WACAC—Western Association for College Admission Counseling

WACAC Hires Lobbyist.pdf

Last Tuesday, the House Education and Labor Committee passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) by a bipartisan vote of 30 to 17. The full House of Representatives was expected to vote on the bill this week; however it is not on the floor schedule and likely will not come to vote until after the August recess.

The legislation would make college more affordable for millions of Americans, at no new cost to taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation would generate $87 billion in savings over the next 10 years by ending the Federal Family Education Loan Program. The SAFRA would invest those savings directly in students and families by:
• Investing $40 billion to increase the maximum annual Pell Grant award to $5,550 in 2010 and to $6,900 by 2019. Beginning in 2010, the grant will increase at the rate of the Consumer Price Index plus one percentage point;
• Investing $3 billion to grow college access and completion support programs for students;
• Making it easier for families to apply for financial aid by simplifying the FAFSA form; and
• Providing loan forgiveness for members of the military who are called up to duty in the middle of the academic year.
In addition, the SAFRA would direct $10 billion of savings back to the U.S. Treasury toward deficit reduction.

Prior to the Committee markup, NACAC sent a letter to Committee members supporting the important and historic investment in student assistance.

House Passes FY 2010 Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill
On Friday, the House passed the FY 2010 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill.  The spending bill includes $55 million for the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program (ESSCP), which represents a $3 million increase from 2009. In addition, the bill provides $868 million for the TRIO programs and $333 million for GEAR UP, representing a $20 million increase from each fiscal year 2009 and the budget request for both programs. It is estimated that with the increased funding to TRIO and GEAR UP, approximately 1.7 million disadvantaged and first-generation college students will be assisted to prepare for, enter, and complete college (an increase of 51,000 students over fiscal year 2009).

NACAC advocated for education appropriations in a letter to the House on Friday morning. NACAC’s funding chart for priority programs has been updated with the FY 2010 House proposal and is available online. The full bill text is available at the House Appropriations Committee online.

The Senate Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Subcommittee will mark up its FY 2010 spending bill Tuesday (July 28) and the full Appropriations Committee will mark up the bill on Thursday (July 30).

NACAC Members in Action
The NACAC Member Action page features NACAC members’ advocacy efforts. Check it out here!

If you or your affiliate colleagues have government relations news releases, web pages, conference presentations, conference agendas, testimony, or any other materials related to advocacy, please submit them for inclusion in “Members in Action” by emailing me at amodar@nacacnet.org.

Find legislation in your state that affects your job and the students you serve: NACAC’s State Legislative Portal.

Federal Update: March 24, 2009

The Fast Track to College Act (HR 1578) was introduced on March 18 by Congressman Dale Kildee (D-MI) and Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI). The bill seeks to increase high school graduation and college-going rates by increasing access to rigorous, college preparatory curriculum. The bill would award competitive grants to school districts and institutions of higher education to form partnerships to establish dual enrollment or early college high school programs. One of the required use of funds would be to provide academic and social support services, including counseling. Read a press release from Congressman Kildee’s office for more background on the bill.

The legislation’s purpose and use of funds aligns with NACAC’s policy principle on increasing access to rigorous curriculum. Visit NACAC’s policy recommendations page for more information.

Budget Markups Scheduled
Budget committees in the House and Senate are scheduled to markup their FY 2010 budget resolutions starting this week. The budget resolution is non-binding legislation that Congressional appropriators use as a blueprint to generate funding levels for individual federal programs. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has indicated his intention to preserve most of President Obama’s budget requests, despite recent CBO analysis regarding the cost of such requests.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the non-partisan budget arm of the legislative branch, released an updated economic outlook that includes the President’s budget request in its analysis. The CBO report, updated from January 2009, estimates that the deficit will total $1.7 billion this year (12% of GDP), and $1.1 trillion next year (8% of GDP), the highest deficit as a percent of GDP since 1945. The CBO report also estimates that the President’s plan to eliminate FFELP will yield $94 billion in savings over ten years, twice the amount estimated in the President’s budget. Visit the CBO online to read a summary and full text of the report.

Senator Conrad has indicated he does not intend to include reconciliation instructions in the Senate budget resolution. Reconciliation is a budget process that is filibuster-proof in the Senate, and that could be a possible strategy for addressing some of President Obama’s budget recommendations, including those on student loans, climate change, and health care reform.

To follow the FY 2010 budget and appropriations process, visit NACAC’s web page devoted to the subject.

Find legislation in your state that affects your job and the students you serve: NACAC’s State Legislative Portal.

Please contact NACAC staff at legislative@nacacnet.org with any questions.

The GIVE Act (Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act), HR 1388, was approved by the House Education and Labor Committee last week. The legislation passed with strong bipartisan support, and is part of the Obama Administration’s commitment to encouraging Americans to be more involved in their communities.

The bill includes financial aid incentives for high school students to volunteer, including a $500 award that can be applied to higher education costs. Visit the committee online for more details. The full House will consider the bill this week, and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee will markup a similar bill (S 277) on Wednesday, March 18.

New Guide for Servicemembers
The American Council on Education (ACE) has released a new resource for members of the military pursuing higher education. The guide, Understanding Your Military Transcript and ACE Credit Recommendations, offers servicemembers and veterans an easy way to navigate the transfer of credit process, and to understand the various issues that affect transfer of military credit. The guide is available free from the ACE web site.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act that became law last fall included several provisions regarding education benefits for members of the military. Read NACAC’s issue brief on those provisions.

Congressional Action on FY 2010 Budget
Budget hearings have begun in both chambers on the FY 2010 budget. Last week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan testified before the House Budget Committee on the Obama Administration’s budget goals for the Department of Education. Visit the Department online to read Secretary Duncan’s remarks, or visit the committee online to view a webcast of the hearing.

The next step is markup, in which the budget committees in each chamber draft their own budget resolutions. Markup is expected in the House as early as next week, even though program-level details of President Obama’s budget request will not be available until April. Once a budget resolution is completed, appropriations committees use the resolution as a blueprint for generating funding levels for individual federal programs. To follow the FY 2010 budget and appropriations process, visits NACAC’s web page devoted to the subject.

FY 2009 Omnibus Complete
President Obama signed the FY09 omnibus appropriations bill into law on March 11. The bill included FY09 increases for some key NACAC priority programs, including $10 million for GEAR UP, $20 million for TRIO, and $4 million for ESSCP (the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program). Visit NACAC’s recommendations page to see how funding levels for various programs in this bill compares to NACAC’s request and funding in previous years.

Find legislation in your state that affects your job and the students you serve: NACAC’s State Legislative Portal.

Please contact NACAC staff at legislative@nacacnet.org with any questions.

The bill has three provisions:

1) Four options to satisfy the Basic Skills Requirement (BSR) have been added. However, two of these options, the SAT Reasoning and the ACT Plus Writing examination options, cannot be implemented at this time.

2) The hiring priority for local employing agencies when a suitable fully prepared teacher is unavailable has been changed to focus first on recruitment of an individual enrolled in an approved internship program.

3) The Commission must assure that local employing agencies provide orientation, guidance, and assistance to candidates for specific documents.

Key Provisions:

Basic Skills Requirement for Certification
Satisfying basic skills in reading, writing, and math is required to earn most documents issued by the Commission. In addition to the current options of passing the California Basic Educational Skills Test, an out-of-state basic skills exam, or the California Subject Examination: Multiple Subjects Plus Writing, individuals who achieve sufficient scores, as established by California State University, on the following will satisfy the BSR for certification purposes:

1) English and Mathematics sections of the California State University (CSU) Early Assessment Program (EAP) or

2) CSU English Placement (EPT) Test and the Entry Level Mathematics (ELM) Test.

A chart with information on the two new options for the BSR including passing scores is attached to this correspondence. The CSU System accepts a number of examinations to meet the CSU admission and CSU English and math placement Coded Correspondence 09-03: Implementation of Senate Bill 1186 Concerning the Basic Skills Requirement, Recruitment of Fully Prepared Teachers, and Orientation, Guidance and Assistance for Permits and Waivers requirements; however, only passing scores on the two specific examinations noted above (CSU EAP and EPT/ELM) may be used to satisfy the BSR.

In order to implement the additional options for meeting the BSR included in SB 1186, the option must align with the CBEST and include reading, writing, and mathematics. While the SAT Reasoning (taken after 2005) and the ACT Plus Writing examinations include a writing section, there are no scores established by the CSU System for the writing section of these examinations as required in SB 1186. The Commission is in contact with the legislature concerning this issue.

EAP Placement Exams

The EAP Placement Program, administered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), was established to measure a student’s readiness for college-level English and mathematics in the eleventh grade of high school. Included in the eleventh grade California Standardized Testing and Reporting (CA STAR) is a set of questions that are part of the CSU’s EAP Program. In addition, the EAP for English includes a writing section.

If students opt to take the optional questions, their scores may be used to satisfy the BSR as long as the score is at a level that is sufficient to waive the English placement examination and the entry level mathematics examinations administered by the CSU. Students who participate in EAP will receive their status on the CA STAR Grade 11 Student Report. (See scores below.)

CSU Placement Tests

The CSU Placement Tests are administered by ETS. The CSU System requires new students to be tested in English (EPT) and mathematics (ELM) as soon as possible after they are admitted and before enrolling at a CSU campus. The EPT consists of sections in reading skills, composing skills, and writing. (See scores below.)

Score Reports

An individual must submit score reports when using one of the new options to satisfy the BSR.

1) English and Mathematics sections of the CSU EAP showing status as ‘College Ready’ or ‘Exempt’ OR

2) The English Placement Test (EPT) with a score of 151 or higher and the Entry Level Mathematics (ELM) with a score of 50 or higher.

Original score reports must be submitted with an application. Applications filed through the Commission’s online application process or by a local employing agency may be submitted with a verified true copy of the score report, as applicable. Information on how to obtain additional score reports for each type of examination may be found in the Reference section of this correspondence. Score reports cannot be sent separately to the Commission.

There is no mixing and matching of different sections of examinations that satisfy the BSR (new and previously approved). For example, an individual cannot combine passage of the mathematics section of the EAP, with the reading section of the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST), and the Writing section of the California Subject Examination for Teachers (CSET): Multiple Subject Plus Writing examination nor can an individual use passage of the English section of EAP, ELM section of the CSU Placement Tests, and the writing section of CBEST. The Commission’s Information Leaflet on the BSR has been updated with all available options. A link to the leaflet may be found in the Reference section.

Exemption from the Basic Skills Requirement for Certification

One exemption from the BSR for credential purposes was included in the legislation. An applicant for a state-issued Eminence Credential pursuant to Education Code (EC) §44262 is exempt from the BSR. A link to the Eminence Information Leaflet may be found in the Reference section.

Basic Skills Requirement for Employment

The BSR employment section in EC §44831 was also amended. This section contains a local assignment option for individuals to provide speech and language services. The amendment removes the BSR for individuals who qualify for this local assignment option. The Commission’s Administrative Assignment Manual will be updated to reflect this change. Additional sections of SB 1186 deleted and amended sections of the Education Code that focus on the basic skills proficiency as an employment requirement which do not fall within the purview of the Commission.

Recruitment of Fully Prepared Teachers and Orientation, Guidance and Assistance to Permit and Waiver Holders

The bill amends EC §44225.7(a) regarding the hiring priority for employing agencies when a suitable, fully prepared teacher is unavailable and the employing agency opts to apply for a Short-Term Staff Permit, Provisional Internship Permit, Emergency Permit such as CLAD or BCLAD, or Variable Term Waiver. The new language requires employing agencies to first recruit a candidate who is qualified to participate in and enroll in an approved internship program in the region of the employing agency; and, secondly a candidate who is scheduled to complete preliminary credential requirements within six months. The Declaration of Need (DON), the annual requirement if a local employing agency plans to request emergency or limited assignment permits which also includes information on recruitment has been updated to include the new recruitment language. The Commission’s Waiver Handbook has also been updated with the information.

In addition, language was added to require the Commission to assure that the employer provides orientation, guidance, and assistance to holders of a Short-Term Staff Permit, Provisional Internship Permit, emergency permit, or Variable Term Waiver. Verification of orientation, guidance and assistance is required for renewal of permits and is already on the appropriate renewal form for these permits. Additional language has been added to the Commission’s Waiver Request form to verify this information.

Important Date:

January 1, 2009 – Implementation date for provisions of SB 1186

Background:

SB 1209 (Chap. 517, Stats. 2006) was signed by the Governor on September 28, 2006. One of the changes in the legislation added five new options to satisfy the basic skills requirement, in addition to passage of the CBEST. Three of the options, passage of the ACT Plus Writing, the GRE (Graduate Record), and the SAT Reasoning examinations, required passing scores to be set by the Superintendent of Public Instruction by July 31, 2007. As announced in Coded Correspondence 07-11 in July 2007, passing scores were not set. SB 1186 deleted the requirement that the Superintendent establish passing scores for these examinations.

Source: Education Code §§44225.7, 44252, 44252.5, 44262, and 44831

References:

Commission References

Basic Skills Requirement Information Leaflet: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl667.pdf

Eminence Information Leaflet: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl504.pdf

Declaration of Need Form: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/cig/CIGLEAFLETS/CIG-LEAFLETS/cl500.pdf

Commission Waiver Handbook: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/cig/HANDBOOKS/WaiverHandbook.pdf

Examination References

EAP, ELM, and EPT exams:

General Information and Ordering Score Reports for All Three Tests:

http://www.ets.org/csu

Contact Information:

Commission’s Information Services Unit by telephone at 1-888-921-2682, Monday through Friday between 1:00 pm to 4:45 pm or by email at credentials@ctc.ca.gov.

By Tamar Lewin, New York Times | February 22, 2009

NEW YORK - Most everyone agrees that something is very wrong with the six-page federal form for families seeking help with college costs.

Created in 1992 to simplify applying for financial aid, it has become so intimidating - with more than 100 questions - that critics say it scares off the very families most in need, preventing some teenagers from going to college.

Then, too, some families have begun paying for professional help with the form, known as the FAFSA, a situation that specialists say indicates just how far awry the whole process has gone.
“We’re getting thousands of calls a day,” said Craig V. Carroll, chief executive of Student Financial Aid Services Inc., whose FAFSA.com charges $80 to $100 to fill out the form. “Our calls for the month of January are up about 35 percent from last year. There’s been a huge increase in the desperation of families.”

Last year, Congress ordered the form streamlined, but in the very same bill it added seven new questions. Critics say that even when all those questions are answered, the form does a poor job of assessing financial worth, both because it excludes assets like cars, boats, the family home, and some family businesses, and because it does not factor in the high cost of living in areas like New York.
On the campaign trail, President Barack Obama promised to eliminate the form - officially, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. And his secretary of education, Arne Duncan, talked about the problem at his confirmation hearing, saying, “You basically have to have a PhD to figure that thing out.”

But whether it will be replaced soon, and with what, remains an open question.

Between the recession and the rising cost of college, more families than ever are filing the forms this year, their first step toward Pell grants, Stafford loans, Perkins loans, work-study programs, and much state aid. As of Feb. 15, the Department of Education had already received 2,213,408 forms, 20 percent more than at this time last year.

Some researchers have found that the form could be drastically simplified without any great impact on students’ aid eligibility. But specialists warn that if the form becomes too simple, some states and universities might create new forms to get additional information.

“In the long run, I think the FAFSA will get easier,” said Lauren Asher, acting president of the Institute for College Access and Success. “But not this year.”

The Department of Education is considering two approaches to simplifying the form, said Robert Shireman, founder of the institute and currently a consultant to Duncan. One, proposed by former secretary of education Margaret Spellings in a Jan. 16 letter to Congress, would cut out most financial questions, asking only for adjusted gross income and the number of tax exemptions. Her sample form is two pages and has fewer than 30 questions.

The other approach, favored by Asher and others, would let taxpayers direct the Internal Revenue Service to share information from their tax returns with the Education Department.
“It’s not yet been decided which way to go,” Shireman said.

The form becomes available each year on Jan. 1, and counselors urge families to file early because some aid is first come first served. Free help for filing is widely available, from the Education Department, counselors, and workshops.

At Higher Ed Watch, we recently called on U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to open an investigation into allegations that the University of Phoenix, the country’s largest chain of for-profit colleges, had deliberately tried to manipulate its cohort default rate. While he’s at it, he should also examine the university’s student recruiting practices.

In theory, this investigation has already been carried out. In 2004, a Department program review report found that the university had knowingly violated a federal law that bans colleges from compensating admissions officers on the basis of enrollments. The report blasted the university for fostering a high-pressure sales culture that rewarded recruiters who put the most “asses in the classes,” including those of unqualified students.

Ultimately, the Education Department reached a $9.8-million settlement agreement with the Apollo Group, the university’s parent company, to resolve issues that were raised in the review. The settlement, however, did not include any admission of wrongdoing by the corporation, and university officials continued to defend their practices. “If we were guilty of everything being said in that report, there’s no way they’d be willing to reach a settlement or no way they’d be willing to sign a settlement agreement that says there is no admission of guilt,” Todd Nelson, the university’s then-president and chief executive officer, said in an interview with The Arizona Republic at the time.

Given that level of denial, it’s probably not too surprising that things haven’t changed that much at the University of Phoenix. At least that’s the impression we got from reading internal memoranda made public last month (available on PACER) as part of a federal false claims, employment discrimination, and wrongful termination lawsuit brought against the for-profit college chain by Chad McKinney, a former recruiter at two of the university’s San Diego campuses.

At Higher Ed Watch, we have no opinion on the merits of McKinney’s case against the University of Phoenix regarding his employment status. However, we do believe that the case raises serious concerns about whether the university is continuing to defy the incentive compensation prohibition. Congress imposed this ban in 1992 as part of an effort to stop for-profit trade schools from actively recruiting unqualified students who could not benefit from the training being offered.

University of Phoenix officials say they are in compliance with the law. They claim to use an intricate matrix to determine the compensation of recruiters - evaluating them on such measures as job performance, judgment, communication skills, and customer service. But according to the lawsuit, the matrix is just “a guise.” McKinney alleges in the lawsuit that “all the Corporate Defendants and management were truly concerned about, or took into account when calculating his adherence to the ‘matrix,’ were how many students he was able to enroll into the university each month.”
The internal University of Phoenix documents revealed in the case appear to bear these allegations out. Managers at the San Diego campus regularly sent e-mails to McKinney and his fellow enrollment counselors (EC’s) prodding them to meet their enrollment quotas (for McKinney, it was admitting at least four new students a month), and warning them of the consequences of failing to achieve these goals:

12/19/06 e-mail from Enrollment Manager to McKinney’s team
Let’s blow January out of the water. Our budget is 48 lives...Some of you have reviews coming up and need January to be BIG...[emphasis added]
3/28/07 e-mail from Associate Director of Enrollment
These 6 EC’s have taken over half the applications for the entire campus! These 6 EC’s have taken more applications than the other 51 EC’s combined. We have two more days. What are you going to accomplish this week? What are you bringing to your team, your campus, your next review? [emphasis added]
As part of his lawsuit, McKinney unearthed a document that lays out the “performance matrix” that the San Diego campuses were using to evaluate enrollment counselors. Under this matrix, job performance is judged almost exclusively on recruiters’ success in bringing in new students. For example, the schools reward recruiters for being “motivated to achieve results independently.” But this quality is determined solely by the recruiters’ “consistency” in “clearing a minimum number of enrollments each month.” For example, new employees who enroll three students per month earn “1 review point toward their overall performance evaluation.” Those who enroll five students earn “2 review points.” But those who fall short of these goals don’t get any points. In addition, those who fail to admit more than one student a month are judged to be “unsatisfactory.”

McKinney fell short of his quotas, and in March 2007, his supervisor sent him a letter warning him that he would face “disciplinary action” unless he improved his performance “specifically regarding appointments, applications, and starts.”

3/13/07 “Discussion Memo” from the Enrollment Manager to McKinney
In the month of February 2007, you had 6 appointments seen, you took 5 applications and 3 of your students started class. This falls below meets expectations for your level. 
Your matrices clearly state that as a level 1 your meeting expectation goal for appointments seen is 3.5 per week, applications taken per week is 1.5 and starts per month is 4..
As always, I am available to assist you in correcting your performance...however, understand that failure to improve your performance may result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination.
In May 2007, McKinney’s pay was reduced, from $37,000 to $35,500, because he had failed to meet his quota of enrolling four students that month. Eventually, after complaining to the university’s human resources department about the way he had been treated, he was fired.
The documents released as part of McKinney’s lawsuit also show how the university’s “recruit at any cost” policy encourages the school to lure in unqualified students. In one particularly illuminating e-mail to her staff in December 2006, the enrollment manager wrote:
Remember, students have to attend THREE nights or post THREE weeks in order to get START credit, which is what counts in the end.
In other words, all that counts is getting students in the door. It doesn’t matter whether they are adequately prepared, as long as they are enrolled long enough to be considered a “start.” Publicly-traded, for-profit higher education companies, like the Apollo Group, have much incentive to pump up their enrollment numbers. To keep their stock prices up and investors happy, these companies know they have to keep on expanding, even if doing so is not good for the colleges or their students.
The allegations in this case against the University of Phoenix are serious and the new leadership at the Department of Education needs to pay attention to them. And hopefully if the accusations are borne out, the agency will not let the school off the hook so easily this time.

Stephen Burd -

A federal grand jury has indicted three former Vatterott College employees for allegedly using bogus diplomas and other false documents to obtain federal financial aid for ineligible students.
The 37-count indictment charged Dominic L. Campbell, 37, of Kansas City; Dale Odei Marbell, 32, of Indianapolis; and Kevin Earl Woods, 46, of Louisville, Ky. A judge unsealed the charges Thursday after Marbell’s arrest and first court appearance in Indiana.

Prosecutors alleged that Campbell, Marbell and Woods held admissions jobs or administrative positions at the college’s Kansas City campus and enrolled students at Vatterott they knew were not qualified to receive federal financial aid.

They allegedly signed up students who hadn’t yet graduated from high school or received an equivalency diploma, a requirement for federal student financial aid. In addition to conspiracy, Campbell, Marbell and Woods each are charged with 12 counts of fraud involving 19 students.

From the Kansas City Star

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/1032233.html

As the dust began to settle and details slowly emerged about the composition of the compromise economic stimulus bill crafted by Congress, the picture for higher education was generally positive — with students and colleges poised to receive somewhere between $50 billion and $75 billion, based on our rough estimate. But exactly how it looked very much depended on where you sat.

Administrators at public colleges and officials in state higher education agencies were probably relieved that the compromise legislation would deliver a total of $53.6 billion in new aid to states over the next two years. That figure is lower than the $79 billion that was in the House of Representatives’ original bill, and money that state officials were hoping to get specifically to renovate education facilities will have to come out of that total because lawmakers eliminated a separate pot of money for that purpose. But the compromise figure is far higher than the $39 billion that was in the Senate version of the legislation, and $53.6 billion — $39.6 billion of which is designed to fill gaps left by state budget cuts, and $8.8 billion of which is set to go to governors to use for education and other purposes — should go a significant way toward softening the impact of the economic downturn on state colleges and universities.

Universities and academics most interested in research were elated, as the final package allots roughly $16 billion to several federal agencies for research grants and facilities over two years, most of which will eventually flow to academic institutions. That includes $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health ($8.5 billion for research grants and $1.5 billion to renovate university facilities), $3 billion for the National Science Foundation, and $2 billion for science and research programs at the Energy Department. As of just a few days ago, the NSF had looked to get virtually nothing, as it was excluded from a proposal, made by three moderate Republicans, that formed the core of the compromise legislation.

About $30 billion in new funds would flow to students and their families in 2009 and 2010, about $17 billion in the form of increased Pell Grants and $13 billion in expanded higher education tax credits that would, for the first time, be available to some students from lower-income families that do not pay taxes. (Some assistance for students — an increase in borrowing limits for federal student loans and funds for Perkins Loans — was dropped from the compromise legislation, though, to the dismay of advocates for private and for-profit colleges.)

If there was bad news in the final stimulus bill, it was probably for officials at private nonprofit institutions. Their students will surely benefit from the increased Pell Grants and tax credits, but they had hoped that Congress would increase the limits on unsubsidized loans (as the House had planned to do), and they lost at the last minute nearly $60 million in new capital contributions to the Perkins Loan Program. They were also hardest hit by the Congressional negotiators’ decision to eliminate the separate pot of money ($6 billion in the House bill, $3.5 billion in the Senate) for higher education facilities, which was envisioned to be distributed by the higher education agency in each state.

The compromise stimulus bill wiped out those funds and up to $16 billion for school districts — reportedly in the face of opposition from Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of three Republicans whose votes the White House and Senate Democrats desperately needed in order to pass the legislation, which most GOP members oppose as too heavily tilted toward non-stimulative spending rather than tax cuts. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats fought throughout the day Wednesday (even after a reported “agreement” on the measure was announced at mid-day) to restore funds for school modernization to the legislation. At 10 p.m. that evening, according to Congressional aides, the legislation was altered to incorporate funding for facilities into the state stabilization fund — but in a way that would primarily benefit public rather than private institutions.

Under the change, according to Democratic Congressional aides, $39.5 billion of the $53.6 billion available through the stabilization fund would be distributed to state leaders to “backfill” cuts that have been made to the 2008 or 2009 budgets for elementary, secondary or postsecondary education. In restoring cuts to public college budgets, states are supposed to use the money for financial aid and operating costs, but under the last-minute change, they can also use the funds for facilities — but only at public institutions.

Another $8.8 billion of the $53.6 billion stabilization fund under the compromise legislation would go directly to governors to use for what they determine to be “critical services,” which can include education. Like the backfill money, those funds could also conceivably be used to modernize (rather than build new) facilities, and a state’s governor could, if he or she chose, direct money from that pot to private colleges and universities for facilities or other purposes, the Democratic Congressional aides said.

The rest of the $5 billion would be distributed to states by Education Secretary Arne Duncan through two funds designed to reward innovation and strong performance on a variety of measures; most if not all of this money would flow to K-12 education.

The following is a chart that, based on the best available information last evening (the full legislation was not yet available), compares the compromise version of the stimulus bill with the version passed by the House and the one passed by the Senate after having been revamped to try to satisfy a trio of moderate Republicans, including Collins, her fellow Mainer Olympia Snowe, and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Where information was not available, the chart notes that with the word “Unclear.”

The Stimulus and Higher Education

House
Senate
Compromise

Aid for Students

Pell Grants
$15.6 billion to increase maximum grant by $500 and eliminate shortfall
$13.9 billion to increase maximum grant and close shortfall
$17.1 billion to increase maximum grant and eliminate shortfall

College Work Study
$490 million
Not included
$200 million, focused on community service

Perkins Loans
Not included
$61 million for capital contributions
None

Loan Limits
Increase limit on unsubsidized loans by $2,000
Not included
Not included

Higher Education Tax Credit
Temporarily replace Hope tax credit with $2,500 credit available for four years of college. Credit phases out for individuals with income of $80,000, $160,000 for couples. Credit is 40 percent refundable. Cost: $13.7 billion over 10 years
Temporarily replace Hope tax credit with $2,500 credit
available for four years of college. Credit phases out for individuals with
income of $80,000, $160,000 for couples. Credit is 30 percent refundable. Cost: $12.9 billion over 10 years
Temporarily replace Hope tax credit with $2,500 credit available for four years of college. Credit is 40 percent refundable.

529 savings plans
Not included
Allow computers to count as qualified expenses under 529 savings plans
Not included

Education Aid for States
$39 billion for school districts and public colleges, distributed through existing formulas
$26.7 billion for school districts and public colleges, distributed through existing formulas
$39.5 billion for “backfilling” of state budget cuts; uses include facilities modernization

$25 billion to states for “high priority” needs, “which may include education”
$9.5 billion to states for “high priority” needs, “which may include education”
$8.8 billion for governors to award for “high priority” needs, including education

Infrastructure

College/School Facilities (through Education Department)
$6 billion for “higher education modernization, renovation, repair”; $1.5 billion for grants and loans to colleges, schools, and local governments for energy efficiency
None
None (see Education Aid for States above)

National Institute of Standards and Technology
$300 million to construct research buildings at colleges
Not included
Unclear

Computer centers (at public libraries and community colleges)
Not included
$200 million
Unclear

Energy Department
Not included
$330 million for laboratory infrastructure
None

Scientific Research

National Science Foundation
$2 billion for research grants, $900 million for equipment and facilities, and $100 million for science education
$1 billion for research grants, $150 million for infrastructure, $50 million for education
$3 billion, including $2.5 for research, $400 million for infrastructure, $100 million for education

NASA
$600 million for climate change and other research
$450 million for science, specifically earth science missions
Unclear (probably $1 billion for science; including $400 million for climate change research

National Institutes of Health
$1.5 billion for biomedical research, $2 billion for facilities renovation and capacity building
$7.85 billion for biomedical research; $300 million for shared equipment
$10 billion, including $8.5 billion for research, $1.5 billion for university research facilities

Energy Department
$2 billion for energy efficiency research; $2 billion for basic physical science research
$100 million for advanced computer R&D
$2 billion for research, including $1.6 billion for Office of Science, $400 million for Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy

Homeland Security
Not included
$14 million for cybersecurity research
None

National Institute of Standards and Technology
Not included
$168 million for external grants
Unclear

Job Training
$4 billion
$3.25 billion, including $1.95 billion for adult and dislocated workers
$3.95 billion, including $2 billion for dislocated workers and $500 million for adults

Other

AmeriCorps
Not included
$200 million
$200 million

Teacher quality partnership grants
$100 million
$50 million
$100 million

Preparing health care workers
$600 million for training primary care doctors, dentists and nurses
Not included
$500 million

Student Aid Administration
$50 million to help Education Department administer student aid in changing student loan environment
Not included
Not included

Support for state data systems
$250 million
Not included
$250 million

Help for Lenders
$10 million for larger subsidies for lenders
Not included
Not included

Arts
$50 million for National Endowment for the Arts
Not included
$50 million

Rural distance learning and telemedicine (Agriculture Department)
Not included
$100 million
None

— Doug Lederman

>Economic Stimulus Package
>Private Lender Bailouts
>FAFSA Simplification

Economic Stimulus Package:
The House of Representatives passed their version of HR 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, on January 28, mostly along party lines (244 to 188). The House bill includes $15.6 billion for a $500 increase in the maximum Pell Grant and to eliminate the shortfall in the program. The House bill also includes billions for other education initiatives, including a $2,500 tax credit for higher education expenses. NACAC sent a letter to both chambers in support of education investment, particularly investment in the Pell Grant.

Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) collaborated to introduce a substitute bill that cut nearly $110 billion from the version passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee on January 27 (S 336). The Collins/Nelson substitute includes both the Pell Grant increase (at a slightly lower level) and the higher education tax credit. However, it eliminates funds for Work Study and reduces the amount available for Title I grants under NCLB and higher education modernization projects, among other cuts to education initiatives.

The Senate continues debate on the bill this morning, with a final vote expected around noon. Thank you to everyone who contacted their Senators last week in support of education provisions in the bill! The next step after today’s vote will be conference committee, where negotiators from both chambers will reconcile the two bills. NACAC will urge conferees to make sure the Pell Grant increase and the education tax credit from the House bill are included in the final bill.

For more information, including comparisons between the House and Senate versions, visit NACAC’s page devoted to the economic stimulus plan.

Private Lender Bailouts:
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (PL 110-343) became law last fall, and was designed to help ailing credit markets. Private lenders of student loans are allowable recipients of bailout funds under TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) authorized by this law. Payment of funds under this law is scheduled to begin this month. NACAC and its coalition partners have urged the Secretary of the Treasury to implement specific conditions to protect student borrowers in light of taxpayer funds being used to finance private loans. Visit NACAC’s Legislative Action page to read the letter, and also visit NACAC’s page devoted to private student loans.

FAFSA Simplification:
The Department of Education has released a report to Congress on its efforts to simplify the FAFSA, as required by the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Visit NACAC’s Legislative Action page for details.

Find legislation in your state that affects your job and the students you serve: NACAC’s State Legislative Portal.

Please contact NACAC staff at legislative@nacacnet.org with any questions.

Hope you haven’t spent that stimulus money yet.

A compromise amendment worked out by moderate Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate late Friday slashed billions of dollars that would have flowed to colleges and universities in the Senate’s original version, with the biggest cuts coming in education aid to states and funds to modernize college facilities.

To the relief of advocates for students, the compromise legislation sustained $13.9 billion to increase the maximum Pell Grant for needy students, which budget cutters had eyed. College and student lobbyists had worked aggressively late last week as various drafts of the compromise amendment emerged showing Pell funds in and out of the plan, but when Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) revealed the final plan’s contents late Friday evening, Pell was in.
The one area important to higher education that seemed to benefit from the changes was biomedical research. The Senate compromise would provide $10 billion in new funds to the National Institutes of Health, almost $8 billion of which would be for scientific studies.

Senate leaders worked closely with the White House to craft the new version of the stimulus bill, which cut more than $100 billion out of a package that, when originally introduced in the Senate late last month, stood at close to $900 billion, significantly more than the $819 billion version passed by the House. With Democrats in the Senate lacking enough votes to ensure passage, and poll numbers suggesting that Republican attacks on the “spendulus” package filled with funds that wouldn’t stimulate the economy were taking hold with the American public, the small group of moderates sought to cut it back.

Among the biggest changes for higher education is the outright elimination of a $3.5 billion “higher education facilities modernization fund” designed to be divided among states to finance renovations of “shovel ready” campus buildings (the House bill contains $6 billion for such a fund). College officials, anticipating the injection of funds, have been dusting off proposals for facilities that have gone wanting because their states couldn’t finance them or they couldn’t raise outside money for them.

The Senate version would also provide significantly less money to states that have been counting on the stimulus package to help them backfill budget gaps for education programs. The original Senate legislation, like the House version, would have created a $39 billion “stabilization” fund designed to be distributed to states to keep their higher education and K-12 budgets at their 2008 levels, as well as $25 billion in additional money for states to use to sustain crucial public services, including education.

Under the revised Senate version, the entire stabilization fund would be cut to $39 billion, with about $31.5 billion to be used by states to protect their K-12 and higher education budgets and the other $7.5 billion to go to states as “incentive grants” to reward them for meeting key education performance measures, mostly focused on high school graduation rates.

This is likely to be a major issue in states such as Missouri, where Gov. Jay Nixon’s agreement with university leaders to keep higher education whole in the 2010 budget, in exchange for freezing tuition, depends on the federal stimulus funds to make it work.
While public university officials very much hope the eventual enacted legislation will hew closer to the House level, they are also concerned about how tying the federal funds to the state’s 2008 spending levels could limit the ability of some states to tap into the funds for higher education. States that cut back their spending significantly earlier in the decade, but did not impose major funding cuts in 2009, for instance, “would receive little or no federal support under this formula,” the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges said in a letter to its member presidents this weekend.

Several other pots of research money were also eliminated or reduced in the Senate compromise.

The cuts in education-related programs were admittedly difficult for some of those directly involved in the negotiations. “It’s a painful area for all of us, as Democrats, to make these cuts in education assistance,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who is assistant majority leader in the Senate.

Whether they have gone too far in their trimming, especially in areas such as education, may depend in large part on the reaction of House Democrats, who passed their version of the legislation without any Republican support and reacted coolly to the revised Senate plan. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the stimulus bill tomorrow, and lawmakers from the House and Senate (almost certainly with the close involvement of the Obama administration) will then try to hammer out differences between the bills to come up with a version of the measure that can pass both houses and win the president’s signature.

On television news shows on Sunday, Lawrence Summers, the Obama administration’s point man on the stimulus package, specifically mentioned higher education as an area that is likely to be in dispute as the House and Senate craft a compromise, and hinted the administration might favor more than the Senate bill would provide. “There are crucial areas, support for higher education, that are things that are in the House bill that are very, very important to the president,” Summers said.

A chart comparing the House and Senate versions, as modified, is below. The chart is based on a summary of the Senate compromise released Sunday (and available on the Appropriations Committee’s Web site) that specifically notes that it does not contain all programs that would be funded by the bill; and on reports from higher education officials tracking the legislation. So what’s below is subject to change as more details become available:

The Stimulus and Higher Education
House Senate
Aid for Students
Pell Grants $15.6 billion to increase maximum grant by $500 and eliminate shortfall $13.9 billion to increase maximum grant and close shortfall
College Work Study $490 million Not included
Perkins Loans Not included $61 million for capital contributions
Loan Limits Increase limit on unsubsidized loans by $2,000 Not included
Higher Education Tax Credit Temporarily replace Hope tax credit with $2,500 credit available for four years of college. Credit phases out for individuals with income of $80,000, $160,000 for couples. Credit is 40 percent refundable. Cost: $13.7 billion over 10 years Temporarily replace Hope tax credit with $2,500 credit
available for four years of college. Credit phases out for individuals with
income of $80,000, $160,000 for couples. Credit is 30 percent refundable. Cost: $12.9 billion over 10 years
529 savings plans Not included Allow computers to count as qualified expenses under 529 savings plans
Education Aid for States $39 billion for school districts and public colleges, distributed through existing formulas $26.7 billion for school districts and public colleges, distributed through existing formulas (reduced from $39 billion)
$25 billion to states for “high priority” needs, “which may include education” $9.5 billion to states for “high priority” needs, “which may include education” (reduced from $25 billion)
Infrastructure
College/School Facilities (through Education Department) $6 billion for “higher education modernization, renovation, repair”; $1.5 billion for grants and loans to colleges, schools, and local governments for energy efficiency None (eliminated $3.5 billion to improve technology infrastructure of higher education facilities)
National Institute of Standards and Technology $300 million to construct research buildings at colleges Not included
Agricultural Research Service $209 million for facilities N/A
Computer centers (at public libraries and community colleges) Not included $200 million
Energy Department Not included $330 million for laboratory infrastructure
Scientific Research
National Science Foundation $2 billion for research grants, $900 million for equipment and facilities, and $100 million for science education $1 billion for research grants (was $1.2 billion), $150 million for infrastructure, $50 million for education
NASA $600 million for climate change and other research $450 million for science, specifically earth science missions (was $500 million)
National Institutes of Health $1.5 billion for biomedical research, $2 billion for facilities renovation and capacity building $7.85 billion for biomedical research (was originally $1.35 billion); $300 million for shared equipment
Energy Department $2 billion for energy efficiency research; $2 billion for basic physical science research $100 million for advanced computer R&D
Homeland Security Not included $14 million for cybersecurity research
National Institute of Standards and Technology Not included $168 million for external grants (was $218 million)
Agriculture Department Cooperative State Research, Education and Economic Service Not included None (was $100 million for Agriculture and Food Research Institute)
Job Training $4 billion $3.25 billion, including $1.95 billion for adult and dislocated workers (was $3.5 billion)
Other
AmeriCorps Not included $200 million (was $160 million)
Teacher quality partnership grants $100 million $50 million (was $100 million)
Preparing health care workers $600 million for training primary care doctors, dentists and nurses Not included
Student Aid Administration $50 million to help Education Department administer student aid in changing student loan environment Not included
Help for Lenders $10 million for larger subsidies for lenders Not included
Arts $50 million for National Endowment for the Arts Not included
Rural distance learning and telemedicine (Agriculture Department) Not included $100 million (was $200 million)

— Doug Lederman
The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/09/stimulus.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday approved its version of the economic stimulus package, about which it also released significantly more details than had been previously available. President Obama met for more than two hours with Congressional Republicans to try to earn their support for the legislation, but many budget hawks continued to complain that the legislation is designed more to accomplish Democratic aims than it is to stimulate the economy.

The Senate bill (which is not yet available electronically) contains significantly more information about key provisions affecting higher education than were included in a summary the appropriations committee released Friday. 

WASHINGTON — The economic stimulus plan that Congress has scheduled for a vote on Wednesday would shower the nation’s school districts, child care centers and university campuses with $150 billion in new federal spending, a vast two-year investment that would more than double the Department of Education’s current budget.

The proposed emergency expenditures on nearly every realm of education, including school renovation, special education, Head Start and grants to needy college students, would amount to the largest increase in federal aid since Washington began to spend significantly on education after World War II.

Critics and supporters alike said that by its sheer scope, the measure could profoundly change the federal government’s role in education, which has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local government.

Responding in part to a plea from Democratic governors earlier this month, Congress allocated $79 billion to help states facing large fiscal shortfalls maintain government services, and especially to avoid cuts to education programs, from pre-kindergarten through higher education.

Obama administration officials, teachers unions and associations representing school boards, colleges and other institutions in American education said the aid would bring crucial financial relief to the nation’s 15,000 school districts and to thousands of campuses otherwise threatened with severe cutbacks.

“This is going to avert literally hundreds of thousands of teacher layoffs,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Tuesday.

Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the House education committee, said, “We cannot let education collapse; we have to provide this level of support to schools.”

But Republicans strongly criticized some of the proposals as wasteful spending and an ill-considered expansion of the federal government’s role, traditionally centered on aid to needy students, into new realms like local school construction.

And they were joined by some education experts from across the political spectrum in wondering how school districts could spend so many new billions so fast,

whether such an outpouring of dollars would lead to higher student achievement, and what might happen in two years when the stimulus money ends.

Analysts were also turning up surprises in the fine print.

One provision, which was sought by the student lending industry and went unmentioned in early Congressional summaries of the stimulus package, would temporarily increase subsidies to banks in the guaranteed student loan program by tying them to a new index, partly because recent federal intervention in the credit markets has invalidated the previous index. A spokesman for Sallie Mae, one of the largest student lenders, said the change was needed to keep student loan markets fluid. Critics said it represented a potential new windfall for lenders.

“This just continues the well-established tradition of welfare for the student loan industry,” said Barmak Nassirian, an expert in student lending.

The formulas by which the stimulus money for public schools would be allocated to states and local districts are complex, but take into consideration numbers of school-age children in poor families. The level received per student would vary considerably by state, according to an analysis by the New America Foundation, a research group that monitors education spending. New York would be among the biggest beneficiaries, at $760 per student, while New Jersey and Connecticut would fall near the bottom, with $427 and $409 per student, respectively. The District of Columbia would get the most per student, $1,289, according to the foundation’s analysis.

The foundation contends, however, that the formula does not effectively allocate the most money to states with the greatest need.

In recent years the federal government has contributed 9 percent of the nation’s total spending on public schools, with states and local districts financing the rest. Washington has contributed 19 percent of spending on higher education. The stimulus package would raise those federal proportions significantly.

The Department of Education’s discretionary budget for the 2008 fiscal year was about $60 billion. The stimulus bill would raise that to about $135 billion this year, and to about $146 billion in 2010. Other federal agencies would administer about $20 billion in additional education-related spending.

“This really marks a new era in federal education spending,” said Edward Kealy, executive director of the Committee for Education Funding, a coalition of 90 education groups.

The bill would increase 2009 fiscal year spending on Title I, a program of specialized classroom efforts to help educate poor children, to $20 billion from about $14.5 billion, and raise spending on education for disabled children to $17 billion from $11 billion.

Those increases respond to longtime demands by teachers unions, school boards and others that Washington fully finance the mandates laid out for states and districts in the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law, and in the main federal law regulating special education.

“We’ve been arguing that the federal government hasn’t been living up to its commitments, but these increases go a substantial way toward meeting them,” said Joel Packer, a lobbyist for the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union.

Frederick Hess, an education policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized the bill as failing to include mechanisms to encourage districts to bring school budgets in line with property tax revenues, which have plunged with the bursting of the real estate bubble.

“It’s like an alcoholic at the end of the night when the bars close, and the solution is to open the bar for another hour,” Mr. Hess said.

The bill would, for the first time, involve the federal government in a significant fashion in the building and renovation of schools, which has been the responsibility of states and districts. It includes $20 billion for school renovation and modernization, with $14 billion for elementary and secondary schools and $6 billion for higher education. It also includes tax provisions under which the federal government would pay the interest on construction bonds issued by school districts.

Mr. Duncan said the bill’s school renovation provisions would create a “huge number of construction jobs,” because so many school buildings need repairs.
But Representative Howard P. McKeon, Republican of California and the ranking minority member of the House education committee, said, “By putting the federal government in the business of building schools, Democrats may be irrevocably changing the federal government’s role in education in this country.”

In higher education, the bill would increase spending on Pell Grants, the most important federal student aid program, to $27 billion from about $19 billion this year.
“It’s a very good idea to increase Pell Grants in the stimulus,” said Terry Hartle, a senior vice president for public affairs at the American Council on Education, which represents colleges and universities.

But Mr. Hartle said that even he was having difficulty tracking all the new spending.

“A lot of things will go through, and only later will we know exactly what happened,” he said.

By SAM DILLON

By SARA HEBEL
Washington
Higher-education lobbyists gushed over the legislation, which includes billions of dollars for scientific research, university facilities, and need-based student aid. It also sets aside money for states to limit the cuts that budget downturns might otherwise cause them to make to key services, including public colleges.

The stimulus bill seeks to ease the nation’s financial troubles by creating jobs, bolstering key programs and infrastructure, and supporting efforts to improve the economy through science and technology. Congressional leaders have said they plan to try to approve a final version of a stimulus bill and send it to incoming President Barack Obama by some time next month. The president-elect has urged legislators to pass such a measure.

“These proposed investments in research, in students, and in infrastructure will not only create jobs right away but also jump-start the nation’s effort to produce more of the people, ideas, and technologies that will help build a foundation for energy security, a cleaner environment, and ultimately a sustainable prosperity,” Robert M. Berdahl, president of the Association of American Universities, said in a written statement.

Help for Students
On student aid, the legislation proposes to increase the maximum Pell Grant to $5,350 for 2009-10, from its current level of $4,731, and raise the limit on the amount of money students can borrow in unsubsidized Stafford Loans by $2,000, an increase that would particularly help middle-income families. The current loan limit varies, depending on a student’s year in college and other factors.

The House leaders’ plan also would provide $490-million more for the federal Work-Study program, and it includes a $2,500 tax credit for college expenses, including tuition and textbooks. People who do not owe taxes would be able to claim a credit worth $1,000.

The tax provision would effectively replace two existing benefits for tuition, according to Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, who advocated the new credit. The $2,500 credit would be more advantageous for families, he said, than both the current Hope tax credit, which allows families to take a credit of up to $1,800 per year against taxes they otherwise would owe, and a provision that allows people to deduct up to $4,000 in higher-education expenses from their taxable incomes.

Money for Science
The House measure also includes billions of dollars for science and technology that could benefit universities. Among the funds are $3-billion for the National Science Foundation, two-thirds of which would be set aside for expanding opportunities for jobs in science and engineering that seek to meet environmental challenges and improve America’s ability to compete in the global economy.

In addition, $2-billion would go to the National Institutes of Health for biomedical research, and $1.5-billion would be allocated to the NIH to help universities renovate research facilities and compete for biomedical research grants.

The Department of Energy would get $1.9-billion for basic research into the physical sciences.

The measure also calls for $6-billion to provide broadband and wireless services in underserved areas and $70-million to finance a Technology Innovation Program that is designed to support research on technologies that have the potential to fuel significant job growth.

Funds for States and Facilities
The stimulus package includes money for states to help them limit cuts in their allocations for key services. The funds include $39-billion for states to give to public-school districts and public colleges, and $25-billion for states to spend on “other high-priority needs,” which could include education.
Colleges would receive $6-billion to modernize, renovate, and repair their facilities, with priority to be given to institutions that serve large numbers of minority students, that have been affected by a “major disaster,” or that are proposing energy-efficiency improvements.

The measure also provides $300-million in grants for construction of science-research buildings at colleges and other research organizations.

We must keep in mind that most, if not all, undocumented students who are eligible for admission to California’s public institutions were not adults when their families brought them here. Many who may qualify for amnesty and naturalization programs have been unable to tap those opportunities because they lack access to sound legal advice.

I have met several of UCLA’s AB 540 students who—in addition to a few undocumented immigrants—are citizens or foreign nationals who attended California high schools. They are impressive young adults. They will become doctors, engineers and teachers, and they are passionate in their intent to give back to our communities. If we charge them out-of-state tuition, we will rob them of an educational opportunity that they have earned through hard work, and we will lose the benefit of their extraordinary drive and commitment.

The nation is looking to California for leadership on this critical issue, which is now before the California Supreme Court. We must continue to provide educational opportunity for all of the state’s students. I believe that California’s future depends on it.

Gene D. Block

The writer is chancellor of UCLA.

Letter to the editor re: AB 540, as published in the Los Angeles Times, January 12, 2009

Pell was the descendant of a wealthy New England family that dated back to colonial times. Five of his ancestors including his father served in Congress.

He always regarded his greatest achievement as the Pell Grants, as the college aid grants came to be known.

“He believed strongly that a good education could open infinite doors of opportunity, and he has transformed the lives of millions of young people who have been able to go to college because of the grant that rightly bears his name,” Senator Edward Kennedy was quoted as saying by the Times.

Vice-president-elect Joe Biden, who served with Pell in the Senate, praised the late senator for his efforts “to reduce the size of the world’s nuclear arsenal and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Pell served in the State Department as a foreign service officer in Czechoslovakia, Italy, and Washington, DC from 1945 to 1952. He also participated in drafting the United Nations charter at the 1945 San Francisco conference.

Pell raised eyebrows at times, earning the nickname “Senator Oddball” from Time magazine for inviting the Israeli-British psychic Uri Geller to demonstrate his ability to bend a spoon using mind control. He also once attended a symposium on UFO abductions, the Washington Post reported.

The Earth Times

DALLAS --Some state lawmakers want to revive immigration discussions by proposing more than a dozen bills that among other things would punish employers for hiring unauthorized workers, challenge the U.S. citizenship of immigrants’ U.S.-born children and reverse a Texas law that allows undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition.

Other bills filed for the 2009 Legislature would require public schools to maintain records on students’ immigration status, impose a fee on money wired to Latin America, require identification from voters at the polls, prohibit parole for illegal immigrants and create a state criminal trespassing charge for illegal immigrants enforced by local police.

Several of the proposals are similar to ones introduced in the last session but failed to make it out of committee because they were considered unconstitutional.
“I think in some ways, they follow an old pattern. A lot of bills will be introduced,” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute at NYU School of Law. “And they will be introduced again for the same political motivation by the same cast of characters. The issue is: ‘Is it more likely that they’ll get passed this time?’”

Discussion about immigration has faltered in the last year. It was not at the forefront in the presidential campaigns. Many states that started off with punitive immigration proposals didn’t pass them and employers have been better organized to keep legislation on unauthorized workers from being too strict, experts say.

But the declining economy could make bills dealing employers who use unauthorized workers easier to endorse, Chishti said.

A handful of states have already approved such laws. Mississippi will eventually require all employers to use the federal online database E-Verify. The state also made it a felony for unauthorized workers to accept or perform work and would allow legal U.S. residents to sue if they were laid off and replaced by illegal workers. Employers in Arizona must verify the work eligibility of new hires using E-Verify and face penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

State Rep. Debbie Riddle filed a bill for the upcoming Texas session that would suspend the licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, saying it curbs the incentive for people to immigrate illegally.

Cases questioning the constitutionality of similar laws elsewhere are pending before federal courts. In Hazleton, Penn., an ordinance that would penalize businesses for hiring unauthorized workers was later struck down by a federal judge. Arizona’s employer sanction law has been upheld.

“If we wind up in a legal battle, we wind up in a legal battle,” said Riddle, R-Tomball. “I’m not going to worry about what monster what might be behind a tree and jump at me.”
State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, filed a bill challenging a Texas law that lets some illegal immigrant pay in-state tuition instead of the more costly foreign student rate. In California, an appeals court has allowed a lawsuit challenging a similar policy there to continue.

Like other lawmakers who proposed immigration-related bills, Riddle says she wants to keep her constituents from shouldering the costs of education, health care and other such services used by illegal immigrants and their children. She also said the bills will help keep Texans safe.

“This is about protecting the people of Texas, this is not about being politically correct,” Riddle said. “So for those that are more concerned about being politically correct and not hurting somebody’s feelings, to me they’re putting the people of Texas at risk.”

Nationwide, more than 1,000 immigration-related bills and resolutions were introduced in 2007. Texas led all states that year with more than 100 such bills, but only 11 were signed into law, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute and New York University School of Law.

Lawmakers realize most efforts targeting illegal immigrants stand a slim chance, but try to exploit ongoing concerns to garner support, said Luis Figueroa, legislative staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

“We learned last session most of it wasn’t taken very seriously. Most of it never got out of committee because it was so blatantly unconstitutional,” Figueroa said. “I do feel that it is for the sake of appealing to a certain constituency and that they don’t expect it to get very far.”

State legislatures elsewhere also have continued working on bills aimed at immigrants and illegal immigration. The National Conference of State Legislatures’ Immigrant Policy Project found more than 1,000 such pieces of legislation were introduced by late 2008.

“As long as immigration reform doesn’t happen, the states will ... feel either compelled or obliged to,” Chishti said

By Anabelle Garay, Associated Press Writer | January 5, 2009

UCLA sophomore Ying Chen could have stayed at home in New Jersey for college, but instead she traveled cross-country, where she willingly pays about $20,000 a year more for her education than most of her classmates.

Some UC officials think that increasing the number of students like Chen would be a smart way for the university system to bring in more revenue at a time when the state budget is tight. They point to other state university systems that enroll much higher percentages of out-of-state students.
Opponents of the idea warn that it could squeeze out qualified California students.

“When we start chasing that money as a substitute for state money, that’s bad public policy,” said Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a regent by virtue of his office who is also exploring a run for governor.

Chen, an anthropology major, said she could have attended Rutgers University, a New Jersey state university, for much less money but was drawn west by UCLA’s beautiful campus and the chance to explore a faraway state even if she can’t afford Thanksgiving trips home. “Of course, it would be lovely” if she didn’t have to pay the price differential UC charges out-of-state students. Still, choosing UCLA, she said, “was a good decision.”

At UC campuses, in-state freshmen pay about $8,100 in fees, not including room, board or books. Because California does not provide funding for out-of-state students, about half of the extra $20,000 they pay each year covers UC’s costs and the other half is profit for the system, officials said.

David Shulenburger, vice president for academic affairs at the National Assn. of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges in Washington, D.C., said he expects more public universities across the country “as a matter of survivability” to at least consider additional recruiting outside their states. The premium tuition for out-of-state students helps schools afford basic functions and subsidize in-state students’ fees, he said.

About 10% of UC’s 220,000 students, including those in undergraduate and graduate programs, are from outside California. But only about 6% of the undergraduates are non-Californians.

By contrast, about 16% of first-time undergraduates at public four-year colleges and universities nationwide are from other states or other countries, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Prestigious state universities in Colorado, Michigan, Virginia and elsewhere regularly enroll more than 30% of their freshmen classes from outside their state borders.

UC regent Judith Hopkinson recently urged the university’s governing board to consider increasing the numbers of out-of-state students for the financial and social benefits that she said are provided by a more geographically diverse student body.

Hopkinson, in an interview, suggested that having more than 15% to 20% of undergraduates from outside California might be a long-range goal to cushion some of the projected cuts in state funding.

“We ought to look at it,” she said. “Because I believe it is in the financial benefit of the university in the long run, I like to keep an open eye to all options.”

Out-of-state students generally are held to higher admissions standards, which can boost a campus’ average GPA and SAT scores and national rankings.

Non-Californians from the U.S. are eligible for many financial aid programs at UC although they face higher thresholds.

Proposed steep cuts in state funds this school year and next have prompted UC to consider limiting overall enrollment next fall. If that happens, said Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education in San Jose, any move to boost the number of out-of-state students at UC “would be politically suicidal. Can you imagine the Legislature standing for that?”

Some Midwestern and Northeastern states are experiencing significant declines in their college-age population and may be able to accommodate more students from out of state, but that is not so in California, he said.

Callan added that describing the issue as a diversity effort falls flat in immigrant-rich California “since we already have people from all over the world here.”

According to UC system spokesman Ricardo Vazquez, UC has no set quotas and no regulation regarding the percentages of in-state and out-of-state enrollees. But in recent years, the university had fallen about 1,000 short of its tradition of enrolling out-of-state and international students at all levels, partly as a result of troubles that some foreign students had in obtaining visas in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The UC central administration recently pushed campuses to reach targets or potentially lose some revenue. Preliminary numbers for this fall are up to the traditional 10%, combining undergraduates and graduates.

California’s other public university system, the 23-campus Cal State chain, enrolls a much smaller proportion. Only about 4% of its 440,000 students, undergraduate and graduate, are not from California, officials reported.

In past years Cal State had no limits on out-of-state students, but new applicants from outside California for next fall might have a tough time gaining entrance because Cal State is considering cutting overall enrollment by 10,000, according to system spokeswoman Clara Potes-Fellow.

Non-Californians will have low admission priority, she said.

At UCLA, freshman Derick Tsaoi said he passed up a large scholarship offered by the University of Maryland in his home state.

Instead, after much deliberation, he took out substantial loans to attend UCLA and study biochemistry in what he described as a more adventurous and academically prestigious setting.

At first he was a bit lonely and struck by how few non-Californians are at UCLA. “But after a while, I realized that’s why I went there,” he said, “to meet new people.”

By Larry Gordon , LA Times
larry.gordon@latimes.com

Stephen Burd -
October 16, 2008 - 10:15am
The Higher Ed Watch Blog
http://www.newamerica.net/blog/higher-ed-watch/2008/stacking-deck-career-college-association-7766

Last week, Harris Miller, the president of the Career College Association (CCA), made an unusual request of the U.S. Department of Education. He asked the agency to bring only his group’s members to the table when it starts negotiating changes to regulations designed to protect students from unscrupulous trade schools.

“Allowing others without a direct connection to this issue to participate is like allowing non-pilots to help fly the plane,” Miller stated in testimony he delivered at a public hearing the Department held on potential rule changes. “They may have a point of view, they may find the proceedings interesting, but giving them a seat at the controls would simply be wrong for the millions of students depending on career education as the ‘flight path’ to a better life.”
Miller’s gambit is just the latest in a fierce campaign CCA has waged over the last 15 years to kill the “90-10 rule,” a key consumer provision in the Higher Education Act. The rule requires for-profit colleges to receive at least 10 percent of their revenue from sources other than federal student aid in order to participate in the government’s financial aid programs.

Congress introduced the requirement in 1992 (at that time it was the “85-15 rule") as part of a broader effort to crack down on trade schools set up to reap profits from the federal student aid programs. At the time, lawmakers felt that the provision was important because it required proprietary institutions to prove that the training they offered was valuable. They figured that schools that offered worthwhile training would be able to derive at least a small portion of their revenue from students willing to spend their own money on it.

Trade school lobbyists have spent years and lots of campaign cash trying to get lawmakers to eliminate the requirement or at least weaken it so much that their institutions could easily evade it. And they have largely succeeded in this pursuit.
In fact, in August, Congress gutted the provision as part of legislation it approved reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. Among other things, lawmakers substantially expanded the sources of funds that trade schools can count toward the 10 percent threshold, including tuition discounts and loans the schools make to their students. They also reduced the penalties that schools face if they violate the rule (Offending schools will no longer be automatically removed from participating in the federal student aid programs.) In addition, they temporarily exempted from the 90-10 calculations recent federal loan limit increases Congress approved as part of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. As a result, some federal student aid will not be counted against the cap.

But trade school lobbyists apparently are not satisfied. In recent weeks, they have been fanning out across the country to urge the Department to enact the changes in a way that will ensure that the 90-10 rule is entirely toothless.

For example, trade school officials are not entirely happy with one change Congress made that they have long sought. Under the reauthorization bill, schools, for the first time, can count revenue they receive for non-degree programs they offer - ones that don’t qualify for financial aid—toward the 10 percent threshold. Revenue from these programs, however, will count only if they lead to an “industry-recognized” credential. Apparently some trade school officials believe that this is too high a bar to meet.

Speaking at a public hearing that the Education Department held last week in Washington, DC to prepare for the negotiated rulemaking sessions, Miller asked the Department to interpret that language liberally. “Interpretation of ‘industry-recognized’ is apt to vary among competing professional and certification testing bodies,” Miller stated in his testimony. “We suggest, therefore, that the Department allow the marketplace to be the arbiter and allow any credential recognized by some segment of a given industry.” Any credential by some segment of a given industry? Does this mean that standard would be met if a department store like the Gap regularly hires Career Education Corporation fashion students to work its cash registers and stock its shelves?
In his testimony, Miller warned the Department that changes to the 90-10 rule must be made “with surgical precision and exceptional care.” To that end, he argued that the agency should “include in its negotiated rulemaking process on those higher education institutions affected by the 90-10 restrictions—career colleges.”

So what about advocates for students and legal aid officials who often represent students who have been victimized by bad trade schools? Do they have enough of a “direct connection to this issue” or should they be left off the panel too? Does Miller honestly believe that his association truly represents the interests of such students?

We are confident that Education Department officials will reject Miller’s call for stacking the negotiated rulemaking panel. After all, that’s not how the process works. According to Department guidelines, the agency seeks to ensure “adequate representation” for all of “the affected parties.” And while the Department doesn’t always live up to that standard, it’s hard to imagine that it would risk the outrage and ridicule it would endure if it granted Miller’s request.

But in reality, that’s a minor point. The more vital question is whether the Department will buy into CCA’s arguments and weaken the 90-10 rule and other consumer protection provisions further. We certainly hope not.

At Higher Ed Watch, we believe that policymakers should be looking for ways to strengthen regulations that safeguard students from unscrupulous schools and protect the integrity of the student aid programs, rather than trying to find ways to eviscerate them.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento said Monday that a lower court erred in dismissing the suit brought by 42 students who paid far more to attend college because they were out-of-state residents.

At issue is a 2002 law that made any California high school graduate who attended at least three years of high school in the state eligible for in-state fee breaks, regardless of immigration status.

The plaintiffs argue the law violates a federal prohibition on higher education institutions giving benefits to illegal immigrants without offering the same break to U.S. citizens.

California is one of nine states with laws allowing undocumented residents to qualify for lower in-state tuition rates.

A spokesman for the University of California system says lawyers are evaluating whether to appeal Monday’s decision to the state Supreme Court.

The case is Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, CV052064.

By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | September 10, 2008
Senator Barack Obama, responding in part to new competition for the women’s vote from Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, outlined his plan to overhaul education yesterday, pledging to double federal funding for public charter schools, spend $500 million to upgrade school technology, and award merit pay for teachers, including higher salaries for math and science instructors.

Speaking at Stebbins High School near Dayton, Ohio, Obama offered a dismal picture of the state of American education, warning that US students are lagging behind Asian counterparts in advanced engineering degrees, that jobs are going unfilled because of a lack of skilled applicants, and that elementary school pupils are receiving too little science education to compete in the global economy.

“That kind of future is economically untenable for America,” Obama said. “It is morally unacceptable for our children. And it is not who we are as a nation.”

Some of what Obama detailed yesterday he has proposed before, but he laid out a series of new proposals that his campaign estimates would cost about $1 billion. These initiatives, combined with earlier proposals he offered on early education and K-12 schools, bring the price tag of Obama’s education plan to about $19 billion, which his campaign says can be covered by cutting federal spending, including slashing the amount of congressional earmarks.
Obama also sprinkled in new, harsh criticism of his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, charging that McCain had “marched with the ideologues in his party” for almost 30 years in opposing efforts to hire more teachers and expand the Head Start program for preschoolers.

“This is important to understand,” Obama said. “In those three decades, he has not done one thing to truly improve the quality of public education in our country. Not one real proposal or law or initiative. Nothing.”

In response, McCain’s campaign issued a litany of education votes and proposals the Arizona senator has made, and highlighted his own education blueprint. McCain’s plan calls for, among other things, recruiting qualified non-teachers to take over classes, awarding bonuses to teachers who work and excel in underperforming schools, and giving parents more choice in how and where their children are educated, namely through vouchers for private and parochial schools.

Republicans also pointed to an article last year in Education Week, the “newspaper of record” on school policy, which concluded that Obama had not “made a significant mark on education policy” while a US senator or state senator in Illinois.
Late yesterday, McCain’s campaign hit back on the issue, unveiling a television ad that questions Obama’s record on education reform and that raises the red-hot political issue of sex education. “Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners,” the announcer says in the ad. “Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.”

The Obama campaign said he voted for a sex education bill while in the Illinois Legislature, but that it stated the instruction should be “age appropriate” and parents could opt out. “It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

Obama’s focus on education this week is part of a broader pitch he has been making on the economy and domestic issues - particularly in battleground states in the Midwest - since formally accepting the nomination two weeks ago. A key part of his strategy is to convince voters that McCain differs little on policy from President Bush, whose popularity rating rests at about 30 percent.

But Obama’s appeals to middle-class and suburban families - notably women, a crucial voting bloc - have grown more urgent since McCain’s pick of Palin, the 44-year-old Alaska governor, changed the contours of the race, with the GOP ticket now casting themselves as mavericks eager to shake up Washington.

“After three decades of indifference on education, do you really believe that John McCain is going to make a difference now?” Obama asked yesterday in Ohio, and his audience responded with a resounding “No!”

Obama’s campaign also released a new television ad yesterday highlighting many of the same points, noting McCain’s call, as Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, for the abolition of the US Department of Education.

Still, in an illustration of the difficulty Obama faces in countering the excitement Palin has added to the race, CNN cut away from his education speech to show Palin addressing thousands of supporters about 30 miles south in Lebanon, Ohio.
Two elements of Obama’s plan in particular may appeal to some independents and Republicans: his call for doubling federal spending on charter schools, from $200 million to $400 million a year; and an insistence that districts receiving certain federal assistance have clear plans to remove poorly performing teachers.

Obama bemoaned, as he has done on other issues, the partisan gridlock that he says has allowed problems in the public education system to fester. But there are real and significant differences among Republicans and Democrats about the right solutions.
While Obama emphasizes parental choice within a publicly funded school system, McCain made a point in his speech to the Republican National Convention last week of promoting his support for vouchers, which would allow parents to take public money allotted to their children and spend it in different settings.

“Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school,” McCain said. “But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.”

The Boston Globe
Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.

McCain had previously been among those Republicans who refused to endorse these ballot measures.

His comments on Sunday came in an appearance on the ABC News show “This Week,” which also revealed that a decade ago, he called efforts to bar affirmative action “divisive.” On Sunday, asked if he would back the ban on affirmative action that will be considered by Arizona voters this fall, he said: “I support it. I do not believe in quotas.... I have not seen the details of some of these proposals. But I’ve always opposed quotas.”

In a separate appearance, Sen. Barack Obama, McCain’s Democratic opponent for the presidency, supported affirmative action, but also continued to state that it is not the primary solution for anyone. Obama has said several times during the campaign that he believes class in addition to race should be considered.

“I am a strong supporter of affirmative action when properly structured so there is not a quota, but it is acknowledging and taking into account some of the hardships and difficulties that communities of color may have experienced, continue to experience, and it also speaks to the value of diversity in all walks of American life,” he said Sunday. “I’ve also said that affirmative action is not going to be the long-term solution to the problems of race in America, because, frankly, if you’ve got 50 percent of African American or Latino kids dropping out of high school, it doesn’t really matter what you do in terms of affirmative action. Those kids aren’t going to college.”

McCain’s opposition to affirmative action is winning him points in conservative circles, but drawing criticism from defenders of affirmative action in higher education. In particular, they object to his equating affirmative action with quotas.

“Changing one’s mind is certainly the American way but changing positions to garner support from a particular population should be questioned even by those who oppose affirmative action. Moreover, using affirmative action as a wedge issue only divides our nation when it is time to bring us together,” said a statement from ReNee Dunman, director of equal opportunity and affirmative action at Old Dominion University and president of the American Association for Affirmative Action. (The association is non-partisan and does not endorse candidates for office.)

On the issue of quotas, Dunman added: “Once again, I am compelled to dispel the myth that affirmative action requires quotas - they are unlawful and expressly prohibited by federal regulations.” She noted that many affirmative action plans have goals, but that such goals do “not require hiring or admitting a particular number of women or minorities.”

Affirmative action is the second diversity-related issue on which McCain has shifted during the campaign, although he may be switching sides again on the other issue: the federal DREAM Act to help students who cannot document their legal immigration status.

McCain was one of the key forces behind immigration reform legislation last year that for a time would have included the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors), which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for undocumented students who complete two years of college or military service. For students who came into the country illegally before age 16 and have lived in the country for five years, the DREAM Act would have for the first time given undocumented students access to federal loans and work study programs (but not federal grants).

When many Senate Republicans challenged the immigration reform measure, and many conservative activists denounced McCain for backing it, the larger piece of legislation was blocked, but many educators then backed a plan to push the DREAM Act by itself. But during meetings to try to repair his ties to conservatives, McCain pledged to oppose the DREAM Act solo, saying: “I got the message and the American people want the borders controlled first.”

This month, however, in answering questions from a Latino group, McCain said he approves of the DREAM Act.

Obama has consistently supported the DREAM Act.

Negotiators from the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate voted to approve the compromise bill on Tuesday night during a formal conference at the Capitol. The vote was 18 to 3 on the Senate side, and 22 to 1 on the House side.

The bill, which would reauthorize, or renew, the Higher Education Act, the major law governing federal student aid, now heads to the House and Senate floors, where votes are expected by the end of the week.

If it passes, as anticipated, the bill will be the most significant piece of higher-education legislation to clear Congress since September, when lawmakers passed a measure that slashed subsidies to lenders in the government’s student-loan programs and used the savings to significantly increase federal student aid (The Chronicle, September 10).

The reauthorization bill, which is five years overdue, would create dozens of new grant programs for colleges and students, while imposing hundreds of new reporting requirements on institutions. It would crack down on conflicts of interest in the student-loan programs, hold institutions and states accountable for skyrocketing tuition, and make it easier for for-profit colleges to become, or remain, eligible to award federal student aid.

The bill would also prohibit the secretary of education from dictating how colleges measure student learning for purposes of accreditation and overhaul the department’s advisory committee on accreditation issues. However, it omits language in earlier versions of the legislation that would have created a federal ombudsman’s position to resolve accreditation disputes.

Withholding Matching Grants

Before voting to approve the bill at 8:30 p.m. Tuesday, members of the conference panel adopted an amendment by Rep. John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would punish states that fail to maintain their higher-education spending. House conferees approved the amendment unanimously by voice vote, and Senate conferees approved it, 12 to 9.

The “maintenance of effort” amendment would withhold College Access Challenge Grant funds from states that failed to raise spending on higher education each year by at least as much as they increased it, on average, over the previous five years. The challenge-grant program offers matching grants intended to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.

Similar language by Representative Tierney was included in the House’s version of the legislation, but it was stripped from the compromise bill at the insistence of Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee who is also a former governor. As originally written, the provision would have withheld federal Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership grants, which match each dollar that states commit to need-based aid, rather than College Access Challenge Grant funds.

During debate on the amendment, Mr. Tierney argued that there is a “direct correlation” between state spending and college tuition rates, and described the arguments against his proposal as “somewhat specious.” Groups representing governors and state legislatures have warned that states will be forced to hold down spending during good economic times to avoid being held to more-generous levels when the economy worsens.

Mr. Alexander, in turn, argued that the federal government has no business dictating how states spend their tax revenue, particularly when it is not providing full funds for education for disabled students. To drive home his point, he offered an amendment to Mr. Tierney’s amendment that would prohibit the federal government from punishing states until it lived up to its end of the bargain by providing 40 percent of the average per-student cost for special education.

“I don’t think its our business to be allocating state tax dollars,” he said. “If we want to do that, we should run for governor or for the state legislature.”

The Senate conferees rejected that proposal, 10 to 11.

Mr. Alexander joined two of his Republican colleagues, Sens. Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, in voting against the bill. Rep. Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, cast the lone vote on the House side against the bill.

For the most part, though, the mood inside the negotiating chamber was celebratory. Lawmakers have been working on the measure since 2003, and up until late last week, it seemed doubtful that they would be able to complete work on a compromise bill before Congress’s August recess. If they had failed to do so, the bill could have become entangled in election-year politics and put off for another year.

The bill’s prospects improved last Friday, when lawmakers neared final agreement on a pair of provisions that had tied up negotiations for days. But the measure ran into another stumbling block on Monday, when Senator Coburn, nicknamed “Dr. No” by his colleagues, put a hold on the bill (among many others) in protest over his broad concerns about federal spending. Mr. Coburn agreed to lift his hold on the higher-education bill Tuesday morning, clearing the way for the formal conference last night.

As senators prepared to vote on reporting the compromise bill, known as a conference report, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, a Democrat of Maryland, offered praise for her colleagues.

“Tonight we will make a difference in the lives of people,” said Ms. Mikulski, who managed the debate in the absence of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Education Committee and who is recovering from brain surgery.

Praise From For-Profit Institutions

Lobbyists for for-profit colleges are equally enthusiastic about the bill, which would make it easier for proprietary institutions to comply with a section of the law known as the “90-10 rule,” which requires those colleges to receive at least 10 percent of their revenue from sources other than federal student aid. The bill would give for-profit institutions new ways to meet the 10-percent threshold while also allowing them to temporarily treat new federal-loan funds as part of their 10 percent.

Congress raised federal-loan limits by $2,000 per year last spring, largely in response to concerns that lenders’ departures from the federal loan programs and tightening credit criteria could make it harder for students to obtain private loans in the coming academic year.

For-profit colleges have also welcomed a provision in the bill that would require colleges to disclose their transfer-of-credit policies. Lobbyists for for-profit institutions have long complained that some traditional colleges refuse to accept credits for courses completed at their colleges simply because their institutions are accredited by national organizations, rather than one of the six regional associations that accredit most traditional, nonprofit institutions.

But lobbyists for traditional institutions have been more measured in their praise of the bill. While they appreciate the new grant programs and accreditation protections, many resent the increased federal oversight that the bill would bring. Under the bill, colleges would be required to disclose everything from their policies on illegal downloading of music and video files to the details of their arrangements with lenders.

More Paperwork

Colleges are also grumbling about the bill’s new reporting requirements, which they maintain would increase their costs at the same time Congress is pressuring colleges to hold the line on tuition growth.

Under the bill, the secretary of education would publish annual lists of the institutions with the highest and lowest tuition and fees, and net prices, by sector, as well as lists of the institutions with the largest percentage increases in net price and in tuition and fees over the previous three years. Institutions appearing on the percentage-based lists would be required to report to the education secretary on the factors that contributed to their price increases and the steps they were taking to hold down costs.

Still, nonprofit colleges can claim some victories. In the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s conference, they persuaded lawmakers to drop language that would have required them to notify students and employees within 30 minutes of an emergency and to report any gift over $250,000 that came from a private-sector corporation (though lawmakers left in such a reporting requirement for gifts from foreign governments if the money was to be used for a center receiving funds under the bill).

Colleges also persuaded lawmakers to abandon a requirement that institutions whose net tuition and fees outpaced their sector’s average submit a report to the secretary and provide the secretary with certain tax documents from the previous three years.

And while lawmakers retained a controversial requirement that colleges offer students music and video through subscription-based services, they provided a possible out, adding “to the extent practicable” to the language. Still, the language is considered a coup for the entertainment industry, which contends that illegal downloading on college campuses costs it millions of dollars. The bill also would require colleges to use technology to curtail copyright infringement on their campuses.

The compromise bill also contains some good news for the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, which was created more than two decades ago to counsel Congress and the Education Department on student-aid issues. The House version of the bill would have abolished the influential committee, but the final version preserves it.

It is a Washington tradition that, at the point when it becomes clear that a piece of legislation is on its way to passage, Congressional supporters praise the measure as enormously important (and, usually, each other for their hard work and, where appropriate, for their mutual collaboration). Hand shaking and back slapping often ensue.

Members of a House-Senate panel engaged in a little of that Tuesday night as they met at a hastily called session to put the finishing touches on legislation to renew the Higher Education Act. But given the fact that the bill has been seven years in the making, that at 1,158 pages it has the feel of a conglomeration that includes everything but the kitchen sink ("Better start reading,” one U.S. representative joked to a colleague as he looked at the foot-high stack of paper in front of him), and that the legislation has lukewarm support at best among most parties in and around higher education, the atmosphere seemed to be as much one of relief as of celebration.

“The road to higher education reform has been a long one,” Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon of California, the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said in recalling work he did in 2001 that helped set the stage for this legislation. “I’m pleased to be here - far too many years later - on the cusp of a bipartisan reauthorization.”

It seemed at times that the cusp might never come, as the legislation has survived three separate Congresses (including a turnover from Republican to Democratic control) and a total of 13 short-term extensions. But now, a full decade after the last renewal of the Higher Education Act (which is supposed to be extended every five years), the measure is finally poised to become law. Both the Senate and the House are expected to vote on it Thursday, before Congress leaves town for its August recess, and it could be on President Bush’s desk soon after.

To get to Tuesday’s denouement, which resulted in a 40-4 vote to approve the legislation, McKeon and a small cast of key negotiators - including his Democratic counterpart on the House panel, Rep. George Miller of California; Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who was standing in for the ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, along with their staffs - had worked through a handful of remaining divisive issues in the bill in the last several days.

The last to fall, and the only one that remained to be resolved by the several dozen members of Congress at Tuesday night’s meeting, was the question of whether Congress should withhold federal funds from states that fail to maintain their levels of spending on higher education. Under the proposal, advanced by Miller and Rep. John F. Tierney of Massachusetts, states that did not maintain the minimum spending levels would have forfeited money provided through the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, a need-based aid program.

The provision had the backing of many public university presidents, who argued that Congress should do something to ensure that states do not keep raising tuitions and using ever-increasing funds from federal student aid programs to replace money the states themselves might dedicate to support colleges and students.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican and former U.S. education secretary, mounted a vigorous challenge to the “maintenance of effort” proposal, which he (as a former governor of Tennessee) characterized as an inappropriate attempt by Congress to dictate how states spend their money. Alexander’s opposition was among the factors that seemed to imperil Congress’s chances of reaching agreement on the bill this fall.

On Tuesday evening, members of the conference committee had a chance to choose between a watered-down version of Tierney’s original proposal (the replacement would deny states that cut college funding a chance to compete for money from a new state challenge grant program that might never be funded) and an Alexander alternative that would impose that restriction only if a state received its full allotment of federal money under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act - which would never happen, Alexander suggested, because Congress so frequently imposes requirements on states and then fails to provide the money to carry them out.

The senators on the conference panel adopted Tierney’s proposal and rejected Alexander’s largely on party lines, and that vote cleared the way for the 40-4 vote on the entire Higher Education Act bill.

The legislation approved Tuesday would:

Set a ceiling on the maximum Pell Grant of $9,000, and allow for students to receive Pell Grant funds year-round, instead of just during the traditional academic year. The year-round Pell Grant is one of the most widely celebrated features of the bill.
Require significantly more reporting by colleges about their own costs and the prices they charge to students, part of a larger effort in the legislation to hold colleges accountable and make their operations more transparent to the public.
Give the Education Department significantly more authority to regulate private student loans, as part of a broad set of provisions - prompted by last year’s investigations into illegal inducements given to colleges by lenders - aimed at cracking down on the behavior of lenders and college officials in making loans to students.
Urge colleges to craft plans for giving their students legal ways to download movies and music “to the extent practicable,” and to explore technologies to stop illegal peer to peer file sharing.
Bar the U.S. Education Department from issuing regulations governing higher education accreditation, designed to ensure that colleges are measuring student learning outcomes, a provision staunchly opposed by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. It would also scuttle the committee that advises the Education Department on accreditation - which has been enveloped in controversy for the last two years - and reconfigure it so its members are appointed by both houses of Congress as well as the education secretary.
Make some much-sought changes in the Academic Competitiveness Grant Program, including making the much-maligned grants for low-income students available to part-time students and those seeking certificates as well as degrees, and taking the education secretary out of the business of deciding whether high school programs are of sufficient academic rigor to quality students for the grants, leaving that decision instead up to state officials.
Mandate that textbook publishers expand the information they provide to faculty members about pricing and changes from past editions, and that colleges put information about required books in their course schedules to help students shop for books more cost effectively, among other provisions aimed at easing textbook prices.
Expand the reach of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, rather than kill the body, as the House version of the bill would have done.
Create a total of more than 60 new programs.
Ease in several ways the requirement that colleges (especially for-profit institutions) derive at least 10 percent of their revenues from sources other than federal financial aid.
Expand funds for graduate programs at historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions and, for the first time, colleges that serve large numbers of African American students.
Crack down on diploma mills by directing the Education Department to publish lists of accredited institutions and accreditation agencies, among other things.
Make several changes designed to make it easier for students to get information about their financial aid awards and to generally simplify the process by which students - particularly those from low-income families - can qualify for federal financial aid.
Establish a loan fund to help colleges and universities damaged or otherwise impaired by natural disasters such as the 2005 hurricanes in the Gulf Coast.
Toughen standards for teacher education programs.
Strengthen educational programs for students with disabilities.
While they favor some elements of the legislation, most of the Washington associations that represent groups of colleges dislike more than they like about the bill because they view it as intrusive and laden with regulatory burdens, and are unlikely to throw their support behind the measure. (The Career College Association, which represents for-profit colleges, and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities are likeliest to support the legislation.)

The other groups will spend much of the next day or two carefully wording letters that neither badmouth the legislation (and by extension those members of Congress who crafted it) nor endorse it.

- Doug Lederman

The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/30/hea.

“When schools focus on college and how to provide the tools to get there, students make the connection between today’s work and tomorrow’s opportunity,” Durbin said. “This bill will help schools create a college-going culture and give students the necessary guidance to navigate the college entrance process. Bright, hardworking students deserve the opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them.”

Experts say that a lack of guidance and information about college has had a real effect on students in poor urban and rural schools. A recent report by the Consortium on Chicago School Research found that only 41 percent of students in Chicago Public Schools, who wanted to attend college, took the necessary steps to apply. The report also found that, of the students who attended college, only one-third enrolled in a school that matched their qualifications. Of the students who had the grades and test scores to attend a selective college, 29 percent went to a community college or skipped college entirely.

Recently, Chicago Public Schools have begun to voluntarily implement many of the programs that Durbin’s bill would require, and their efforts have proven successful. Half of the students who graduated from Chicago Public Schools in 2007 enrolled in college - an increase of 6.5 percent in four years. That increase in college enrollment was more than six times the rate of increase compared to the rest of the country.  In addition, the number of African-American graduates going to college has decreased nationally by six percent over the last four years while the Chicago rate has increased by almost eight percent.

Durbin’s bill attempts to take these promising trends in Chicago and replicate them nationally by:

* Creating a competitive grant program for high-need school districts to increase the number of low-income students who are entering and succeeding in a college that matches their qualifications.

* Providing professional development to high school teachers and counselors in college advising; arranging meetings for each student with an advisor to discuss college planning; providing college and financial aid information to all students and parents; and ensuring that each school develops a comprehensive plan of action to strengthen its college-going culture.

The bill would also allow for other activities including:

* Establishment of college planning classes; hiring staff; training student leaders; hosting college fairs or college tours; assisting with test preparation and applications; establishing partnerships with community and nonprofit organizations; and providing long-term follow up with graduates.

Durbin’s bill is supported by the following national organizations: College Summit, the Council for Opportunity in Education, the National Association for College Admission Counseling, College Board and ACT, Inc.

The National Association of College and University Business Officers is publishing a report today specifically designed for the handful of you who haven’t read absolutely every word Inside Higher Ed has published on the work of the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education.

Okay, so maybe there are more than a few of you. (It’s not too late: you can find the highlights of our coverage here.) The report, “Assessing the Impact of the Spellings Commission: The Message, the Messenger, and the Dynamics of Change in Higher Education,” exhaustively reviews the commission’s genesis, deliberations and recommendations in 2005-6; the Education Department’s efforts to carry out the panel’s work over the last two years; and the responses of those within higher education to all of the above.

The report, which was conducted by a group of communication and organizational development scholars at Rutgers, Penn State and Fordham Universities, is first and foremost an academic work, emphasizing broad collection of information and surveying of views (from more than 30 observers of the process, including this reporter) over offering the scholars’ own interpretations, analyses and opinions.

It dispassionately presents and balances the often conflicting viewpoints of participants in the commission’s work and aftermath — Education Department officials who pushed the panel’s agenda, higher education association officials who frequently fought it, and others from within academe who bemoaned the often defensive response from college leaders — and lets their words do most of the talking.

But the report’s authors ultimately do, in a subtle way, synthesize the strands and impressions to offer a mixed assessment of the commission’s — and by extension the Bush administration’s — effort to change the conversation about, and less successfully, alter the conduct of American higher education.

On balance the report’s portrait credits the Spellings panel and its sponsors within the Education Department for correctly diagnosing and drawing heightened attention to a set of significant problems that plague higher education and the country, but questions the wisdom of the combative rather than collegial approach that the commission took in laying out its recommendations and the Education Department embraced in implementing them, especially in its aggressive push to alter accreditation.

“[T]he impact of the Commission and the effectiveness of the initiative overall can be seen most clearly in: 1) the attention it afforded to the issues and themes addressed in the Report and follow-up activities; 2) the dialogue that has been stimulated by these efforts; and 3) the numerous voluntary improvement
projects and programs that have been energized and inspired during this period,” the authors write. “However, the effort has had considerably less impact and success in fostering the kind of mutual respect, constructive collaboration, and engaged partnering that seems necessary to unite the higher education community, Congress, and the Department in the joint pursuit of a common agenda.”

Similarly, the report’s authors recognize college leaders both with having made more progress in recent years in addressing the perceived problems than the commission gave them credit for, and with responding in several key ways to the challenge put to them by the commission’s report, with several college associations undertaking new accountability systems and dozens of colleges expanding their financial support for low-income students.

But higher education’s representatives in Washington, especially, come in for criticism for spending far too much time responding to perceived slights and playing defense than to constructively acknowledging the need for change.

“Much of the higher education community has taken considerable pleasure in its success at resisting externally mandated and imposed regulations and in initiating voluntary efforts to respond to some of the most critical pressures points identified by the Commission. But as study participants note, through its response the higher education community has been less successful in effectively telling the ‘higher education story’ to the public at large, in presenting a unified response to the issues and themes of the Report, and in easing disquiet among many external constituencies about higher education’s presumed insularity and indifference to concerns of the day.”

Looking Backwards to Inform the Future

NACUBO’s involvement in sponsoring the report on the Spellings Commission is noteworthy in part because the business officers’ association stayed mostly on the sidelines during most of the gestation period of the commission’s work. Under John D. Walda, who became its president in 2006, though, NACUBO decided to fund the work of Brent D. Ruben, a professor of communication and executive director of Rutgers University’s Center for Organizational Development and Leadership, with the hope that analyzing the past might point the way to producing a more constructive working relationship between college leaders and politicians and policy makers. Implicit in Walda’s response to the report produced by Ruben and his team was muted criticism of how some college leaders responded to the commission’s report early on.

“Institutional leaders as well as executives at higher education associations will find interesting ideas in the report for redirecting early responses to the Spellings Commission recommendations,” Walda said in a prepared statement, which was released during the business officers’ annual conference in Chicago. “We certainly can benefit from working more collaboratively with government officials in our shared goal to strengthen higher education.”

Ruben’s report goes to significant lengths to separate the content of the commission’s findings and recommendations (on which there was reasonably widespread agreement among many parties) from the largely negative prism and language the commission used to frame the report and the strategies and tactics the Education Department embraced to carry out the panel’s ideas, which proved enormously divisive.

Although there were some fundamental differences of opinion that would have proved thorny no matter what — where the boundary lies between justifiable federal accountability and institutional autonomy, for instance — the report suggests that much more might have been accomplished had commission leaders and higher education leaders spent more time finding common ground than throwing brickbats at each other.

That thesis might be tested right away. The report was released just as Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is about to convene a summit in Chicago later this week at which she is expected to try to urge higher education leaders to continue (after the Bush administration leaves office) to pursue the work they have undertaken consistent with the commission’s report.

Whether college leaders and department officials can find enough common ground and play nice at this week’s event, nearly two years after the commission issued its report, may offer some sense of how likely it is that colleges and universities and the federal government can find a more productive way of working together in the future in dealing with the issues facing higher education.

— Doug Lederman
Inside Higher Ed
insidehighered.com

By PETER SCHMIDT

State organizations affiliated with Ward Connerly’s American Civil Rights Institute said this month they had gathered more than enough signatures to get measures limiting affirmative-action preferences on the November ballots in Arizona and Nebraska.

With petitions submitted on behalf of a similar ballot measure in Colorado in March, there appears to be a good chance that three states will vote this fall on the proposals, all of which would bar public colleges and other state and local agencies from granting affirmative-action preferences in employment, contracts, and decisions related to education.

Mr. Connerly, the institute’s chairman, hoped to put similar measures on the ballots in Missouri and Oklahoma as well, but his organizations in those states failed to gather enough signatures before deadlines earlier this year.

Mr. Connerly’s Arizona organization, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, announced that it had submitted more than 330,000 petition signatures to state officials, well over 100,000 more than required under state law. His Nebraska organization, the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, announced that it had submitted more than 167,000 signatures, or at least 54,000 more than required.

A group that has opposed Mr. Connerly’s efforts, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, announced that it would file a lawsuit alleging that the petition signatures in Arizona had been gathered fraudulently. The group has filed a similar legal challenge in Colorado.

Last week, the Senate and House Appropriations Committees scheduled full committee markups of the FY09 appropriations bills. The Senate Committee approved it’s subcommittee’s funding levels, including a $69 increase in the maximum Pell Grant, which would bring the FY09 maximum grant to $4,800, including the mandatory funding provided by last fall’s reconciliation bill. The Senate Committee also provided a $10 million increase for TRIO and a $5 million increase for GEAR UP.

The House markup was abruptly adjourned, however, when ranking member Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) offered an amendment to strip the contents of the education funding bill and replace it with the funding bill for the Department of Interior. The Interior appropriations bill is a likely vehicle for efforts to increase oil production in the US. Chairman David Obey (D-WI) swiftly adjourned the markup, noting that such political stunts are why “Americans hate Washington.” The House subcommittee bill included a $169 increase in the Pell Grant maximum award, which would mean a $4,900 maximum grant including mandatory funding. The House subcommittee bill also provided a $29.8 million increase for TRIO and a $14.5 million increase for GEAR UP.

Unfortunately, funding levels for NACAC’s other priority programs are unavailable, but both committees have likely restored cuts to SEOG and LEAP that appeared in the President’s proposed budget, and have also likely provided small increases for ESSCP.

For more details on FY09 appropriations as they become available, check NACAC’s government relations web page for daily updates.

The University of Phoenix spent $278 million last year on advertising, most of it online — making Phoenix the top online advertiser in the United States. While Phoenix and a few of its competitors have mammoth student recruiting budgets — not to mention name recognition — most for-profit colleges don’t have either. At the annual meeting of the Career College Association, which started Wednesday in Las Vegas, one of the hot topics was just how to recruit students, and the discussion wasn’t about Phoenix (which isn’t a member) but about much smaller institutions, most of them not nationally known, institutions where school presidents and owners know their admissions reps and pay a lot of attention to who is bringing in students and who isn’t.

At a discussion of recruiting issues, the general tone was one of challenge. Many college leaders said that they feel more competition than ever for students — and that some of the new technologies they use to attract student are effective only when backed up by sometimes expensive staffing. When one speaker said that the “conversion rate” on prospective student leads was significantly lower than a decade ago, everyone in the packed room agreed. Top reasons cited were that there are more career colleges in local communities and more online offerings, competing everywhere.

The discussion of ideas for how to respond ranged from the latest in technology and off-shore call centers to decidedly low-tech issues — such as the physical appearance of admissions reps.

The discussion was led by two long-time players in for-profit recruitment and admissions and audience members jumped in — generally confirming what the session leaders were saying. Here are some of the top trends discussed:

Pickier prospects: Joan Ellison, who leads the online division of the Pinnacle Career Institute and was one of the session leaders, said that a decade ago, students enrolling at career colleges were from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and that today they are more likely to have the confidence and experience that comes with work experience. “We have more career changers and people who want to advance,” she said. That translates into much more detailed demands for information.

Audience members said that the old model for the sector was to assume that prospective students enrolled (or didn’t) based on an initial conversation. Now more conversations are needed, and potential students have already been online and learned about a range of options. One audience member said that “before we presented and they enrolled. Now they want to know everything.”

Changing priorities: Michael Platt, CEO of Ad Venture Interactive, a company that works with many career colleges on recruiting and enrolling students, said that there have been significant shifts in the answers he sees on surveys of enrolled students on why they picked a particular career college — and these point to how colleges should shape their programs. Ten years ago, he said, the top answers were the availability of financial aid and job placement records. While those things still matter, he said, career colleges without them aren’t being considered by students, so these aren’t decisive factors as they once were.

Starting about five years ago, he said he noticed that a top factor was increasingly personal attention for students. People are saying “pay attention to me — I don’t want to be in an auditorium with 300 students.” That remains high on student lists, he said, but has more recently been joined by a value placed on accelerated programs, especially compared to offerings elsewhere. “They want to get through there fast,” Platt said.

Comparisons to nonprofit colleges: Student interest in personal attention gives career colleges an opening, Platt said, because they compare favorably to many nonprofit colleges. Prospective students need to understand, he said, that at traditional colleges there will be many professors “spending as little time with students as possible” and letting the teaching assistant “do the work.” This information, he said, was very important to share with “our demographic.”

One career college official in the audience said that comparisons to nonprofits are important because more of the same students appear to be applying to both nonprofit and for-profit programs. Her college runs two-year and four-year programs, and she said that she has noticed a significant increase among 18- to 20-year-olds who are saying that they are enrolling because they couldn’t get into their desired nonprofit program. “A greater majority of our student body is saying that we were their third choice and that’s where they ended up,” she said.

The new admissions rep: Ellison said that changes in student demands have led to changes in who is hired as admissions representatives. “Your admissions reps need to be very savvy, know their competitors, because the prospective student has that information at their fingertips,” she said. While sales experience is still better than admissions experience, she said, career colleges are looking for different sales backgrounds than before.

Platt described the evolution this way. Ten years ago, career colleges just hired the best sales people — people “who could sell ice to Eskimos.” That evolved to more of “the psychologist” model, where admissions reps acted as counselors, telling prospective students “let me help you feel better about yourself,” but now that has stopped working, too. He said the current ideal admissions rep is “the influencer and the mentor.”

Given the difficulty military recruiters have in filling their quotas, Platt said that those who are successful would make ideal college admissions reps. He also cited research that says the reasons people don’t join health clubs are a combination of fear and laziness — and that a particular type of sales person is effective at reaching those people. That person is an ideal hire for a career college, he said. Audience members said that, for the same reason, those who sell weight loss programs are also effective at career colleges.

With the growth of online offerings, several in the audience said that they had gone to separate admissions teams for their campus-based and online programs. Several noted that they still believed longstanding conventional wisdom that on-campus representatives need to be gregarious and good looking. But several also said that they were having success hiring as online admissions reps people who are somewhat socially dysfunctional because, on the phone, “they can be who they want to be.”

The new technology: While there was a wide consensus that the Web has opened up new paths to recruit students, there was also frustration that the Internet alone doesn’t do the trick. Several new businesses are selling career colleges a service that provides instant notification to an admissions representative the minute someone expresses interest online in a program. Platt said that astute career colleges are staffing their admissions offices so that someone can respond to such inquiries instantly. There is no more opportune time to call a prospect, Platt said, than while they are still online having sent in an inquiry. He said he was shocked by career colleges that tolerate lags of several days in such responses.

One woman in the audience said that competition is so intense that even though her institution tries to call students within five minutes of notification, her institution is sometimes finding the prospects on the phone with another college that has responded first.

— Scott Jaschik

The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/06/26/cca.

By ANDREW TAYLOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush would win $162 billion in long-overdue funding to carry out military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year under a bipartisan agreement sealed on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

The agreement reached between House Democrats and Republicans and the White House — if passed into law as expected — would finally put to rest Bush’s long-standing battles with congressional Democrats over war funding.

House passage of the bill, expected Thursday, would also pave the way for a quick infusion of emergency flood relief for the Midwest, a 13-week extension of unemployment payments for the longtime jobless and a big boost in GI Bill college for veterans.

The latest installment of war funding would bring to well over $600 billion the amount of money provided by Congress to conduct the unpopular war in Iraq. It would also give Bush’s successor several months to set Iraq policy after taking office in January — and spares lawmakers the need to cast another war-related vote closer to Election Day.

House Democratic and Republican leaders announced the agreement Wednesday afternoon. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., withheld an outright endorsement but through a spokesman praised several key elements of the deal.

“This is an agreement that has been worked out in a bipartisan way that I think is acceptable to both most Democrats and most Republicans,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

White House Budget Director Jim Nussle signaled Bush would sign the measure.

“It meets the needs of the troops; it doesn’t tie the hands of commanders in the field,” Nussle said. He also said the spending levels in the bill stayed within Bush’s demands. The latter claim was a stretch since the measure will carry new GI Bill benefits, as well as additional unemployment payments that Bush had threatened to veto.

But the agreement drops restrictions on Bush’s ability to conduct the war and gives him almost all of the funding he sought well over a year ago for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House — and Capitol Hill Republicans — had signaled greater flexibility in recent weeks after Democrats orchestrated impressive votes to more than double GI Bill college benefits and give a 13-week extension of unemployment payments for people whose benefits have run out.

In late-stage talks, Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples. They also dropped a plan to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in states with particularly high unemployment rates.

Democrats and governors across the country emerged the victors in a battle with the White House to block new Bush administration rules designed to cut spending on Medicaid health care for the poor and disabled.

The war funding bill had bedeviled Democratic leaders for months. Its passage has become more urgent with looming furloughs next month of civilian employees and contract workers.

Conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats are upset that the new GI Bill benefits, with costs tentatively estimated at $62 billion over the next decade, will be added to the deficit instead of being “paid for” as called for under House rules.

“We know the day of reckoning is coming,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., who called the measure “totally irresponsible.”

The new GI Bill essentially would guarantee a full scholarship at any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for people who serve in the military for at least three years. It is aimed at replicating the benefits awarded veterans of World War II and more than doubles the value of the benefit — from $40,000 today to $90,000.

Full details of the nuts and bolts of the measure won’t be released until Thursday.

But Nussle said the measure would provide $2.6 billion in additional disaster aid to replenish accounts already being tapped to deal with the terrible flooding across the Midwest.

It also contains $5.8 billion sought by Bush for next year to build levees and other flood control projects around New Orleans.

The bill is slated to be considered under an unusual procedure in which funding for the war would be voted on separately from the GI Bill, unemployment insurance extension and other domestic measures, such as additional funding for the glitch-plagued 2010 census.

The procedural setup allows anti-war Democrats to avoid votes to fund the war while still ensuring the money advances to Bush on his terms. In a vote last month, House Democrats tried to force Bush to begin troops withdrawals within 30 days with a goal of full withdrawal of combat troops within 18 months. The Senate easily killed the idea.

Use this Memorial Day recess to contact your members of Congress in support of improved education benefits for veterans. Urge lawmakers to approve the provisions of S 22, the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, and S 2871, The Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) Enhancement Act. These bills increase education benefits for active duty, Reserve, and National Guard members; aligns benefits more closely with actual time served, and increases portability of benefits.  Use NACAC’s Legislative Action Center to contact lawmakers and urge them to support these important bills. 

As members of Congress debated a proposal last winter that would have extended the time period the federal government uses to measure institutions’ student loan default rates, the discussion raised anew concerns that some colleges, particularly in the for-profit sector, take questionable steps to keep students out of default calculations. Some institutions, critics suggest, may encourage borrowers to seek deferments or forbearance for lenders, postponing when they might go into default without necessarily improving their actual situation.

Career college officials and lenders often play down such accusations. But an audit released this week by the Education Department’s Office of Inspector General offers an unusually glaring revelation of one such practice. The investigation by the inspector general found that Technical Career Institute, a commercial institution in New York City that faced the loss of access to federal funds because of persistently high default rates, “improperly” paid more than $440,000 to lenders to keep its students out of default.

The inspector general urges department officials to consider punishing the institute with the ultimate sanction: limiting, suspending or terminating its participation in federal student aid programs.

As laid out by the inspector general in its audit report, the career institute, which is owned by EVCI Career Colleges, received more than $20 million of federal financial aid for its students in 2005, including $10.5 million in Pell Grant aid and $8.9 million in guaranteed student loans. As part of a default prevention policy it put in place in October 2005, the college paid $440,487 to lenders in the Family Federal Education Loan Program to pay off loans for 301 students who withdrew in their first semester.

That may sound like a charitable act, but it wasn’t. According to the department, the company “then attempted to collect the loan amounts from its students by entering into repayment plans” beginning 150 days after the end of their last semester at TCI. Of five students randomly examined by the inspector general’s office, none had made payments to the company, and the college marked their accounts as delinquent and turned them over to collection agencies.

“We found the calculation of TCI’s FY 2005 official cohort default rate was incorrect, because the borrowers for whom TCI made loan payments to prevent defaults ... should have been considered to be in default for purposes of TCI’s cohort default rates calculation,” the inspector general wrote.

The audit report recommends that officials in the department’s Federal Student Aid office require the Technical Career Institute to stop making payments to lenders to prevent students from defaulting; rescind its referrals of borrowers to collection agencies, and direct the agencies to retract negative reports made to credit agencies. The inspector general also urged the student aid office to recalculate the institute’s cohort default rate for the 2005-7 fiscal years, and to consider “limiting, suspending or terminating TCI’s participation in [federal loan programs] based on TCI’s practice of making payments on its students’ FFEL Program loans.”

Officials at the institute’s New York City office said that only its president and chief executive officer, James Melville, was able to talk about the situation, but that he was unavailable to comment Tuesday. But the inspector general’s audit itself contains a full response from TCI, in which it challenged the inspector general’s findings and recommendations. The company said that its policies did not violate the Higher Education Act or federal rules, and that department officials had previously reviewed the institution’s policies without any findings of wrongdoing.

Still, according to the inspector general’s audit, TCI officials told the department that the institution would cease the practices in question.

— Doug Lederman

The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/21/default.

The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008

In recent months, turmoil in the U.S. credit markets has made it difficult for some lenders in the federally guaranteed student loan program to secure the capital needed to finance college loans, leading some lenders to scale back their lending activity. While no student or college has reported any problems accessing federal student aid to date, it is only prudent for the federal government to make sure that contingency plans are in place that would provide students and families with continued, uninterrupted access to federal loans, regardless of what’s happening in the credit markets. Signed into law on May 7, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 would provide new protections, in addition to those in current law, to ensure that families can continue to access the loans they need to pay for college.

H.R. 5715 would:

Reduce borrowers’ reliance on costlier private college loans and encourage responsible borrowing

* Under current law, dependent undergraduate students can borrow up to $3,500 in subsidized and unsubsidized federal loans during their first year of college; $4,500 during their second year; and $5,500 during their final two years of college. Over the course of their education, dependent undergraduate students can currently borrow up to $23,000 in total federal student loans (both subsidized and unsubsidized) and independent undergraduates can borrow up to $46,000 in total loans.
* H.R. 5715 would increase the annual loan limits on federal unsubsidized student loans by $2,000 for undergraduate students, and increase the aggregate loan limits (the total loan limit over the course of a student’s education) to $31,000 for dependent undergraduates and to $57,500 for independent undergraduates.

Give parent borrowers more time to begin paying off their federal PLUS college loans

* Under current law, parent borrowers must begin repayment of federal PLUS college loans 60 days after the disbursement of the loan.
* H.R. 5715 would give parents the option to defer repayment until up to six months after their children leave school, giving families more flexibility in hard economic times.

Help struggling families pay for college

* Under current law, parents with an adverse credit history are ineligible to receive a parent PLUS loan, except under extenuating circumstances.
* H.R. 5715 would temporarily classify as an extenuating circumstance delinquencies of up to 180 days on home mortgages and medical debt, thereby making it possible for parents feeling strained by the current housing market and rising medical costs to secure loans for their children.

Provide the U.S. Secretary of Education additional tools to safeguard access to student loans

* H.R. 5715 would clarify that existing law gives the U.S. Education Secretary the mandatory authority to advance federal funds to guaranty agencies operating as lenders of last resort in the event that they do not have sufficient capital to originate new loans. The bill would also allow guaranty agencies to carry out the functions of lender of last resort on a school-wide basis.
* H.R. 5715 would also give the Secretary the temporary authority to purchase loans from lenders in the federal guaranteed loan program, if there was a determination that lenders and other existing policy options were unable to meet the demand for loans. This would ensure that lenders continue to have access to capital to originate new loans. The Education Department would only be authorized to purchase loans in such a manner that would carry no cost for the federal government.

More: http://edlabor.house.gov/micro/loansact.shtml

DeVry Inc., which operates colleges nationwide, has agreed to turn over to the U.S. Education Department various documents related to compensation for student recruiters and others, Bloomberg reported.  DeVry announced that it is the subject of an inquiry based on allegations the department has received. While few details are available, the compensation for student recruitments has been controversial for many for-profit entities, in part because they are banned from offering incentive pay based on enrollments. DeVry said that while it doesn’t know details of the allegations, it believes that it has done nothing wrong.

More: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/20/qt

The plan is to publish a collection of counseling and admission related vignettes that range from hilarious to heartwarming.  We are asking for your 250-500 word stories about travel, the office, students, parents, and anything else that puts a smile on your face.  Vignettes need to be submitted to the Journal editor at journal@nacacnet.org with the subject line “Life is Funny Submission.”

Please note that all submissions are subject to blind review by the Editorial Board.  Call for submissions closes September 12, 2008.

Maureen Lawler
Chairperson, Editorial Board
College Counselor
Bishop Kelley High School

The House of Representatives approved the HEA reauthorization bill yesterday (HR 4137), by a vote of 354 to 58. The Senate approved their version unanimously in July. The next step for the HEA will be conference committee, where lawmakers from each chamber meet to reconcile the two versions of the bill.

Among the amendments that passed were two sponsored by Congressman Tom Petri (R-WI) that would explore market-based reform and extend audit provisions for the FFEL program , and another sponsored by Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) that would require the IRS and the Department of Education to collaborate to ease the completion of the FAFSA for the neediest families. Another amendment, sponsored by Congressman Danny Davis (D-IL), would have provided bankruptcy protection to students with high-risk private loans. The Davis amendment failed, but NACAC will continue to work with coalition partners to get provisions to protect students into the final version of the HEA.

The FY 2009 Education Budget
The President released his fiscal year 2009 budget request on Monday, February 4. The President’s budget is a non-binding recommendation to Congress, but reflects the administration’s funding priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. NACAC is opposed to the President’s budget for education, as it level-funds critical programs like GEAR UP, TRIO’s Upward Bound and Talent Search, and Work Study. The President’s budget eliminates LEAP, SEOG, and the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program (ESSCP), the only federal program that provides funds to public schools to hire school counselors. ESSCP was one of the only education programs to get a funding increase last year, making high schools eligible for grant funds for the first time.

The President’s budget also included a $69 increase in the maximum Pell award, and a new private school voucher program called “Pell Grants for Kids,” for which his budget provides $300 million.

Please contact NACAC staff at legislative@nacacnet.org with any questions, and visit NACAC’s government relations web page for the latest news.

With a major lawsuit challenging its admissions practices looming on the horizon, the Apollo Group — parent of the University of Phoenix — took a beating in another legal proceeding Wednesday.

A federal jury in Arizona ordered Apollo to pay an estimated $277.5 million to shareholders who sued the higher education company and two former executives in 2004 for securities fraud. The lawsuit alleged that company officials withheld a harshly critical U.S. Education Department report in February 2004 that accused Apollo of violating a federal prohibition against paying recruiters based on the number of students they enrolled. The company did not disclose the report in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings or in calls with analysts or reporters for months.

When the company finally released the preliminary report, in September when it announced a $9.8 million settlement with the Education Department, its stock took a dive. That month, a group of shareholders, led by the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, sued the company under federal securities fraud laws, seeking to recoup the money they said they had lost.

Throughout the litigation, and in testimony during the trial, company officials had maintained that they did not agree with the report’s findings and did not believe the law required them to disclose “unproven charges” contained in a preliminary report. They also argued that the report had not caused a material drop in Apollo’s stock, so that the plaintiffs could not have suffered significant damage.

But testifying as a hostile witness for the shareholders, the company’s former chief financial officer, Kenda Gonzales, acknowledged that Apollo had held the report back because it feared negative news coverage.

The jury ordered Gonzales and Todd W. Nelson, Apollo’s former chief executive officer, to share the pain of the verdict against the company. Apollo must pay 60 percent of the ultimate total amount of the damages (which will be determined after investors submit claims to prove they suffered financial loss), Nelson, who is now president of Education Management Corp., another higher education provider, must pay 30 percent, and Gonzales 10 percent.

In a statement, company officials they were “evaluating options for appeal.” “We disagree with the jury’s verdict, both the finding and the amount of damages,” said Wayne W. Smith, whose firm, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, represented Apollo. “In not disclosing the report at issue, Apollo acted in good faith and in the best interests of its students, alumni, employees and shareholders, who could have been unfairly harmed by a premature disclosure.”

Eye-popping as the dollar amount of the verdict is, Apollo could face a much bigger tab in the federal False Claims Act lawsuit that it faces stemming from the charges regarding its recruiting practices, which were at the core of the securities fraud suit. A federal appeals court has ordered a trial court to hear the allegations made by two former admissions officials — which prompted the Education Department inquiry that produced the abovementioned report — and a loss in that case could cost the company billions of dollars.

While the verdict in the securities case did not offer any clearcut assessment of the validity of the underlying accusations that Apollo violated the federal guidelines on recruiting students, the jury did hear testimony about the company’s admissions practices. One higher education analyst, Trace A. Urdan of Signal Hill Capital, said Wednesday’s verdict could bode badly for Apollo in the False Claims case, by one reading. “Apollo was arguing that the report and the [government’s] charges against it were bogus, but if the jury thought the practices really weren’t questionable, they might have been much more sympathetic to the company’s argument” that it didn’t need to release the report, Urdan said.

— Doug Lederman

The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/17/apollo.

© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed

The College Board is pleased to announce that it has received a $680,000 grant to train new public school counselors in participating districts in California.

The new training program will begin by offering a series of three research-based, field-tested workshops:

• College Advising Basics,
• Preparing All Students for a Full-Range of Postsecondary Options, and
• Building a College-Going Culture in Schools.

Other efforts will include a workshop for district directors of counseling, a week-long Summer Institute for counselors, and developing a graduate-level course in college and postsecondary counseling to pilot in U.S. schools of education.

This grant, supported by the James Irvine Foundation, hopes to fill the growing need for college counselors in California and promote the development of a college-going culture at public schools with diverse student populations.

We hope you will share the news of this exciting new initiative supporting the important work of California counselors with your members. Additional information is on our website: http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/190370.html.

Megan Dearing
Communications Associate, Communications & Marketing
The College Board
45 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
212-713-8180 (phone)
212-713-8184 (fax)
mdearing@collegeboard.org

The Diversity, Equity and Access (DEA) Committee is currently searching for dynamic individuals to present at this years Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Access (IDEA) Workshop at the Flamingo Hotel and Resort in Las Vegas, Nevada on May 28, 2008.  More Information and session proposal forms.

This year we have made significant changes to the criteria in hopes of inspiring proposals that will provide more comprehensive and varied topics for the conference. Everyone is encouraged to submit a proposal.

For more information about the Call for Proposals, visit http://www.nacacnet.org.

Don’t delay as the call for proposals will close on December 15.

Need more information? Contact pd@nacac.com.

We are pleased to announce a new collaboration between NACAC and USA Today to provide students and families with resources for navigating the college admission process. USA Today has created a new Web site, in partnership with the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSEE), to provide students with an alternative means of evaluating colleges. NACAC has agreed to assist in the effort by providing admission expertise by way of our elected and appointed leaders, who will be online taking questions from USA Today readers about the college admission process.

Today’s paper features a lead story, “Beyond the College Rankings,” which examines the National Survey of Student Engagement’s (NSSE’s) effort to “gauge the quality of an undergraduate education by looking at how actively involved students are with their studies, professors and the campus community.” USA Today plans to publish stories throughout the fall and spring, and NACAC will be called upon to provide similar online support efforts around each article.

Please take a moment to visit www.usatoday.com. We hope you find this resource useful and can benefit from the attention provided to the association and its members through this public resource.

---

NACAC has updated the Catastrophic Events Related Information page on their Web site with a link to the LA Times that lists school closings in that area/surrounding areas.

http://www.nacacnet.org/MemberPortal/News/CatastrophicEvents.htm

In case of a crisis, these pages will:

* Provide current information and resources regarding the college transition process for member institutions as well as students and families

* Create an online bulletin board that could be used by members and affiliates to post problems being experienced in different parts of the country that might affect students’ and counselors’ abilities to meet deadlines

* Post changes to any NACAC policies affected by a crisis

* Provide an online resource center for affected counselors to list their contact information during an emergency

* Identify centralized resources that could provide information about how institutions are handling displaced students from both the secondary and post-secondary sides.

In addition:

* NACAC will alert members of changing policies and other crisis related information through e-broadcasts or other online communications, such as the NACAC online Bulletin and Elist
* The ad hoc committee developed Emergency Planning Considerations for Schools

---

(Alexandria, VA) – Six Californians were recognized by the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) for their leadership in supporting student academic success and school counseling in California public schools. The individuals, listed below, played key roles in securing the passage of California Assembly Bill 1802, which provided $200 million to hire school counselors and alleviate the highest student-to-counselor ratio in the nation.

“The efforts of these Californians cannot be overstated,” stated Jon Westover, chair of NACAC’s Government Relations Committee, the committee responsible for the group’s nomination. “AB 1802 sends a clear signal in support of school counseling as a key component of student success in California. As such, the federal government should take notice that a single state has provided a greater infusion of support for school counseling in one year than Congress has for the entire nation.”

The list of awardees includes:

Kavin Buck, Western Association College Admission Counseling President-Elect, Director of Enrollment Management and Outreach, UCLA School of Arts and Architecture

Elsa Clark, WACAC President, Director of College Counseling at Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles

Esther Hugo, NACAC Board member, Outreach Coordinator, Santa Monica College

Esther Lopez, WACAC/NACAC Government Relations Committee member, Head College Counselor, Justin-Siena High School in Napa

Rafael Magallan, Director of State Services, The College Board, Sacramento, CA

Marc Meredith, WACAC Past President, Dean of Admission, Otis College of Art and Design in Los Angeles

Katy Murphy, WACAC Past President and College Counselor at Bellarmine College Preparatory, San Jose, CA

Loretta Whitson, Executive Director, California Association of School Counselors (CASC)

NACAC Press Release