The U.S. House of Representatives education committee unanimously approved sweeping legislation last week that would create a plethora of new grant programs for colleges and students while holding institutions accountable for skyrocketing tuition.
The 747-page bill to reauthorize, or renew, the Higher Education Act would impose dozens of new reporting requirements on colleges, requiring institutions to disclose everything from their transfer-of-credit policies to the details of their arrangements with lenders.
It would also require colleges to crack down on illegal downloading and soften some of the restrictions on the receipt of federal aid by for-profit institutions.
Much of the bill’s size can be attributed to the huge number of new grant programs it would create. Some three dozen new programs are sprinkled throughout the bill, according to a preliminary analysis by the American Council on Education. They include a loan program for institutions affected by natural disasters and a grant program to encourage the training of closed-captioning writers.
The bill also contains at least 176 new reporting and regulatory requirements, according to another ACE analysis.
The Senate passed its version of the reauthorization bill in August. After the House floor vote, expected in December, the two chambers will meet to reconcile their versions of the legislation.
The two bills have much in common, including provisions to add disclosure and other requirements for colleges that offer “preferred lender” lists to students and to prohibit some inducements that lenders offer to institutions.
Both bills would also require institutions to disclose their policies on the transfer of credit, and both would make it easier for for-profit institutions to comply with a section of the law known as the “90-10 rule,” which requires colleges to receive at least 10 percent of their revenue from sources other than federal student aid to participate in federal programs. The proposed bills would offer the institutions new ways to meet the 10-percent threshold.
But the House bill would go further on college costs and accreditation. It would reward colleges that restrain their tuition growth and create a federal ombudsman’s position to oversee accreditation disputes.
The House bill also takes aim at Internet piracy on college campuses, directing institutions to develop plans for offering alternatives to illegal downloading as well as to “explore technology-based deterrents.”
That provision was welcomed by the Motion Picture Association of America, which has lobbied Congress to take action against campus piracy. In a news release issued after the bill’s introduction, Daniel R. Glickman, the association’s chairman and chief executive, called the bill a “positive step in educating students and deterring illegal downloads and file sharing on college campuses.”
“Illegal downloading doesn’t just hurt the motion-picture and music industries, but it can also be harmful to universities as it puts their systems at risk for security purposes, takes up bandwidth, and slows systems that are designed for research and other educational purposes,” said Mr. Glickman.
But an official at Educause, the higher-education-technology consortium, called the provisions “unacceptable” and “the first step to a mandate.” After the bill was introduced, Mark A. Luker, a vice president of Educause, sent a “call to action” to his group’s members urging them to press Congress to drop most of the language on Internet piracy from the bill.
Noting that campuses that have offered legal downloading services have typically had to charge students a fee to cover the expense, he estimated that requiring colleges to offer alternatives to illegal downloading would collectively cost those institutions $400-million a year.
“It’s a case where we’re raising the cost of higher education by government mandate in order to transfer more dollars to the entertainment industry,” he said.
Accreditation Amendments
The House education committee took up the bill over two days last week, considering more than 30 amendments and approving more than 20 of them.
Among the most controversial was an amendment by Rep. Robert E. Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey, that stripped language from the bill that would have given colleges primary responsibility for developing the measures of learning that accreditors use to judge them. The Bush administration has sought to impose those assessment guidelines through the accrediting organizations, but colleges have resisted that effort.
The change in the bill was supported by some accreditors but fiercely opposed by college lobbyists, who had not been notified that Mr. Andrews planned to offer the amendment.
“Accreditors ambushed colleges and universities with the Andrews amendment, which unravels months of hard work to get language into the Higher Education Act acknowledging the right of institutions to establish their own student-learning outcome measures,” said Becky Timmons, assistant vice president for government relations for the American Council on Education.
The provision remains in the Senate version of the bill. The panel also approved an amendment by Rep. Tim Walberg, a Republican from Michigan, that would require accreditors to “respect the stated mission of the institution of higher education, including religions missions.”
That amendment was strongly opposed by a coalition of civil-rights groups, who warned in a letter to the committee’s leaders that the Education Department could use the provision to “force accrediting bodies to accredit universities that engage in discrimination” based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Less controversial were a pair of amendments by Representative Walberg that would bar accreditors from basing decisions on “unpublished or undocumented policy, practice, or precedent” and require them to take institutions’ responses into account in their reviews. Both amendments were adopted.
For-Profits and College Costs
The committee also further softened the 90-10 rule, adopting amendments that would allow colleges to count institutional scholarships and tuition discounts toward the 10-percent requirement and further relax sanctions on colleges that violate the rule. At the same time, the panel eliminated an unpopular provision in the original bill that would have extended the 90-10 rule to nonprofit institutions.
The committee rejected an amendment by Rep. Michael N. Castle, a Republican from Delaware, that would have stiffened the penalties for colleges that failed to constrain tuition growth, withholding up to 10 percent of their federal financing. And it rejected an amendment by Rep. Ric Keller, a Republican from Florida, that would have authorized the secretary of education to sanction institutions that increase their tuition and fees “based solely in response to a federal increase in Pell Grants.”
But Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California and the committee’s chairman, made clear that lawmakers are unhappy with rising tuitions and growing weary of colleges’ excuses.
“There were a great number of members who wanted to offer amendments on this because they’re hearing about it all the time,” he said. “This is not the end of the story.”
Among the other measures the committee adopted were two proposals that would limit Pell Grant eligibility. One, by Rep. David Davis, a Republican from Tennessee, would limit the amount of time students are eligible for Pell Grants to 18 semesters or 27 quarters. Another amendment, by Representative Keller, would bar individuals who are involuntarily committed for violent sexual offenses from receiving Pell Grants.
Ban on ‘Unit Record’ Tracking
The committee also approved a proposal by Rep. Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina, that would prohibit the Education Department from creating a “unit record” database. Such a system, a controversial idea that has been pushed by the department, would use students’ Social Security numbers or other identifiers to track them over the course of their college careers.
Other amendments that the education committee approved included:
- A proposal by Rep. Thomas E. Petri, a Republican from Wisconsin, that would bar the secretary of education from entering into any settlement agreement exceeding $1-million until after the secretary has asked the U.S. attorney general to review it and issue an opinion. The amendment was prompted by the department’s decision to forgive $278-million in subsidy overpayments to Nelnet, the for-profit lender.
- An amendment by Rep. Rush Holt, a Democrat from New Jersey, that would create within the Education Department an assistant secretary for international and foreign-language education.
- An amendment by Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona, that would change the way the Education Department calculates default rates for a cohort of students, basing the rates on the three years, rather than the current two years, after a cohort enters repayment. Recent reports by Education Sector and other higher-education policy groups suggest that the existing calculation underestimates student-loan default rates.
- An amendment by Rep. Robert E. Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey, that would require institutions that receive funds under Title VI of the Higher Education Act to disclose any gifts exceeding $1-million that they receive from foreign sources. Title VI supports international and foreign-language centers and programs.
- An amendment by Rep. Tom Price, a Republican from Georgia, that would require an audit of the direct-loan program.
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT: KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS
This month Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced legislation to renew the Higher Education Act. The bill, which passed the House education committee last week, now heads to a floor vote in the House and to a conference with the Senate, where the two chambers will reconcile their differences.
COSTS
House bill Would direct the Departments of Labor and Education to establish a federal “higher-education price index” that the education secretary would use to rank colleges according to how much they increase tuition and fees. Would require colleges whose increases outpaced the index to analyze what makes their operations expensive and identify “cost-reduction opportunities.” Such institutions would also be put on a watch list and be required to report on the factors that contributed to their tuition increase and to describe the actions they are taking to stem future increases. Would reward colleges that limited tuition increases with more Pell Grant aid and punish states that slashed their higher-education budgets by withholding federal administrative funds.
Senate bill Same as House on price index and watch list, but lacks the other provisions.
ACCREDITATION
House bill Would revamp the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, the Education Department board charged with evaluating accreditors, giving Congress the right to select 10 of its 15 members. The education secretary now names all 15 members. Would prohibit the Education Department from dictating how colleges measure student learning for accreditation. Would create a federal “accreditation ombudsman” who would try to resolve any complaints involving accreditation.
Senate bill Same as the House, except it would not create an accreditation ombudsman.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
House bill Would require colleges to annually inform students of their institution’s policies and sanctions on copyright infringement. Would direct institutions to develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading as well as a plan to “explore technology-based deterrents.” Would authorize grants for colleges to develop programs to eliminate the illegal distribution of intellectual property.
Senate bill Same as Senate on annual disclosure to students, but lacks other provisions.
ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS AND SMART GRANTS
House bill Would expand eligibility for the grant programs to part-time students and those in certificate programs, but not foreign nationals who are legal permanent residents.
Senate bill Would expand eligibility to all three categories of students.
LENDER INDUCEMENTS
House bill Would outlaw revenue sharing, opportunity pools, and lender-provided staff assistance. Would bar lenders from using an institution’s mascot or logo in their marketing materials, a practice known as “co-branding.” Would require colleges to develop codes of conduct governing their relationships with lenders. Would prohibit college employees from serving on lender advisory boards or accepting consulting fees from lenders.
Senate bill Would outlaw revenue sharing and consulting, but would allow college employees to accept gifts of “nominal value” and serve on lender advisory boards, provided they did not accept compensation beyond reimbursement for “reasonable expenses.” Would require colleges to develop codes of conduct. Would also require lenders to annually report to the education secretary any expenses paid to financial-aid administrators and prohibit lenders and guarantee agencies from sending unsolicited loan applications to students who do not already have a relationship with the lender or guarantor.
PREFERRED-LENDER LISTS
House bill Would require colleges that recommend “preferred lenders” to students for either government-backed or private loans to include at least three unaffiliated providers for government-backed loans and at least two for private loans. Would require such colleges to submit annual reports to the education secretary justifying their choices, disclose to borrowers the method and criteria they used to select the lenders, and remind borrowers that they may choose lenders that are not on the lists. Would prohibit colleges from denying or impeding a borrower’s choice of lender.
Senate bill Same as House on preferred-lender lists for government-backed loans and on borrower disclosures, but does not include a provision on private preferred-lender lists and does not require institutions to report to the secretary.
PRIVATE LOANS
House bill Would require lenders that offer private loans to provide multiple disclosures to borrowers about terms and conditions. Would require colleges to inform borrowers of their remaining eligibility for federal loans before providing them with information about private loans. Would require colleges to clearly distinguish private student loans from other sources of financial aid in award materials. Would make all private loans subject to the Truth in Lending Act. Would lock in private-loan offers for 30 days, giving borrowers time to choose whether to accept. Once the loan is consummated, would give borrowers a three-day period in which to cancel.
Senate bill Does not include provisions on private loans because the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over private loans, had not acted at the time the reauthorization bill was introduced. The Finance Committee has since introduced a package of private-loan reforms.
http://chronicle.com Section: Government & Politics Volume 54, Issue 13, Page A1
