Politico: What DeBlasio’s victory could mean for education - Public colleges directing aid away from poor - Some teachers left behind?

With help from Caitlin Emma, Nirvi Shah and Stephanie Simon

WHAT DEBLASIO’S VICTORY COULD MEAN FOR EDUCATION — Bill DeBlasio won the Democratic primary in the New York mayor's race, although he remained on the cusp of the 40 percent threshold necessary to avoid a runoff. DeBlasio has made universal pre-K a centerpiece of his campaign, pushing for a tax increase on the wealthy in order to pay for it. He’s also the foe of charter schools — he’s said several times that the city has enough charter schools and that they should have to pay rent to use public property. GothamSchools has more on DeBlasio’s views on education issues: http://bit.ly/1dDGOjQ
PUBLIC COLLEGES DIRECTING AID AWAY FROM POOR — From a ProPublica story co-published with the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Public colleges and universities were generally founded and funded to give students in their states access to an affordable college education. They have long served as a vital pathway for students from modest means and those who are the first in their families to attend college. But many public universities, faced with their own financial shortfalls, are increasingly leaving low-income students behind ...It’s not just that colleges are continuously pushing up sticker prices. Public universities have also been shifting their aid, giving less to the poorest students and more to the wealthiest." Read the story: http://bit.ly/17Y4SpG
YOUR TUESDAY ‘GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT’ UPDATE — The big idea to come out of Tuesday’s rulemaking session was an Education Department proposal to use loan default rates to judge vocational programs and for-profit colleges. The idea got an audible “Oooh!” from the audience when federal negotiator John Kolotos proposed it, saying that programs would be held to the same standards as colleges. A default rate of 40 percent or higher in one year, or 30 percent or higher for three consecutive years, would cause a program to lose eligibility. The department intended this as a supplement to its proposal on rewriting the “gainful employment” rule, not an alternative. Plenty of questions remain, including whether default rates are still a good metric because more students are making loan payments based on their income, and what would happen to community college vocational programs in which the majority of students don’t borrow.

Another flash point was the transition period before the new, as-yet-unwritten regulations take effect. Several higher education representatives argued that the Education Department shouldn’t use loan data from before the regulations take effect in enforcement. Negotiators also discussed the consequences for programs that fail — should students get a refund? That gets at an issue Barmak Nassirian, who represents public colleges, raised Monday: Judging programs based on debt and outcomes might help future students, but it doesn’t do anything for students who were enrolled before the program failed.

As in Monday’s session, there was little clear agreement on the issues. Negotiations continue this morning, beginning at 8:30 a.m. so that negotiators can pause for a Sept. 11 moment of silence at 8:46 a.m.

—Meanwhile, in Congress — The Education Department’s Inspector General warns that legislation overturning program integrity regulations, including the gainful employment rule, could harm students and taxpayers. Read the letter: http://1.usa.gov/17P3dGW

—More details on the action: The New America Foundation’s Ben Miller, a senior policy analyst, has been keeping a live blog of the proceedings that has helped your Morning Education host stay on track. Read about Tuesday morning: http://bit.ly/15TOXb7 And afternoon: http://bit.ly/15TP4mW

—And a correction: Tuesday’s Morning Education incorrectly stated an action of the Association of Private-Sector Colleges and Universities, the main lobbying group for for-profit schools, on the Education Department panel. The group, which was not represented, did not propose adding negotiators.

No comments:

Post a Comment