Archives for category: Student Financial Aid and Student Debt

Sara Goldrick-Rab and Jesse Stommel challenge the recent spate of books and articles complaining about college students.

They write:

For broader participation to lead to positive outcomes — for example, the completion of degrees without huge debt burdens — students must have good experiences in the classroom. This is especially important yet incredibly difficult as the new economics of college are compromising the time, energy, and money that students and many of their professors have to spend on quality learning.

These are the core challenges of college today — and yet they are too often ignored. Instead, symptoms of those problems dominate air time, as the stereotype persists of “academically adrift” “snowflakes” “coddled” by their universities. Consider the recent essay by Nancy Bunge, “Students Evaluating Teachers Doesn’t Just Hurt Teachers. It Hurts Students,” which takes on student evaluations. Bunge contends the “unearned arrogance encouraged by the heavy reliance on student evaluations helps produce passive, even contemptuous students who undermine the spirit of the class and lower its quality for everyone.”

Her enemy appears to be sites like the often-lamented Rate My Professors, but her piece also attacks the students themselves, and reinforces a set of assertions largely drawn from one influential yet extremely narrow study, Academically Adrift, by Richard Arum and Jospia Roksa. The limited learning lamented by the authors is said to be linked to insufficiently challenging instructors, and according to Bunge those instructors are not demanding more of their students because they want to get good grades. She cites a Chronicle survey in which faculty members claim that students are “harder to teach” these days. The overall narrative suggests we should feel sorry for the faculty. If only they could have more-engaged students to teach.

There is an alternative explanation. Today’s college students are the most overburdened and undersupported in American history. More than one in four have a child, almost three in four are employed, and more than half receive Pell Grants but are left far short of the funds required to pay for college. Rather than receiving help from their parents to pay for college, even the youngest college students often have to use their loans to pay their parents’ bills.

Whereas previous generations could turn to food stamps for help, today’s students have to first work long hours to qualify for the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Similarly, students years ago could quickly talk to an adviser for help, but now they may be sharing that adviser with more than 500 other students. “Kids these days” aren’t kids at all. But this fact is neglected by many researchers and by too many faculty members who think of their own experiences in college rather than their students’ when crafting teaching plans…

In other words, the work of higher education — as with all of education — has to begin with a deep respect for students. They are not mere data points, not just rows in an online grade book. Students are human first. And so are their teachers. The exploitation of adjuncts, erosions to tenure, and the overall dismal working conditions throughout much of higher education contributes to faculty frustration and anger — which is now spilling over to affect students.

College has become the place America loves to hate, and college professors and students are the unwitting victims. It doesn’t require much cynicism to recognize this as part of a political plan to destabilize or even reverse the democratization of higher education.

But we can do better. As educators, we need to lead the way and design our pedagogical approaches for the students we have, not the students we wish we had. This requires approaches that are responsive, inclusive, adaptive, challenging, and compassionate. And it requires that institutions find more creative ways to support teachers and prepare them for the work of teaching. This is not a theoretical exercise — it is a practical one.

Oh, I can’t wait until the House of Representatives begins to question Secretary DeVos about her reversal of civil rights protections, her reversal of federal protections for students with debt incurred at fraudulent for-profit colleges, and her continued efforts to destroy the federal role in protecting students, whether in K-12 or higher education. Instead of protecting those in need, she protects predators. She is a very grizzly Secretary of Education.

She appeared on FOX News today for 10 minutes and attacked public education and teachers’ unions.

Randi Weingarten responded:

For Immediate Release
November 27, 2018

Contact:
Andrew Crook
607-280-6603
acrook@aft.org
http://www.aft.org

AFT’s Weingarten Responds to Betsy DeVos’ Lies on Fox News

WASHNGTON—AFT President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos attacked teachers’ unions today on the Fox Business Network:

“Betsy DeVos is showing her true colors. We are fighting for the safe and welcoming public schools that kids deserve, healthcare protections so people aren’t one pre-existing condition away from bankruptcy, affordable college without life-burdening student debt, and decent wages. Since she is against all of that, Betsy is attacking the unions that create a voice for teachers to advocate on these issues. As secretary of education, it is her sworn duty to help kids and their communities reach their full potential. Comments like these do the opposite, and she knows it.”

Mike Klonsky reflects on our current gun-happy Secretary of Education, who wants to let schools buy guns with money intended for education, and her predecessor Arne Duncan, who bought high-powered guns to track down students who defaulted on their loans.

Who knew?

http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com/2018/08/devos-and-duncan-both-bought-into-gun.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+mikeklonsky+(SmallTalk)&m=1

Valerie Strauss wrote here about Betsy DeVos’s plan to remove consumer protections from students who were scammed.

“Why would anyone want to make it harder for defrauded students? Well, the Education Department says that college students are “adults who can be reasonably expected to make informed decisions and who must take personal accountability for the decisions they make.” Supporters of the proposed changes say it is too easy for students to apply for loan forgiveness and that too much public money will have to be used to repay bad loans.

“To be sure, college students are indeed adults who can be reasonably expected to make informed decisions. And adults should indeed take personal accountability for the decisions they made.

“But the proposed regulation says, among other things, that to qualify for loan forgiveness, students who claim they have been defrauded have to prove the college intended to defraud them and show that the college had exhibited a “reckless disregard” for the truth.

“That is not, for example, the standard for state lemon laws, which offer compensatory remedies to consumers who buy cars and other goods that prove to be defective. They don’t insist that the consumers prove that a car dealer or manufacturer intended to commit fraud by making and selling a flawed product.

“Let’s say DeVos, a billionaire from Michigan, decided to buy a new yacht and it turned out to have a bum engine that broke down repeatedly. Would she have to prove the seller intended to defraud her to seek replacement or some kind of compensation?

“Consumer products are not college education, for sure, but the Trump administration believes in operating schools as if they were businesses, so the comparison seems apt.”

Proposed Borrower Defense Rule Shortchanges Defrauded Students, Ends Accountability for For-Profit Colleges

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Department of Education released a draft proposal to overhaul the Obama Administration’s Borrower Defense to Repaymentrule. The revision would alter how students secure loan forgiveness when institutions fail to deliver promised requisite skills and knowledge. Under the new proposal, student borrowers would qualify for corrective action only when they could document institutional misrepresentations related to the program of study. Further, borrowers would be required to prove that institutional misrepresentations were made with knowledge, intent or a reckless disregard for the truth. The draft also further insulates bad institutional actors from accountability—making it harder for defrauded students to gain relief and taxpayers to recoup the losses caused by the abusive behavior.

If finalized, the rule will take effect July 2019.

In response, Ashley Harrington, a Policy Counsel with the Center for Responsible Lending Counsel released the following statement:

“This proposed draft reads more like a roadmap for institutions seeking to abuse students and avoid accountability and transparency rather than a plan to protect students and taxpayers. It ignores the pleas of more than 100,000 students, consumers, and taxpayers, as well as 31 state attorneys general who directly urged Secretary DeVos to stop shielding institutions and private companies.

“Under this rule, the Department goes further than any proposal discussed at negotiated rulemaking, proposing that relief be limited to borrowers in default in addition to very limited access to relief. A better solution to this growing financial burden would be preventing as many defaults as possible and holding institutions to a higher standard. Millions of consumers and billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake. Early and effective intervention would spare borrowers the multiple ramifications of loan default, particularly to their credit scores and resulting higher costs for future credit.

“The previous Borrower Defense rule was created to protect students and taxpayers from deceptive practices like that of ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges that abruptly closed their doors after widespread abuses put them on the brink of bankruptcy and jeopardized the futures of thousands of students. This proposal shortchanges borrowers and will only inflate the growing $1.5 billion student loan debt crisis.”

###

For additional information or to schedule a media interview, contact Charlene Crowell: charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org.

NPR reports that thousands of teachers who received grants under the federal TEACH program recently discovered that they had been converted to loans, with interest accruing.

What a disgrace!

America needs teachers committed to working with children who have the fewest advantages in life. So for a decade the federal government has offered grants — worth up to $4,000 a year — to standout college students who agree to teach subjects like math or science at lower-income schools.

But a new government study, obtained by NPR and later posted by the Department of Education, suggests that thousands of teachers had their grants taken away and converted to loans, sometimes for minor errors in paperwork. That’s despite the fact they were meeting the program’s teaching requirements.

“Without any notice, [my grant] was suddenly a loan, and interest was already accruing on it,” says Maggie Webb, who teaches eighth-grade math in Chelsea, Mass. “So, my $4,000 grant was now costing me $5,000.”

Since 2008, the Education Department has offered these so-called TEACH grants to people studying to get a college or master’s degree. The deal is, they get to keep the grant money if they spend four years teaching a high-need subject like math or science in schools that serve low-income families.

If they don’t keep their end of the bargain, the grants convert to loans that need to be paid back. But, the study finds, many teachers believe they kept their end of the bargain but are now being asked to repay that money anyway.

Christine Langhoff reports a Twitter exchange with a lawyer in New York who is willing to help any teacher caught in this snare. @chuckrock

Like Trump’s separation policy, DeVos will stop at nothing to hurt debt-ridden students and support debt collectors. She thinks that is her job. To harass students and teachers.

Politico reports:

JUDGE DEALS SETBACK TO DEVOS’ HANDLING OF STUDENT FRAUD CLAIMS: The Trump administration’s sweeping efforts to overhaul Obama-era higher education policies drew their first judicial rebuke on Friday evening when a federal judge in California temporarily blocked Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ new approach to processing student loan fraud claims.

— A federal judge in San Francisco blocked DeVos from carrying out her policy of granting only partial loan forgiveness to some defrauded for-profit college students. U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim ruled that the Trump administration’s new “tiered relief” process for those student fraud claims violates a federal privacy law meant to protect how government agencies collect and use individuals’ personal information. Read the full story here.

— The court ruled that the Education Department violated the Privacy Act by improperly using borrowers’ federal earnings data from the Social Security Administration to calculate the amount of loan forgiveness for each student. That policy, unveiled by DeVos in December, was aimed at providing defrauded borrowers with debt relief that’s commensurate with how much they suffered. The Trump administration said it was a fairer approach that would protect taxpayers against “runaway costs” of forgiving large amounts of federal student loans.

— “This is an important ruling for former Corinthian Colleges students,” said Toby Merrill, the director of Harvard Law School’s Project on Predatory Student Lending, which brought the lawsuit along with Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, a nonprofit legal advocacy group. “It clearly states that the Department of Education must immediately stop using its lawless partial denial rule.”

— The preliminary injunction issued Friday blocks DeVos from carrying out the partial loan forgiveness policy “as it currently exists.” But the 38-page ruling makes clear that the Trump administration could come up with a different process that provides partial loan forgiveness for defrauded students. Judge Kim wrote that “there is no question that the [Education] Secretary has the power to determine the amount of relief a borrower can obtain” so long as that process for doing so is lawful. She also rejected the former students’ claims that DeVos’ partial loan forgiveness policy was “arbitrary and capricious” or that it violated their due process rights.

— What’s next: The judge ruled that the Education Department’s violation of the Privacy Act warranted an immediate order blocking the policy. But she said she didn’t have enough information to decide whether to go a step further and order the department to provide full loan forgiveness to the former Corinthian students. She set a hearing on that issue for June 4.

OPEN THE URL TO SEE THE LINKS:

http://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=d03a3dace11ffac26c1e3e1960ae708e63d2254e6bf3d8ae0efa97656280856f877dc5687934c0666570ba8204332eb5

Bill Black, a specialist in white-collar crime, discusses Betsy DeVos’ plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education team investigating fraud at those predatory for-profit colleges and to staff the Department with veterans of the institutions under investigation. Like many people, I have described her actions as “putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.” Black says it is far worse than that. The right metaphor, he says, is putting the vampire in charge of the blood bank. What is happening now is not just a policy dispute; it is a deliberate program to protect institutional behavior that should be treated as criminal fraud. The victims are college students who are poor and middle-class, who have every right to expect that the government will protect them against fraud, not enable the fraud.

This is only a part of the interview. Open the link and read the rest.

GREGORY WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert, coming to you from Quito, Ecuador. The U.S. Department of Education, under the leadership of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, is halting investigations into fraudulent practices of for-profit colleges, according to a report that the New York Times released last Sunday. The Obama administration’s Education Department had placed a special team in charge of investigating false advertising, deceptive recruitment practices, and false job placement claims at for-profit colleges. One of the most prominent investigations was the DeVry Education Group, recently renamed Adtalem Global Education, which is one of the largest for-profit educational companies in the world, with nearly two billion dollars in annual revenues.

Joining me to analyze the consequences of abandoning these investigations into for-profit colleges is Bill Black. Bill is a white-collar criminologist, former financial regulator, and associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He’s also the author of the book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Thanks for joining us again, Bill.

BILL BLACK: Thank you.

GREGORY WILPERT: So, one interesting aspect of the story is that Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, hired several people from for-profit education institutions to work in the Department of Education. These include Robert Eitel, her senior counselor, Diane Auer Jones, a senior advisor on post-secondary education, and Carlos Muñiz, as the department’s general counsel. What’s going on here? Shouldn’t these appointments be considered conflict of interest and ring all kinds of ethics bills?

BILL BLACK: So first, ten seconds of personal privilege to welcome into the world, three hours ago, Heidi Weaver, our new granddaughter. Second, I made the easiest prediction of my life, after Trump was elected, that Warren Harding and Ulysses Grant could rest easy in the history books because there would no longer be a debate about the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. It would clearly be the Trump administration. There’s been a lot of focus on Scott Pruitt over at the EPA, in terms of corruption. But Betsy DeVos is giving him a consistent run for the money, just more under the radar.

So, here’s the background. First, out of the great financial crisis of 2008, one of the extraordinary things was that the most devastated people, in terms of loss of wealth, were not folks without college degrees, but actually folks with college degrees, who were either Latinx or Black. If you were Latinx, your average loss of wealth during the financial crisis, if you had a college degree, was nearly eighty percent. And it was roughly sixty percent if you were Black. That reversed the pattern for whites, where if you had a college degree, your percentage loss of wealth was lower than whites who had no college degree.

Now, part of that, of course, is the mortgage markets- being put into predatory mortgages at the worst possible time, at the peak of the bubble. But another thing, major thing, in terms of Blacks and Latinos, is that they are- disproportionately, they go to for-profit universities. And for-profit universities, characteristically- and this isn’t just recently, this goes back to World War II era, just after World War II when for-profit colleges first became a substantial deal.

And here’s the triple-whammy you get. One, they are much more expensive than regular universities. Two, you get a- statistically, a much, much worse education. That means your prospects in terms of jobs are far worse. And third, you’re left in massive debt because of the combination of the first two things. So that, instead of being the route to success, it is, as those overall statistics I cited, been an enormously good way of losing extraordinary amount of wealth between the mortgage markets and these for-profit universities.

So, long before the Obama administration came in, people have been writing about the really high incidents of fraud in these for-profit universities. The GAO actually sent undercover investigators that pretended to be people applying for college, which is, of course, really easy to send in testers of that kind. In every single case- so, I think they send them into the eight largest. In every single case, the supposed student was induced to do something that would be a false representation, which is to say, a crime.

In three of the eight cases, at least, the college counselor for the for-profit university consciously, expressly told them to lie and how to lie. Subsequent investigations under the Obama administration have documented the widespread layers of fraud, and for-profit universities have finally begun to experience what they should, which is that it’s very difficult- it’s more difficult to con people, and the government was finally cracking down. And that was- the problem was finally being reduced, and indeed there was some remedy at the federal level.

Because, after all, these are students had been induced by fraud to get into situations where they were literally driven bankrupt by the combination of expenses, debts, and limited increased employment prospects. And as viewers will, I hope, remember, the Republicans changed the bankruptcy laws so that student debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. So this, you know, is a cloud that stays over your entire life if it forces you into bankruptcy, from which you make never economically recover.

So, finally there was some recognition at the federal level that it was completely inappropriate to allow these entities to drive you bankrupt through what had been fraudulent misrepresentations to the students. And all for-profit universities live- I mean, and I mean almost totally live on federal grants to the students for education. Without those federal grants, no major chain of for-profit universities could exist. So, we’re really subsidizing all of these fraudulent entities through federal grants. And you would think an administration that A, promised to drain the swamp, and B, to stop these kind of rip-offs of the public sector, would crack down. But of course, none of us is surprised at this point to learn that it’s exactly the opposite.

The metaphor usually used is that DeVos has put the fox in charge of the chicken coop. But it’s really more- the way these for-profit universities operate, it’s more like you would put the vampires in charge of the blood bank, because they are basically sopping up the lifeblood of middle and working-class, and even poor people, through this device of the for-profit fraudulent rip-offs. And Betsy DeVos is now ensuring that the vampires can do this with absolute impunity from the laws.

This is a scandal.

When Betsy DeVos was appointed as Secretary of Education, she held investments in the for-profit higher education sector, which is known for fraud, high attrition, and low graduation rates. Presumably, she divested, but it is not clear whether she did.

Now she has turned over the job of revising regulations of the for-profit colleges to former high-level executives from the same sector.

Does anyone doubt that their mission is to remove all constraints on these quasi-criminal enterprises that have defrauded millions of students and gotten away scot-free?

Education Department adviser Robert Eitel, hired by the Trump administration last February after four years in the for-profit college industry, played a role in suspending an Obama-era policy known as “borrower defense to repayment.” The rule made it easier for students, enticed into taking out five-figure loans on promises that they would get good jobs, to file for debt relief. It also allowed the government to recoup the losses from the schools.

Ultimately, those potentially most impacted include many predominantly low-income, and minority students disproportionately represented at for-profit colleges and often saddled with high student loans and facing poor job prospects.

Education policy changes involving for-profit colleges has been a touchy subject since Secretary Betsy DeVos, who entered office with investments tied to the for-profit college sector, took over the department following Trump’s election.

The revelations about Eitel’s engagement in borrower defense policy come on the heels of a New York Times report that the department has been dismantling a team investigating widespread abuses by for-profit colleges. Education spokeswoman Liz Hill told the Times the group shrunk because of attrition and said no new hires with ties to the for-profit college industry had influenced the group’s work.

Eitel, who had also worked as an Education Department attorney under President George W. Bush, isn’t the only for-profit college executive DeVos has brought into the Department. The secretary also drew ire when she tapped Julian Schmoke, Jr., a former dean at the for-profit college DeVry, to lead the department’s Student Aid Enforcement Unit last August.

There’s no indication Schmoke was involved in the delay of the borrower defense rule.

Eitel — a former vice president at two for-profit college operators, Bridgepoint Education and Career Education Corp. — joined the Trump administration in February as part of a so-called “beachhead team” formed to usher the agency through the transition.

For two months, he worked at the Education Department while on unpaid leave from Bridgepoint, according to financial disclosure forms. He formally gave up his position at Bridgepoint in April, when he was hired on a permanent basis as a senior adviser to DeVos.

Although Education Departments ethics officials maintain working on borrower defense wouldn’t have violated his ethics agreement, Eitel has up until now refused to say publicly whether he had a hand in the borrower defense delay.

Eitel’s Involvement in Borrower Defense

On June 14, DeVos announced she was suspending the borrower defense rule, arguing that under the rule, “all one had to do was raise his or her hands to be entitled to so-called free-money.”

Emails obtained by the executive branch watchdog group Democracy Forward and shared with ABC News show in the days leading up to the announcement, Eitel circulated borrower defense talking points to staffers, edited background documents, and even signed off on the official delay notice.

This is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Or worse.

Is this Trump University’s Revenge?

 

This 6-Minute video is worth your time. Watch frustrated Members of the House Appropriations Committee (not the Senate) try to get Betsy DeVos to answer questions with a “yes” or “no.”

She tries to snow them with long-winded, evasive answers. They ask again and again. She smiles as she bobs and weaves. She is neither stupid nor incompetent. She is evasive. She is evasive because she doesn’t want to admit her real intentions.

The first questioner, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, is the Democratic leader of the Committee. When Democrats were in control, she was chair of the committee. She wants to know why DeVos is pre-emptying states that are trying to protect their college students from predatory debt collectors. She has DeVos over a barrel. Does DeVos support the right of states to write stronger consumer protections than the federal government, which under a DeVos is eliminating those protections? DeLauro demands a yes or no.

This battle of wills is fierce.

When you see how haughty and arrogant DeVos is in responding to the Committee that oversees appropriations for her Department, you will understand why 99% of the DeVos budget was rejected by Congress.

Another member of the Committee wanted to know whether private schools receiving federal dollars would be required to respect the rights of LGBT students. That’s another tug of war. Getting zdeVos to answer a straightforward question with a one word answer is like pulling teeth. The DeVos Family foundations support anti-gay organizations, and her mother and brother Erik Prince were founders and major donors to the Family Research Council. No doubt she has thought of a way to weasel out of that commitment. The last thing she would ever do is tell an evangelical school that to remove its ban on LGBT students.