institutions operate in the state, frequently ignoring state regulations. "There are a lot of schools that beg the question 'What exactly is going on in California?' " Eyal Ben Cohen, managing director of Accredibase Limited, a company based in London that monitors diploma mills, told the Times. "California has very weak oversight procedures as far as allowing an institution to operate within its borders. An institution within California can obtain a license very easily."

Ad keywords: 

GOP Lawmakers Question Choice of Loan Negotiators

Representative John Kline, the Minnesota Republican who is chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, has asked Education Secretary Arne Duncan to explain the department's choice of negotiators for rule making panels this month on the federal student loan program. The department has said the negotiations, announced in October, will focus largely on technical issues. But the negotiators are also drawn from consumer protection groups, leading Kline and Representative Virginia Foxx, chairwoman of the higher education subcommittee, to ask for the department's rationale for why each constituency is relevant to the technical issues listed in the initial rule making notice, a list of all nominated negotiators, a description of the vetting process and the negotiators' credentials, as well as any new issues the department intends to address at the panel. "We are ... concerned about whether the panel represents the balanced perspective appropriate for any rule making process or is simply an attempt to raise new issues during the negotiation that furthers the policy goals of the administration," Kline and Foxx wrote. 

Ad keywords: 

U.S. Abandons Plan to Deduct Veterans' Debts from Payments to Colleges

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on Thursday hastily withdrew a policy change that would have allowed the agency to deduct from its tuition payments to colleges any debts that student veterans owed the government from their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. The approach, which college officials had learned about this week via e-mail from a regional office of the veterans' agency, caused immediate consternation among campus veterans' education administrators and others, who feared they would then be put in the awkward position of becoming the government's debt collectors from their own students. "[T]he school will get shorted money and be expected to recoup it from the Veterans," one administrator wrote on a listserv for veterans' officials. "This is going to make the schools VERY mad."

A spokesman for the veterans' agency said in a statement late Thursday:  “System changes installed this week allowed for collection of Post-9/11 Bill debts from all education benefit payments issued to or on behalf of the student.  However, because these changes had not been fully vetted, they have been withdrawn effective today.”

Ad keywords: 

For-profits should get ahead of accountability push, experts say

Panelists at for-profit association meeting say industry should get ahead of accountability push by measuring student outcomes and making them public.

Congressman Targets Pay of For-Profit-College Chiefs

The top Democrat on the House of Representatives oversight committee announced an inquiry Monday into the pay of chief executive officers at for-profit colleges, saying it was part of a larger questioning by his panel of "excessive" compensation for corporate executives. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in a speech to a consumer group today (see video below) that he had sent letters to the CEOs of 13 for-profit education companies, asking for the compensation agreements to help "determine whether salaries, bonuses, and other compensation are appropriately tied to the performance of students they educate, the vast majority of whom pay for their education with federal tax dollars."

Officials of several of the companies targeted by Cummings issued statements defending the compensation they pay as appropriate; a statement by the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities declared the lawmaker's inquiry to be "more politics."



Ad keywords: 

Questions on Legislator on Board of For-Profit University

Connecticut State Representative Selim Noujaim, a Republican, was a key player in amending a bill in June so that some state scholarship funds that would have been restricted to students at public and private nonprofit institutions would also be available to those at for-profit institutions. The Hartford Courant reported that Noujaim is a trustee of Post University, for which the for-profit institution pays him $4,500 a year. Connecticut law bars public officials from taking any action that creates a "direct monetary gain" to a business with which the official is associated. Noujaim said he would have recused himself if the bill helped only Post, but said that there was no need to do so since it helped other for-profit institutions. He also said he was not involved in Post for the money, telling the Courant that "I'm in it for the kids."

Ad keywords: 

For-Profits That Share Data

Leaders in a sector not known for exchange of information say they will break with tradition to improve learning outcomes.

Taming the 'Wild West'

In the past several decades, higher education funding has become excessively complex and fiscally inefficient. To make matters worse, as highlighted in a recent report from Postsecondary Education Opportunity, public higher education has seen a decline of 40 percent since 1980 in state tax appropriation effort when measured as a ratio of state personal income, resulting in an unremitting escalation in student fees and tuition.

At the same time, a poorly contrived federal funding scheme has given fiscal incentive for states to reduce government funding and shift the financial burden to students and parents. This misdirection has made Wall Street shareholders in publicly traded for-profit institutions and richly endowed private colleges and universities the beneficiaries of the system, rather than the intended students and parents. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that a recent issue of The Economist referred to the American system as the “Wild West” of higher education.

If we are going to make real progress toward President Obama’s educational goal of leading the world in college graduates by 2020, we will need systemic change in the way higher education is funded. Unfortunately, instead of discussing necessary systemic changes that could substantively benefit students and the institutions serving our neediest student populations, the U.S. Congress is debating how to reduce Pell Grants and eliminate the summer Pell Grant program that has been in place for only one year. (Some critics have even begun to claim that the Pell program has become too large to sustain.) Before adopting such reductions, three important factors need to be considered if we are to change direction for the betterment of the common good.

First, we cannot continue to assume that students and parents can make rational college choices in the higher education market place when they are overwhelmed by the media's siren song, which manifests itself in massive marketing efforts to lure students to educationally suspect colleges and universities. The theory of the inefficient market is nowhere better supported than in American higher education, where “imperfect information” is the norm and many institutions fight diligently, with lobbyists and vast media campaigns, to keep it this way.

Taking this one step further, we must recognize that the accreditation process in American higher education does not mitigate the “imperfect information,” but rather aids and abets the status quo. In fact, the stories have become commonplace about how many less than academically stellar private for-profit institutions have purchased accreditation by teaming up and buying struggling not-for-profit institutions. Unfortunately, many of these institutions are measured by standards that are only remotely related to a quality education and are making it increasingly difficult to distinguish some for-profit institutions from their not-for-profit partners.

Second, we must acknowledge that the for-profit institutions absorb a disproportionate amount of public funding. Currently, for-profit colleges and universities enroll approximately 12 percent of students in higher education while receiving nearly 25 percent, or nearly $9 billion, of all federal student aid grant funding. In addition, the for-profits benefit to the tune of about 24 percent of all federal student loan subsidies. This gives for-profit colleges and universities approximately $26.5 billion in both federal grant and loan funding annually. With accreditation in hand, for-profits have been able to seize on federal largess to fund up to 90 percent of their entrepreneurial educational enterprises.

Furthermore, in many cases, the remaining 10 percent of revenues originally intended to be generated from private sources, as required by federal law, is being aided from state government student aid grants and new GI Bill grant benefits -- benefits that inadvertently provide more funding to higher-priced institutions.

For example, in California, Cal Grant student aid awards to those enrolled at for-profit universities average $9,708 while Cal Grant awards to students attending California State University institutions average $4,884. It seems that, despite the rhetoric that for-profit institutions are successful due to the invisible hand of the market, these for-profit institutions are actually government-funded institutions -- not market-based.

To its credit, the U.S. Department of Education, with the assistance of some key U.S. senators and House members, has sought to introduce performance standards and other restrictive rules to insert some semblance of integrity into the federal funding process; however, this initiative has been soundly criticized by the new majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, thanks in part to the highly financed for-profit college and university lobby.

Sadly, most state governments have also abrogated their sovereign duty to ensure that public funds for higher education are not wasted by lining the pockets of Wall Street shareholders. One can readily gauge the failure of state governance in this arena by simply being a sentient traveler on America’s highways and observing the hundreds of green and white government-installed signs beckoning enrollment in for-profit education corporations. Unfortunately, no warning signs accompany such signage informing the student that a number of these institutions have been compelled to repay the federal government millions of dollars for various regulatory violations, including Pell Grant fraud.

Third, to ensure that Pell Grant awards are not reduced and the summer Pell program is saved, we must rethink the widespread “mission-blind” distribution of these federal funds. According to 2008 Education Trust data, the average enrollment of Pell Grant-eligible students at private research universities was only 12 percent, while the average for public research universities was only 19 percent. These averages are considerably lower than in years past and continue to decline.

This disturbing trend, accompanied by federal budgetary reductions on the horizon, indicates that maybe it is time to ask why publicly generated federal student aid funds flow to some universities that only manage to enroll 8 or 9 percent lower-income students despite having multibillion-dollar endowments. If existing federal student aid funds can be accompanied with new federal lower-income student thresholds, much like what exists under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for Title I schools, then some additional funds could be made available to those students and institutions that are much more committed to college access.

Establishing a minimum threshold would also incentivize institutions to enroll more lower-income and underrepresented students, or -- in some cases where institutions do not meet the requirement -- force them to demonstrate that they are making progress toward the new funding goal. Without federal pressure or leverage designed to maximize overall public needs and benefits, many of our nation's top universities will continue to reduce their commitments to our neediest students.

Clearly if we are going to preserve what is most important in our federal funding of higher education, we must make difficult choices in the way that we spend billions in publicly generated support. Therefore, before cutting the total amount of federal funding for higher education, which we know will have a deleterious impact on students and the future economy of the nation, we should make sure that our tens of billions in publicly invested dollars are spent to produce the outcomes the public expects. By ensuring that public resources are spent on students and institutions providing the greatest public good, we can build a better, more efficient, and more effective federal funding system for higher education.

This will undoubtedly help us move closer to the President’s 2020 goal. It will also help our nation tame the “Wild West” of higher education to create a system that is more productive, meaningful, and fair.

Charles B. Reed is chancellor of the California State University System, and F. King Alexander is president of California State University at Long Beach.

Time for a Game of HORSE

An indicator that President Obama and his secretary of education, Arne Duncan, may be too busy for their regular basketball games is the apparent breakdown in communication between the White House and the Department of Education. How else can we understand the fact that the president is calling for an increase in college graduation rates at the same time that Duncan’s agency is busy erecting barriers to access and seeking to reduce the capacity of institutions to meet this goal?

Echoing the alarm first sounded by then-Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and her Commission on the Future of Higher Education in 2006, President Obama has correctly pointed out that the U.S. needs to increase degree completion over the next 10 years if it is to maintain its economic vitality and be competitive in the global market. What he has not said is that failure to meet this challenge will result in more jobs going overseas and a net decrease in personal income (points made by the Spellings Commission).

Additionally, the president has said little so far to suggest he knows that we cannot reach his goal without paying more attention to those already in the work force. Even if those colleges serving traditional-aged students (18 to 24) were on board and heeding his call (and they are not), it is estimated that we would still fall 20 percent short of his ambitious college completion goal.

Nearly 70 percent of American workers do not have a degree, but some 50 million have “some college.” This is where we should focus. However, for these working adults to go back to school, they need access to programs that allow them to remain employed, and support their families, while doing so.

Until now, working adults have had access to hundreds of high-quality online degree programs from a variety of public and private, nonprofit and for-profit providers. The asynchronous format of these offerings has proven beneficial to those who cannot attend time and place specific courses.

At a time when public institutions are being forced to increase tuition and enforce enrollment limits, the Education Department has declared war on the proprietary sector, questioning the credibility of all such institutions because of the sins of a few, and embraced an outdated definition of a "credit hour" in a way that challenges all nontraditional practices, chilling any attempt at innovation.

Now, with its policy requiring colleges to certify that they are authorized in every state in which they operate, it is seeking to suppress the growth of online learning (the only place in the higher education infrastructure where there is capacity equal to the president’s goal).

Effective July 1 of this year, the Education Department will require every online program, whether offered by Harvard or the University of Phoenix, to meet the approval standards of every state in which it has students or faculty members -- potentially 54 separate jurisdictions -- to qualify to award financial aid. Failure to comply will lead to aid repayment and a fine.

With nearly three-quarters of all accredited institutions now offering at least some programs online, there are 3,000 institutions that will potentially need to seek approval for each of the programs they offer. In some states this will require a review of every course syllabus and every instructor’s CV. The fact that the institution has been around for a couple of hundred years, has Nobel laureates on its faculty and has been regionally accredited since such a test of legitimacy existed, is of no consequence. And some states’ requirements call for a physical site visit at the offering institution’s expense.

As if this were not sufficiently daunting, those seeking to comply with the Education Department’s edict will be referred to state higher education offices that have been drastically downsized because of budget cuts (some report having but a single person dedicated to conducting these reviews). One state has already indicated that it could take a year for it to determine how they will respond to the expected avalanche of applications.

So here we are. The president, supported by the work of leading foundations, has given us an important goal, one that we need to take seriously. Yet, we can’t get near the desired endpoint without the help of the one form of education that has the capacity to serve displaced adolescents and adult students alike – online learning. Use of this powerful tool is about to be limited as both degree-granting institutions and state officials struggle with the burden of universal registration. Additionally, the cost of compliance could easily run to $100,000 per institution (or $300 million when all online providers are considered). This will only add to the cost of education.

Other alternatives include suspending online programs altogether, or not offering them in difficult or nonresponsive states. How this supports the president and his goal is far from clear.

If President Obama wants to reduce federal regulation and increase degree completion, he and Secretary Duncan need to find time for a game of HORSE.

John F. Ebersole is president of Excelsior College. He is testifying today before U.S. House education committee about these regulations.


Subscribe to RSS - forprofit
Back to Top