Skip to content

College Board Recommends Improvements to the Pell Grant

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
The College Board recently released a new report, entitled “Redesigning the Pell Grant Program to Boost Access and Completion,” which provides numerous recommendations for improving the Pell Grant. The report is part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s push to research financial aid improvements prior to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The main recommendations involve making the eligibility process simpler by streamlining the FAFSA. The report claims that limiting the necessary financial information to Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and family size (two measures that are easily obtained from a tax return) would boost completion of the FAFSA and improve access to college. Such an approach would also allow colleges to report average net price for students within given AGI and exemption ranges on their websites, making it easier for students and their families to plan for the future.

The College Board also recommends basing eligibility on “prior-prior year tax data,”[1] meaning families would not need to update their financial information each the spring. This change would help prevent low-income families from missing financial aid priority deadlines which often fall before the current year’s tax data are available. Furthermore, students whose parents did not need to file a tax return in the prior year would automatically be awarded the maximum Pell Grant without needing to enter financial information.

One of the more ambitious proposals in the report is the creation of government-funded savings accounts for families whose income would qualify them for the Pell Grant. Given that many studies find that early communication and college savings are crucial to increasing the number of low-income students enrolled in college, this program would seek to engage students and their parents at a young age. Under the proposal, low-income children around the ages of 11-12 would receive federal education accounts in which the government would deposit up to 10 percent of the maximum Pell Grant each year. The account would earn interest until the child turned 18, at which time he or she could begin to withdraw 25 percent of the balance per year (if enrolled in a four-year degree program). Any unused funds would be returned to the treasury when the student turned 24. The report estimates such a proposal would cost $3.5 billion to implement.

Washington State has long recognized that early communication and engagement are key to expanding college access. The state’s College Bound Scholarship program is a means-tested program that promises four years of free tuition and a book allowance to any Washington State student who is in foster care, whose family is low-income, or who qualifies for free and reduced-priced lunch in middle school. In 8th grade, students sign a pledge to graduate high school with a 2.0 GPA or better, to not commit a felony, and to submit a FAFSA.  The program has been hugely successful, with ever-increasing numbers of students applying for and using their College Bound Scholarships each year.

To read more about the College Board’s proposal, check out the full report here.


[1] Data from the year before the year currently used to determine federal aid eligibility

A Blueprint for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

In April 2013, UW President Michael K. Young convened a Task Force to study how the UW could better respond to and prevent sexual assault on campus. The Task Force, which included leaders from the Counseling Center, HR, Athletics, Academic Units, Student Government, Housing and Food Services, UWPD, Harborview, and Bothell and Tacoma campuses, put out a comprehensive report on its findings in October 2013. Given the current national attention focused on the issue of sexual assault on college campuses, and the need for a comprehensive response, the UW’s report can be seen as a blueprint for creating a successful sexual assault prevention and response program.

Here are the eight major goals for any sexual assault prevention and response program, as outlined by the report:

  1. Have a visible, robust, easily-accessible, collaborative network of response and intervention services for students in need
  2. Educate all students about sexual assault
  3. Create a community that knows how to respond and provide support
  4. Provide an investigation and disciplinary process appropriate for sexual assault
  5. Demonstrate compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and guidance
  6. Generate data, metrics and reporting that allow for sound decision making
  7. Establish policies and procedures that set direction, clarify intent, and guide coordinated work
  8. Provide effective oversight and following guiding principles to ensure common direction

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

The Task Force also included 18 concrete and specific recommendations, including  hiring a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner at the UW Medical Center, providing better sexual assault prevention training to students and staff at orientation, and revising UW policies related to sexual assault, to ensure that these goals are met. It also gave a list of funding priorities, such as hiring a consultant to overhaul the Student Conduct Code, funding the UWPD Victim Advocate and a Sexual Assault Investigator, and funding training and materials. The group will convene again in October to give a status update to the President, and will have periodic meeting after that to measure progress and define new goals and recommendations.

To read the Task Force’s full report, please click here.

 

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Stanford Announces It Will Divest from Coal Companies

On Tuesday, Stanford’s Board of Trustees announced it “will not directly invest in approximately 100 publicly traded companies for which coal extraction is the primary business, and will divest of any current direct holdings in such companies.” Furthermore, Stanford stated it would encourage its external investment managers to avoid investments in such companies.

The decision was made at the recommendation of the university’s Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing (APIRL), which had spent several months analyzing a petition by a student group called Fossil Free Stanford. After conducting an extensive research-based review of the issues, APRIL concluded that sufficient coal alternatives exist and that divestment “provides leadership on a critical matter facing our world and is an appropriate application of the university’s investment responsibility policy.”

This issue has arisen several times at the UW, which (like Stanford) is a leader in environmental stewardship and sustainability. Stanford’s decision may set a precedent for other universities, including the UW, that have grappled with this issue.

55 Institutions Under Investigation for Possible Title IX Violations

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
The U.S. Department of Education recently released a list of 55 colleges and universities that are being investigated for possible violations of Title IX, particularly in regards to their handling of sexual assault investigations. Title IX is a federal gender-equity law that applies to all institutions receiving federal funds. Recently, several universities have come under scrutiny for alleged mishandlings of sexual assault cases and investigations.

The list comes on the heels of the Obama administration’s recent unveiling of new, tougher guidelines for handling sexual assault on college campuses. The report encourages universities to:

  • create “climate surveys” designed to measure the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses;
  • better train college officials in responding to survivors of sexual assault;
  • change certain confidentiality provisions in order to facilitate reporting; and
  • amend campus disciplinary policies to be closer aligned to those put out by the Department of Education.

The administration has also signaled that it will step up its enforcement of Title IX provisions. Student activists seemed encouraged by the news, those some claimed the administration did not go far enough to ensure that colleges are punished for Title IX violations.  

To see the list of institutions facing Title IX investigations, click here. To read more analysis about the inquiry, check out this article in the New York Times.

Income-Driven Repayment Options in the US

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
TICAS recently published a white paper entitled “Should All Student Loan Payments Be Income-Driven? Trade-Offs and Challenges.” The white paper does a great job of summarizing existing income-driven repayment (IDR) plans that are available to students in the US (see the table below, which was drawn from page 4 of the report). TICAS highlights the complicated nature of many of the IDR options, and questions whether the US should automatically enroll students in IDR, as is the case in the UK and Australia. While automatically enrolling borrowers in IDR may help reduce default rates and lessen the burden of student loans, it may also increase the time horizon for paying off loans, thereby increasing the amount that borrowers ultimately pay over the lifetime of the loan.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
table.MsoTableLightGridAccent4
{mso-style-name:”Light Grid – Accent 4″;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:1;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:1;
mso-style-priority:62;
mso-style-unhide:no;
border:solid #8064A2 1.0pt;
mso-border-themecolor:accent4;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-border-insideh:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-border-insideh-themecolor:accent4;
mso-border-insidev:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-border-insidev-themecolor:accent4;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
table.MsoTableLightGridAccent4FirstRow
{mso-style-name:”Light Grid – Accent 4″;
mso-table-condition:first-row;
mso-style-priority:62;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-border-top:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-left:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-left-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom:2.25pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-right:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-right-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-insideh:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev-themecolor:accent4;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:normal;
font-family:”Cambria”,”serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTableLightGridAccent4LastRow
{mso-style-name:”Light Grid – Accent 4″;
mso-table-condition:last-row;
mso-style-priority:62;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-border-top:2.25pt double #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-left:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-left-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-right:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-right-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-insideh:cell-none;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev-themecolor:accent4;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:normal;
font-family:”Cambria”,”serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTableLightGridAccent4FirstCol
{mso-style-name:”Light Grid – Accent 4″;
mso-table-condition:first-column;
mso-style-priority:62;
mso-style-unhide:no;
font-family:”Cambria”,”serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTableLightGridAccent4LastCol
{mso-style-name:”Light Grid – Accent 4″;
mso-table-condition:last-column;
mso-style-priority:62;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-border-top:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-left:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-left-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-right:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-right-themecolor:accent4;
font-family:”Cambria”,”serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;}
table.MsoTableLightGridAccent4OddColumn
{mso-style-name:”Light Grid – Accent 4″;
mso-table-condition:odd-column;
mso-style-priority:62;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-shading:#DFD8E8;
mso-tstyle-shading-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-shading-themetint:63;
mso-tstyle-border-top:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-left:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-left-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-right:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-right-themecolor:accent4;}
table.MsoTableLightGridAccent4OddRow
{mso-style-name:”Light Grid – Accent 4″;
mso-table-condition:odd-row;
mso-style-priority:62;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-shading:#DFD8E8;
mso-tstyle-shading-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-shading-themetint:63;
mso-tstyle-border-top:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-left:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-left-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-right:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-right-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev-themecolor:accent4;}
table.MsoTableLightGridAccent4EvenRow
{mso-style-name:”Light Grid – Accent 4″;
mso-table-condition:even-row;
mso-style-priority:62;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-tstyle-border-top:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-top-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-left:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-left-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-bottom-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-right:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-right-themecolor:accent4;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev:1.0pt solid #8064A2;
mso-tstyle-border-insidev-themecolor:accent4;}

Summary of Existing Income-Driven Repayment Plans in the US

 

Available

Eligibility

Monthly Payment Cap

Discharge After

Income-Based Repayment (Classic IBR)

Since 2009

All borrowers with federal student loans (Direct or FFEL), new or old, with a partial financial hardship (PFH).

15% of discretionary

income

25 years

Income-Based

Repayment

(2014 IBR)

Starting July

2014

Borrowers who take out their first loan on or after July 1, 2014, and have a PFH.

10% of discretionary

income

20 years

Pay As You Earn

(PAYE)

Since late 2012

Direct Loan borrowers who took out their first loan after Sept. 30, 2007 and at least one after Sept. 30, 2011, and have a PFH.

10% of discretionary

income

20 years

Income-Contingent

Repayment (ICR)

Since 1994

Borrowers with Direct Loans, new or old; no PFH requirement.

The lesser of: 20% of

discretionary income and

12-yr repayment amount x

income percentage factor

25 years

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

For more information on the details of IDR and the benefits and challenges of the system, please check out the TICAS report.

Ryan Budget Would Hurt Pell Grants and Student Loans

Representative Paul Ryan, the House Budget Chairman, released his FY15 budget proposal on Tuesday. The proposal would remove the in-school interest subsidy for all subsidized undergraduate student loans, eliminate mandatory funding for Pell Grants, and freeze the maximum Pell Grant award at $5,730 for the next 10 years.

As Office of Federal Relations put it in their blog post, “That essentially means that $870 in the maximum grant would have to be funded by increased discretionary funds or the maximum be cut from $5,730 to $4,860.”

Please see the Federal Relations website for more information, and check out articles by Equity Line, Inside Higher Ed, and The Chronicle.

New Report Suggests Graduate Student Debt Deserves Legislative Attention

A recent report by New America, titled The Graduate Student Debt Review, reveals that much of the nation’s “$1 trillion in outstanding federal student debt” is the result of expensive graduate and professional degrees, rather than unaffordable undergraduate educations.

The report, which analyses recently publicized data from the Department of Education, shows that around 40 percent of recent federal loan disbursements are for graduate student debt. Moreover, the paper shows that graduate student debt across a variety of fields—not just business school and medical school—comprises some of the largest increases in student borrowing between 2004 and 2012. Thus, the authors recommend that legislators, journalists, and the public at large adjust their understanding of student debt to recognize that it’s not just undergraduate problem.

Most news stories highlight the debt of graduate students—which tend to have much larger loan balances—yet journalists typically don’t differentiate graduate debt from undergraduate debt. EdCentral makes a compelling argument for why this lack of differentiation is a problem and why it deserves legislative attention:

“The failure to distinguish between undergraduate and graduate debt in discussions of college costs is a serious flaw in how we think about student debt. Students, families, and taxpayers invest significant resources in financing “college,” largely because a bachelor’s or associate degree is a must for anyone who wants to secure a middle-class income… But arguments for high levels of subsidy for students who attend graduate and professional school are on shakier ground. While a graduate or professional degree boosts a student’s earnings prospects and the economy at large, it is not the foundation for economic opportunity and middle-class earnings that a two- or four-year degree now provides. Students pursuing graduate degrees should be far more informed consumers. Therefore, they shouldn’t need a lot of public support to finance their next credential, which is why there are no Pell Grants for master’s degrees. That spike in debt for graduate degrees should also focus policymakers’ attention on an impending tidal wave of loan forgiveness for graduate students and the lack of loan limits for students pursuing graduate degrees.”

You can read more about New America’s report at The Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed.

Small Changes Made to Draft Gainful Employment Rules

Over the past few months, we have been following the Department of Education’s attempts to overhaul the controversial gainful employment rule legislation on this blog. This week, the Department moved closer to releasing a final version of the law. Its new set of draft rules is very similar to that released in December, in that individual programs would be judged on a set of debt-to-earnings ratios and a program cohort default rate (CDR).  Specifically:

  • For debt-to-earnings ratios, a program would fail if its graduates’ loan payments equal more than 12 percent of their incomes or more than 30 percent of their discretionary incomes.  If a program failed both the annual and the discretionary standards twice in three years, it would lose eligibility for federal financial aid.
  • For the program CDR, a program would lose federal aid eligibility if 30 percent or more of its graduates who entered repayment defaulted on their loans within three years.

As with the previous draft, these two tests would operate independently from one another, meaning a program that passes one would not be safeguarded if it failed the other.

Although this is all consistent with the previous draft, there were a few noteworthy changes, including:

  • In order for a program to be held annually accountable to the debt-to-earnings measures, it must have at least 30 graduates—rather than 10, which was in the previous draft. Smaller programs will still have data aggregated over four years, thus accountability isn’t removed for them, just delayed.
  • Instead of assuming a 10 year repayment period for borrowers across the board, the new proposal extends it to 15 years for bachelor’s and master’s programs, and to 20 years for doctoral programs.

As a result of these two changes, the new proposal is very similar to the 2011 law; however, the inclusion of the cohort default rate remains an important difference. The 2011 law was struck down by a judge because the default calculation used in the original rules was deemed “arbitrary and capricious.” The Department believes the new policy will be more resilient to legal challenges because it holds programs to the same CDR standards to which institutions are held by the Higher Education Act.

Ed Central provides a very thorough analysis of some of the more subtle changes, and is an excellent resource for additional information.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan estimates that under these rules, roughly 20 percent of current vocational programs at for-profits and community colleges would fail and 10 percent would be in “the zone”—meaning a program would have to warn its students that it could become ineligible for federal aid.

As can be expected, the for-profit sector was strongly opposed to the new rules, claiming they would limit access and opportunity for the neediest students. Community colleges, however, were happy to see the proposal would allow “in the zone” programs to appeal if less than half of its graduates take on debt.

Now that the rules have been released, there will be a 60 day public comment period on the draft legislation. The Department hopes to release its final proposal in a few months.

Special Report on State Disinvestment in Public Higher Education

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently published a special report on public colleges, detailing how state funding declines and rising tuition have put increasing pressure on largely need blind public colleges and the students they enroll. The first section of the report, “An Era of Neglect,” shows the decline in state funding for higher education through the eyes of six interested parties—a lobbyist, an anti-tax activist, a state Senate member, a Governor, a higher education advocate, and a university president. The second essay, “The Tipping Point,” cautions that state disinvestment in higher education has shifted the cost burden such that students and their families pay for more than half of their education in many states. The third piece, “Equalizers No More,” warns that public higher education no longer serves as a ladder for upward mobility, since college costs are often too much for low-income students to bear and financial aid has not kept up with rising tuition. The fourth and fifth sections, “Explore State Support by College” and “Who Foots the Bill?” contain info-graphics that show the decline in state support for public colleges between 1987 and 2012, as well as detail the cost sharing breakdown between students and the state.

The Office of Planning & Budgeting has done similar analyses in the past few years. Despite the fall in state support, the UW has remained committed to providing generous need-based financial aid. As a result, the net price of attending the UW is $9,395. Check out OPB’s analysis of net price at the UW and our peer institutions here.

To read the full special report, check out the Chronicle’s website.