January 28, 2014
By Steve Gunderson
Over the next six years, there will be 55 million new job openings in the U.S. Nearly 32 million of these new hires will replace retiring Baby Boomers, while another 23 million will take new jobs. And by 2020, 65 percent of jobs will require postsecondary education.
To help students gain the skills that employers demand, America needs a robust postsecondary-education system, one that gives students the option of pursuing job training instead of a traditional liberal education. Yet President Obama, his White House, and the U.S. Department of Education seem focused on a campaign against career colleges -- private-sector colleges and universities, as well as certificate programs at nonprofit and public colleges.
This is the motivation behind the department's proposed "gainful employment" regulation. In essence, it would strip federal funding from career-college programs if they don't pass two metrics. The first would require graduates' debt to be less than 8 percent of their total income or 20 percent of their discretionary income three years after graduation. The second metric requires that a program's "cohort default rate" be below 30 percent.
Schools serving students who are underserved and overlooked by traditional higher education are very likely to fail these metrics. By the department's own estimation (based on a single year of data), 20 percent of programs won't measure up. Many programs across other sectors of higher education would fail the metrics, too -- a bachelor's degree in education from the University of Michigan, a law degree from George Washington University Law School, a bachelor's degree in social work from Virginia Commonwealth University -- if the metrics were applied to them.
Thanks to what can only be described as academic redlining by the department, by the end of the decade, millions of students -- working adults, minorities, service members returning from active duty, and people who were laid off from work -- would be denied access to the postsecondary education of their choice. About 80 percent of students attending career colleges use federal financial aid, and they turn to education to better their lives and their future -- not just their income the first three years out of school. In fact, many students, whether coming out of career colleges or public universities, exchange life experiences for income. Take the students leaving work temporarily to raise a family, join the Peace Corps, or enroll in Teach for America. Surely, these students are not pursuing these endeavors to earn the most money they can.
Similarly, a student entering the health-care field might take an opportunity in a small town that could pay less than a similar job in a big city. Three years later, that student could still be there by his own choice. But that student's earnings potential is still substantially higher than it would have been without the degree: He will always have the option of pursuing higher salaries in other areas of the country.
With the gainful-employment regulation, the Obama Administration seeks to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex issue: postsecondary education. There are legitimate conversations to be had, and legitimate solutions that would help make college more affordable and students more successful. But these conversations must include all sectors of higher education and acknowledge the variety of students' lifestyles and pursuits.
Steve Gunderson is president and CEO of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities.
Serving Florida's 1,000 Private, Licensed Career Schools and Colleges providing job skills training and education to over 200,000 students
The Official Blog of the Florida Association of Postsecondary Schools and Colleges
Navy Times: Proposed MOU would require TA schools to be eligible for civilian financial aid program
January 16, 2014
By George Altman
Staff writer
Staff writer
The Pentagon is pushing a quality-control proposal that would shut
out of the military tuition assistance program any colleges and
universities that are ineligible for civilian federal financial aid.
Most traditional public and private nonprofit schools would not be affected, but such a change would rock some distance, technical and for-profit institutions that don’t take part in civilian federal aid programs commonly called Title IV, including Pell Grants and subsidized federal loans.
The proposal is garnering mixed reviews.
A coalition of 11 veterans and military advocacy groups — including Student Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and the Association of the U.S. Navy — not only praised the idea but said it should also apply to the MyCAA education program for military spouses.
But the Distance Education and Training Council, which oversees many nontraditional schools, said the change would make 88 of the 102 distance education schools that it accredits ineligible for TA.
“Restricting eligibility for the TA program to only students who enroll in Title IV participating institutions would unfairly restrict the options service members have to enroll in quality distance education programs,” the group’s executive director, Leah Matthews, wrote in public comments on the proposal.
The restriction was included in expansive rules proposed by the Defense Department in the third incarnation of its memorandum of understanding, or MOU, for schools participating in TA. The rules were put out for public comment, and a final version is expected to be released in the spring, DoD spokeswoman Joy Crabaugh said.
When that happens, schools will have to sign on in order to remain eligible for TA.
“Quality assurance includes not only the delivery of quality programs by institutions of higher learning, but also the meeting of minimum requirements in the areas of financial/fiscal responsibility and administrative capability that demonstrate program integrity and the continued support for quality,” Crabaugh said in a written statement.
DoD released its first MOU nearly three years ago, in the midst of a long-running debate over the proliferation and quality of for-profit schools in the military education arena. That initially would have required schools — in order to remain eligible for TA — to sign on to rules established by the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges group related to transferring credits from other schools, accepting academic credit for military training and other issues.
The backlash came not so much from for-profits as from some traditional four-year schools that said the rules would threaten their academic independence and integrity, forcing them to pull out of TA.
In response, DoD released a second MOU that merely required schools to disclose what their standards were with regard to the policies in the first MOU.
Schools had the option to sign either the first or second versions in order to maintain eligibility for TA. Representatives of some institutions that signed the first were critical of DoD’s about-face, saying the revised MOU lacked teeth.
The third MOU is to be based on the principles of excellence for military education, outlined in an April 2012 executive order from the White House. The proposal includes requirements for schools, military branches and DoD itself.
It requires that schools not use “unfair, deceptive and abusive recruiting practices,” provide academic and student support to troops and their families, and give “meaningful information to students about the financial cost.”
Meanwhile, DoD and the military would have to:
■ Undergo an annual review process, and provide notification, prior to changing TA cost and credit-hour limits.
■ Put a complaint system in place for troops to report problems with institutions.
■ Add restrictions to what school representatives and information would be allowed on bases.
■ Provide joint services transcripts to service members.
“I didn’t think anything in there was a show stopper,” he said in a telephone interview.
Like UMUC, American Military University, the nation’s top TA school, is eligible for Title IV civilian financial aid and would not be affected by that part of the MOU.
In fact, in an environment where schools are competing for a limited number of students, rules that effectively “thin out the field” of eligible institutions work to AMU’s advantage, Jim Sweizer, the school’s vice president for military programs, told Military Times.
But Sweizer said he is still against the restriction. “We’ve always been an advocate and a proponent of opportunity for service members,” he said. “If the school is nationally or regionally accredited ... it shouldn’t matter whether they participate in the Title IV program.”
Martinsburg College, a for-profit distance learning school in West Virginia, which specializes in technical certificate and certification programs, is one example of a non-Title IV school that would have to either become eligible for the civilian aid or lose TA eligibility.
Paul Viboch, the school’s president, said attaching such a requirement to TA is “bureaucratic idiocy.”
The relatively low cost and short completion time of his school’s programs make such aid unnecessary, he said. And many of the rules associated with Title IV are already in place or proposed elsewhere in the new MOU.
“This has nothing to do with the quality of education,” Viboch told Military Times. “It’s the literal paperwork, forms and things you have to keep and comply to in order to be a participating institution that are very, very significant.”
Judith Eaton, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, wrote in a public comment on the proposal that it would offer no additional protection for students and could harm them by restricting the availability of low-cost education programs.
The Commercial Vehicle Training Association went further, asking DoD to let schools that have no accreditation participate in TA.
Meanwhile, one anonymous public comment on the proposal landed at the opposite end of the spectrum, reading simply: “Do not allow for-profit universities on military installations.”
The groups also praised the proposal for seeking to establish a complaint system, but they called for stricter limits on marketing and recruiting.
“Deceptive marketing continues today — in call centers and on websites and printed materials by some predatory schools,” they said.
But for-profit schools, including AMU, and that industry’s trade group, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, said the proposed rules go too far.
Their public comments argued that restrictions on marketing would prevent troops from getting important information on degree plans, base access limitations could keep employees from improving a school’s educational offerings and the complaint system could be unfair to schools.
“Institutions should have, and the MOU should outline, the due process available to institutions in the complaint process to protect them from unfounded allegations,” wrote Steve Gunderson, the trade group’s president.
The American Council on Education, one of the country’s largest higher education groups, suggested several changes to the MOU in its public comments, including altering a proposal that would allow TA to cover school tuition but not fees. What are classified as “fees” at one institution are included in tuition costs at another. This could result in radically different out-of-pocket costs for troops.
“A service member should not decide which institution to attend or courses to take based on how an institution chooses to categorize costs,” the group said.
Most traditional public and private nonprofit schools would not be affected, but such a change would rock some distance, technical and for-profit institutions that don’t take part in civilian federal aid programs commonly called Title IV, including Pell Grants and subsidized federal loans.
The proposal is garnering mixed reviews.
A coalition of 11 veterans and military advocacy groups — including Student Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and the Association of the U.S. Navy — not only praised the idea but said it should also apply to the MyCAA education program for military spouses.
But the Distance Education and Training Council, which oversees many nontraditional schools, said the change would make 88 of the 102 distance education schools that it accredits ineligible for TA.
“Restricting eligibility for the TA program to only students who enroll in Title IV participating institutions would unfairly restrict the options service members have to enroll in quality distance education programs,” the group’s executive director, Leah Matthews, wrote in public comments on the proposal.
The restriction was included in expansive rules proposed by the Defense Department in the third incarnation of its memorandum of understanding, or MOU, for schools participating in TA. The rules were put out for public comment, and a final version is expected to be released in the spring, DoD spokeswoman Joy Crabaugh said.
When that happens, schools will have to sign on in order to remain eligible for TA.
Seeking 'quality assurance'
Crabaugh said the federal financial aid restriction was included for “quality assurance” and because a White House executive order indicated schools must offer the aid and make sure students know about its availability. Schools will have 18 months from the MOU’s final release to complete the application and approval process for Title IV, she added.“Quality assurance includes not only the delivery of quality programs by institutions of higher learning, but also the meeting of minimum requirements in the areas of financial/fiscal responsibility and administrative capability that demonstrate program integrity and the continued support for quality,” Crabaugh said in a written statement.
DoD released its first MOU nearly three years ago, in the midst of a long-running debate over the proliferation and quality of for-profit schools in the military education arena. That initially would have required schools — in order to remain eligible for TA — to sign on to rules established by the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges group related to transferring credits from other schools, accepting academic credit for military training and other issues.
The backlash came not so much from for-profits as from some traditional four-year schools that said the rules would threaten their academic independence and integrity, forcing them to pull out of TA.
In response, DoD released a second MOU that merely required schools to disclose what their standards were with regard to the policies in the first MOU.
Schools had the option to sign either the first or second versions in order to maintain eligibility for TA. Representatives of some institutions that signed the first were critical of DoD’s about-face, saying the revised MOU lacked teeth.
The third MOU is to be based on the principles of excellence for military education, outlined in an April 2012 executive order from the White House. The proposal includes requirements for schools, military branches and DoD itself.
It requires that schools not use “unfair, deceptive and abusive recruiting practices,” provide academic and student support to troops and their families, and give “meaningful information to students about the financial cost.”
Meanwhile, DoD and the military would have to:
■ Undergo an annual review process, and provide notification, prior to changing TA cost and credit-hour limits.
■ Put a complaint system in place for troops to report problems with institutions.
■ Add restrictions to what school representatives and information would be allowed on bases.
■ Provide joint services transcripts to service members.
No 'show stoppers'
James Cronin, vice president for military partnerships at University of Maryland University College, the second-most-popular TA school across the military in fiscal 2012, said there were aspects of the MOU that he thought needed to be described in greater detail, and he sent questions to DoD. But he voiced no strong objections to the proposal.“I didn’t think anything in there was a show stopper,” he said in a telephone interview.
Like UMUC, American Military University, the nation’s top TA school, is eligible for Title IV civilian financial aid and would not be affected by that part of the MOU.
In fact, in an environment where schools are competing for a limited number of students, rules that effectively “thin out the field” of eligible institutions work to AMU’s advantage, Jim Sweizer, the school’s vice president for military programs, told Military Times.
But Sweizer said he is still against the restriction. “We’ve always been an advocate and a proponent of opportunity for service members,” he said. “If the school is nationally or regionally accredited ... it shouldn’t matter whether they participate in the Title IV program.”
'Bureaucratic idiocy'
A school must adhere to a host of regulations, as well as report detailed information about its operations to the Education Department, to become Title IV eligible.Martinsburg College, a for-profit distance learning school in West Virginia, which specializes in technical certificate and certification programs, is one example of a non-Title IV school that would have to either become eligible for the civilian aid or lose TA eligibility.
Paul Viboch, the school’s president, said attaching such a requirement to TA is “bureaucratic idiocy.”
The relatively low cost and short completion time of his school’s programs make such aid unnecessary, he said. And many of the rules associated with Title IV are already in place or proposed elsewhere in the new MOU.
“This has nothing to do with the quality of education,” Viboch told Military Times. “It’s the literal paperwork, forms and things you have to keep and comply to in order to be a participating institution that are very, very significant.”
Judith Eaton, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, wrote in a public comment on the proposal that it would offer no additional protection for students and could harm them by restricting the availability of low-cost education programs.
The Commercial Vehicle Training Association went further, asking DoD to let schools that have no accreditation participate in TA.
Meanwhile, one anonymous public comment on the proposal landed at the opposite end of the spectrum, reading simply: “Do not allow for-profit universities on military installations.”
More regulation or less?
In their joint public comment, the 11 veteran and military groups said they “applaud” the Title IV limitation, adding that TA and MyCAA dollars should not go “to programs that the Education Department refuses to recognize.”The groups also praised the proposal for seeking to establish a complaint system, but they called for stricter limits on marketing and recruiting.
“Deceptive marketing continues today — in call centers and on websites and printed materials by some predatory schools,” they said.
But for-profit schools, including AMU, and that industry’s trade group, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, said the proposed rules go too far.
Their public comments argued that restrictions on marketing would prevent troops from getting important information on degree plans, base access limitations could keep employees from improving a school’s educational offerings and the complaint system could be unfair to schools.
“Institutions should have, and the MOU should outline, the due process available to institutions in the complaint process to protect them from unfounded allegations,” wrote Steve Gunderson, the trade group’s president.
The American Council on Education, one of the country’s largest higher education groups, suggested several changes to the MOU in its public comments, including altering a proposal that would allow TA to cover school tuition but not fees. What are classified as “fees” at one institution are included in tuition costs at another. This could result in radically different out-of-pocket costs for troops.
“A service member should not decide which institution to attend or courses to take based on how an institution chooses to categorize costs,” the group said.
Inside Higher Education: The White House Summit
January 15, 2014
WASHINGTON
-- President Obama will convene a meeting with more than 100 college
and university presidents Thursday -- a chance for his administration to
pivot away from its stalled legislative agenda to executive actions and
also a rare opportunity for White House-level attention for a large
group of academic leaders.
“I’ve got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life -- nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities -- to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme: making sure that this is a country where if you work hard, you can make it,” Obama said in remarks at the White House on Tuesday.
Not only is such a large gathering of college leaders by the U.S. president unusual, but it also comes as the administration’s push on accountability in higher education has rankled many of very same leaders with whom Obama will share space with at the summit on Thursday. Private college presidents have been among the most vocal critics of the administration’s proposed, but still largely undefined, college ratings system.
Administration officials have said in planning meetings with college presidents that Thursday’s event, however, is unrelated to the work the Education Department is doing to develop metrics for its ratings system.
The summit Thursday will focus instead on improving college access for low-income students -- a cause that aligns with the focus of the First Lady Michelle Obama’s new outreach to underprivileged students to encourage them to apply for and attend college. Both President Obama and the First Lady will address college leaders in the daylong summit, according to an email sent to invitees.
One of the topics that administration officials have focused on in planning meetings with college presidents -- and have discussed publicly -- is the issue of undermatching: a phenomenon education researchers have said occurs when high-achieving low-income students fail to apply to or enroll in the college to which they are best-suited.
The administration has specifically been interested, officials have said, in the academic scholarship on the undermatching issue completed by Caroline Hoxby, Sarah Turner and Christopher Avery. For instance, Hoxby, a Stanford University economics professor, and Avery, a Harvard Unniversity public policy professor, have found that many highly talented low-income students never apply to top colleges. Turner, a University of Virginia economics professor, and Hoxby have also found that sending high-achieving poor students information about their college options earlier in the admissions process can help reduce the under-matching problem.
The presidents attending the summit have agreed to make voluntary pledges to do more to help low-income students enroll in and complete college. The White House is expected to highlight those initiatives Thursday, but in planning documents the administration had been eyeing “dramatic achievements” by colleges -- such as double-digit increases in remedial course pass rates.
Another suggestion the White House has floated in the past is for colleges to pledge to substantially increase the proportion of enrolled students who are eligible to receive Pell Grants, a key indicator of socioeconomic diversity.
Many college presidents involved in the event and other advocates for low-income students praised the White House for using its bully pulpit to address an issue they feel has not drawn enough attention.
“We think that it’s great that the White House is focusing on this issue,” said Emily Froimson, vice president of programs at the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. “There’s an assumption that high-achieving low-income students are fine on their own and don’t need extra support, and that’s just not the case.”
Froimson said that some view the undermatching problem for the highest-achieving low-income students as an elite issue because it involves the nation’s most selective institutions.
However, the involvement of elite colleges and universities in the problem can also benefit the conversation about college access, she said.
“Because elite institutions are involved, the issue attracts more attention,” she said. “They’re leaders in higher ed. They have the brand name.”
While most college presidents interviewed praised the administration’s efforts and said they appreciated the White House-level attention on their institutions’ missions, not all college leaders said they were on board.
Some college presidents, none of whom agreed to speak on the record, declined the administration’s invitation to attend the summit, arguing that they were already pursuing many efforts to boost low-income enrollment and couldn't make additional commitments.
One liberal arts college said his institution is “already doing a lot in terms of low-income access” and criticized the event as “superficial” and "window-dressing.”
He said his institution was “probably at the limit of what it could offer” in terms of aid to low-income students.
“This is something we all agree on, but without addressing the cost, this can’t be serious,” he said, adding that he did not want to gather with other college presidents to “sing kumbaya" without addressing the cost implications of filling more of his student body with low-income students since the associated “cost implications are substantial.”
Catherine Hill, the president of Vassar College and a scholar of the economics of higher education, had a different perspective, praising the summit -- which she will be attending Thursday -- as important.
Hill said that focusing only on expanding the applicant pool of qualified low-income students at selective colleges like Vassar would not be productive in solving college access issues.
“You’re always making these tradeoffs between finding revenue and providing access,” she said. “It’s not just a question of getting talented kids into the applicant pools of these schools, because many of these schools still are not need blind or meeting full need.”
But she said the White House attention to the issue is a good thing.
“The administration can encourage us to do things,” she said. “Our sector has the resources and ability to have a serious conversation about this.”
Expected at the daylong event at the Executive Office Building on the White House campus Thursday are the leaders of a range of institutions, including small liberal arts colleges to major research universities. For-profit college leaders appear to have been excluded from the event. The trade group representing the sector, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, issued a statement Tuesday saying it was "unfortunate" that the Obama administration had not extended an invitation to its members.
The following is a partial list of the institutions and organizations whose leaders have said in interviews or public statements that they will be attending: Achieving the Dream; American Association of Community Colleges; American Council on Education; California Community College System; California State University; Chegg; Claremont McKenna College; College Board; Complete College America; Drake University; Hamilton College; Harvey Mudd College; Morehouse College; National Association for College Admission Counseling; Nebraska Wesleyan University; North Carolina State University; Northeastern University; Northwestern University; Pitzer College; Pomona College; Scripps College; Smith College; State University System of New York, Stony Brook; SUNY System; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; University of Virginia; University System of Maryland; Vassar College.
“I’ve got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life -- nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities -- to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme: making sure that this is a country where if you work hard, you can make it,” Obama said in remarks at the White House on Tuesday.
Not only is such a large gathering of college leaders by the U.S. president unusual, but it also comes as the administration’s push on accountability in higher education has rankled many of very same leaders with whom Obama will share space with at the summit on Thursday. Private college presidents have been among the most vocal critics of the administration’s proposed, but still largely undefined, college ratings system.
Administration officials have said in planning meetings with college presidents that Thursday’s event, however, is unrelated to the work the Education Department is doing to develop metrics for its ratings system.
The summit Thursday will focus instead on improving college access for low-income students -- a cause that aligns with the focus of the First Lady Michelle Obama’s new outreach to underprivileged students to encourage them to apply for and attend college. Both President Obama and the First Lady will address college leaders in the daylong summit, according to an email sent to invitees.
One of the topics that administration officials have focused on in planning meetings with college presidents -- and have discussed publicly -- is the issue of undermatching: a phenomenon education researchers have said occurs when high-achieving low-income students fail to apply to or enroll in the college to which they are best-suited.
The administration has specifically been interested, officials have said, in the academic scholarship on the undermatching issue completed by Caroline Hoxby, Sarah Turner and Christopher Avery. For instance, Hoxby, a Stanford University economics professor, and Avery, a Harvard Unniversity public policy professor, have found that many highly talented low-income students never apply to top colleges. Turner, a University of Virginia economics professor, and Hoxby have also found that sending high-achieving poor students information about their college options earlier in the admissions process can help reduce the under-matching problem.
The presidents attending the summit have agreed to make voluntary pledges to do more to help low-income students enroll in and complete college. The White House is expected to highlight those initiatives Thursday, but in planning documents the administration had been eyeing “dramatic achievements” by colleges -- such as double-digit increases in remedial course pass rates.
Another suggestion the White House has floated in the past is for colleges to pledge to substantially increase the proportion of enrolled students who are eligible to receive Pell Grants, a key indicator of socioeconomic diversity.
Many college presidents involved in the event and other advocates for low-income students praised the White House for using its bully pulpit to address an issue they feel has not drawn enough attention.
“We think that it’s great that the White House is focusing on this issue,” said Emily Froimson, vice president of programs at the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. “There’s an assumption that high-achieving low-income students are fine on their own and don’t need extra support, and that’s just not the case.”
Froimson said that some view the undermatching problem for the highest-achieving low-income students as an elite issue because it involves the nation’s most selective institutions.
However, the involvement of elite colleges and universities in the problem can also benefit the conversation about college access, she said.
“Because elite institutions are involved, the issue attracts more attention,” she said. “They’re leaders in higher ed. They have the brand name.”
Still, she said, “the problem cannot be solved by a handful of elite institutions.”
Political Stunt?While most college presidents interviewed praised the administration’s efforts and said they appreciated the White House-level attention on their institutions’ missions, not all college leaders said they were on board.
Some college presidents, none of whom agreed to speak on the record, declined the administration’s invitation to attend the summit, arguing that they were already pursuing many efforts to boost low-income enrollment and couldn't make additional commitments.
One liberal arts college said his institution is “already doing a lot in terms of low-income access” and criticized the event as “superficial” and "window-dressing.”
He said his institution was “probably at the limit of what it could offer” in terms of aid to low-income students.
“This is something we all agree on, but without addressing the cost, this can’t be serious,” he said, adding that he did not want to gather with other college presidents to “sing kumbaya" without addressing the cost implications of filling more of his student body with low-income students since the associated “cost implications are substantial.”
Catherine Hill, the president of Vassar College and a scholar of the economics of higher education, had a different perspective, praising the summit -- which she will be attending Thursday -- as important.
Hill said that focusing only on expanding the applicant pool of qualified low-income students at selective colleges like Vassar would not be productive in solving college access issues.
“You’re always making these tradeoffs between finding revenue and providing access,” she said. “It’s not just a question of getting talented kids into the applicant pools of these schools, because many of these schools still are not need blind or meeting full need.”
But she said the White House attention to the issue is a good thing.
“The administration can encourage us to do things,” she said. “Our sector has the resources and ability to have a serious conversation about this.”
Expected at the daylong event at the Executive Office Building on the White House campus Thursday are the leaders of a range of institutions, including small liberal arts colleges to major research universities. For-profit college leaders appear to have been excluded from the event. The trade group representing the sector, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, issued a statement Tuesday saying it was "unfortunate" that the Obama administration had not extended an invitation to its members.
The following is a partial list of the institutions and organizations whose leaders have said in interviews or public statements that they will be attending: Achieving the Dream; American Association of Community Colleges; American Council on Education; California Community College System; California State University; Chegg; Claremont McKenna College; College Board; Complete College America; Drake University; Hamilton College; Harvey Mudd College; Morehouse College; National Association for College Admission Counseling; Nebraska Wesleyan University; North Carolina State University; Northeastern University; Northwestern University; Pitzer College; Pomona College; Scripps College; Smith College; State University System of New York, Stony Brook; SUNY System; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; University of Virginia; University System of Maryland; Vassar College.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Gainful Employment Rule Will Limit Opportunities for Students
January 9, 2014
Written by: Mark D'Alessio
The Department of Education’s proposed Gainful Employment Rule
threatens to cut off federal financial aid for students who attend
private sector institutions and community colleges that offer vocational
programs. This will have a negative impact on those who need the most
assistance—low-income and minority students.
In his annual State of American Business address, U.S. Chamber president and CEO Tom Donohue cited over-regulation as a cause to the slow economic recovery and as an impediment to opportunity for all. Specifically, he addressed the proposed rule:
In his annual State of American Business address, U.S. Chamber president and CEO Tom Donohue cited over-regulation as a cause to the slow economic recovery and as an impediment to opportunity for all. Specifically, he addressed the proposed rule:
We are very concerned about the Department of Education’s proposed Gainful Employment Rule, which discriminates against private sector colleges and universities. This is wrong and unfair. These institutions can play a major role in helping our nation close a serious skills gap. We are going to do everything we can to change or stop the rule as it is currently written.One of the key tenets to Donohue’s speech was expanding opportunity for all and providing everyone a fair shot at the American dream:
We must help those who are struggling by ensuring that they have the education, skills, incentives, and opportunities to share in this prosperity.Limiting access to education and training by implementing misguided regulations like the Gainful Employment Rule won’t expand opportunity. It will only limit it.
APSCU Press Release: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Cites Gainful Employment Regulation as Example of Overregulation
Washington, D.C., January 8, 2013—Following U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue's annual State of American Business address, APSCU President and CEO Steve Gunderson released the following statement:
“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce today voiced its strong opposition to the Department of Education’s gainful employment regulation, which it said discriminates against private sector colleges and universities that play a major role in filling the nation’s skills gap. The rule would reduce access to higher education and training at a time when businesses are looking for skilled workers.
We applaud the Chamber for its commitment to defending the rights of students to prepare for the workforce. In the face of mounting concern and opposition to the regulation, it is unfortunate the Department continues to promote the regulation, while failing to fully analyze the impact on student access and opportunity.”
###
“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce today voiced its strong opposition to the Department of Education’s gainful employment regulation, which it said discriminates against private sector colleges and universities that play a major role in filling the nation’s skills gap. The rule would reduce access to higher education and training at a time when businesses are looking for skilled workers.
We applaud the Chamber for its commitment to defending the rights of students to prepare for the workforce. In the face of mounting concern and opposition to the regulation, it is unfortunate the Department continues to promote the regulation, while failing to fully analyze the impact on student access and opportunity.”
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)