When was the Department of Education created

Controversies:

Senate Takes For-Profit Colleges to Task

For-profit colleges got bad marks two years in a row, first from a congressional committee and then from an academic study.

In 2012, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released a report that claimed few of the 30 for-profit colleges investigated by the committee provided a sound return, as far as education versus student loans.

The report said 64% of students at these institutions seeking associate degrees dropped out of school.

The schools also were faulted for spending too much money on administrative costs, such as marketing, recruitment, and advertising, and on executive compensation.

In 2013, a study by Caroline M. Hoxby at Stanford University and Christopher Avery at Harvard concluded for-profit schools spend much less on instructional cost per student than all other schools.

The research revealed for-profit schools also may have higher out-of-pocket costs due to limited financial aid offered to the students who attend them.

For-Profit Colleges Thrashed In Congressional Report (by James Marshall Crotty, Forbes)

For-Profit Colleges Are A Spectacularly Bad Investment (by Max Nisen, Business Insider)

A-F Grading System for Schools Called Out in Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s state Board of Education approved a controversial plan in 2011 to assign letter grades to individual schools to demonstrate the quality of their work.

Among criteria used in the grading are attendance rates, dropout rates, and state and yearly test scores. About 300 school superintendents came out in opposition to the plan, saying the new system’s grading formula was too strict and expected too much.

When the grades were released in 2012, Tulsa schools received more Ds and Fs (45) than As, Bs, and Cs (31), for a D average. Oklahoma City also scored a D average.

In 2013, the state Senate approved legislation that would improve and reform the A-F grading system for a more “accurate” representation of how Oklahoma schools are doing.

Oklahoma Board of Education delays release of controversial A-F school grades (by Carrie Coppernoll, Oklahoman)

A through F grades released for Oklahoma schools; Tulsa receives 8 failing grades (KJRH)

Senate approves changes to A-F grading system (Derrick Miller

Duncan Banner)

Students Subjected to Restraint and Seclusion

Education experts and parents expressed concern following the release of a government report showing nearly 40,000 students were subject to restraints or seclusion during the 2009-2010 academic year.

The study by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) also found that African-American and Hispanic children made up a disproportionally large number of students experiencing restraint or seclusion. A 2009 Government Accountability Office report found that 20 disabled children died because of the practice.

The practice of isolating and restraining problematic children originated in schools for children with special needs, before migrating to public schools in the 1970s.

In 2012, the ED issued a publication that outlined principles for reducing the use of restraint and seclusion.

The 15 principles offered states, districts, and other education leaders ideas for developing appropriate policies related to restraint and seclusion to ensure the safety of adults and children. The list included properly training teachers in the use of restraint or seclusion, not endangering a child’s breathing with restraints, and notifying parents after each instance of restraint or seclusion.

Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document (U.S. Department of Education)

Controversy Over Use of Seclusion and Restraints Grows (Julia Lawrence, Education News)

U.S. Department of Education Issues Resource Document that Discourages Restraint and Seclusion (U.S. Department of Education)

Summary of Seclusion and Restraint Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Guidance, by State and Territory (U.S. Department of Education)

Families Against Restraint and Seclusion

Gainful Employment Regulations Taken to Court

The Obama administration in 2011 unveiled new regulations that redefined the term “gainful employment” to better judge the success of higher education in educating students.

The regulations created “debt measures” and authorized sanctions against educational programs that failed to “lead to gainful employment in a recognized occupation.”

Issued in June 2011 and set to go into effect on July 1, 2012, the new rules applied to virtually all educational programs at for-profit colleges and most non-degree educational programs at public and nonprofit colleges.

The regulations did not apply to educational programs that lead to a degree at public or nonprofit colleges.

In 2012, it was reported that 5% of vocational programs subject to the ED’s gainful-employment rules failed to meet the regulation’s requirements for them to receive federal student aid. That same year, opponents of the rules took the ED to court.

The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU) was successful with its lawsuit, as the gainful employment regulations were struck down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the summer of 2012.

Following the ruling, the ED filed a motion to alter the judgment by the court. The APSCU countered by filing an opposition to the motion to alter. In response, government lawyers filed a reply in support of the motion to alter. 

Department of Education Expands Regulatory Authority in the Uncertain and Controversial Area of Gainful Employment (Jones Day)

193 Vocational Programs Fail 'Gainful Employment' Test (by Michael Stratford, Chronicle of Higher Education)

The Battle Over the Gainful Employment Regulations Continues (by Nicole Daley, Education Industry Reporter)

Current Status of the Gainful Employment Litigation (by Dennis Cariello, Education Industry Reporter)

Home-Schooling

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) reported in 2012 that more than one million students in the U.S. were home-schooled, drawing attention to a highly controversial topic in education.

Many Christian families who object to the secular curriculum in public schools have been driving the home-school movement in recent. The IES reported that home-schooling was more prevalent among white families than Black or Hispanic ones, with Caucasian families making up about 77% of the total.

Advocates have gotten a boost from some prestigious universities, including Harvard, which not only recognized home-schooling as a legitimate alternative to traditional classroom education (despite its costs to parents who home-school), but even lauded its achievements in teaching children.

Home-Schooling Grows More Popular (by Michael Robinson, Philadelphia Tribune)

Home Schooling Should Be Banned (Debatewise)

What Are the Disadvantages of Home Schooling? (All About Parenting)

Ron Paul Rolls Out New Homeschool Curriculum (Freedom Outpost)

ED’s State Authorization Requirement Reversed by Court

The APSCU sued the ED over three rules that were amended in 2010, asking the court to strike down regulations relating to incentive compensation for student recruiters, misleading marketing, and state authorization of colleges.

On the first two points, the APSCU lost in court.

But on the third matter, it won regarding state authorization of colleges rule affecting online programs, which would have compelled colleges to meet state requirements everywhere they enroll at least one student.

As a result of the ruling, the ED announced in 2012 it would no longer enforce the requirement that distance education (online) programs obtain permission to operate in every state where at least one student is enrolled.

Mixed Decision on Integrity Rules (by Paul Fain, Inside Higher Ed)

Backing Off on State Authorization (by Libby Nelson, Insider Higher Ed)

New State Authorization ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter NOT Focused on Distance Ed (WCET Learn)

Stricter Guidelines

The U.S. Department of Education adopted new regulations in 2011 that impacted college students’ ability to access federal financial aid, potentially causing tens of thousands of students to drop out.

One change required students to maintain a grade point average of at least 2.0, or else lose eligibility for grants.

Another new rule stated students could not take more than 150% of the allotted time to finish their degree. For an undergraduate in a four-year baccalaureate program, that meant completing a degree in no more than six years to remain eligible for financial aid.

Yet another new regulation, which went into effect in 2012, required first-time college students to have either a high school diploma or a recognized equivalent (such as a home-school education or a General Educational Development—GED—certificate). Prior to this rule, students could be eligible for federal student aid by passing an approved test or completing at least six credit hours or 225 clock hours of postsecondary education.

New federal financial aid rules hurt colleges, students (by Gloria Padilla, San Antonio Express-News)

Changes afoot in financial aid programs (by Christina Couch, Bankrate.com)

Eligibility of Students Without a High School Diploma (Federal Student Aid)

50 Banned Words on NYC School Exams

The New York City Department of Education briefly considered in 2012 the banning of 50 specified words from use on standardized tests by the city’s schools.

The list of 50 words included dinosaurs, birthdays, cancer, rap music, rock ’n’ roll, and sex.

A department spokesman told the New York Post that the words could “evoke unpleasant emotions in the students.” Critics of the plan said it was political correctness gone wild.

The idea did not last long. About a week after the ban was proposed, the department dropped it.

Pens and Pencils Down: New York City's "Banned Words" Controversy (by Dennis Baron, Visual Thesaurus)

Full List of Topics Banned on NYC School Exams (New York Post)

New York City Schools Ban On Words For Standardized Tests Revoked (Education News)

Student Tests Used to Rate Teachers’ Effectiveness

Should teachers be judged based on how well their students perform on standardized tests?

That question arose during the Obama administration, as states increasingly linked teacher ratings to student test performance.

One evaluation, by the Education Commission of the States, reported 30 states required that teacher evaluations include evidence of student achievement on tests. In at least 13 states, plus the District of Columbia, achievement measured by test scores was used for half or more of a teacher’s rating.

Proponents of the practice said the new way of judging teachers was necessary, especially when 33% of fourth graders were not reading at grade level and 25% of public high school students failed to graduate on time, or not at all. They argued the new rating systems would help education administrators identify the best and worst teachers.

Many instructors, and their union representatives, opposed the idea. They claimed the new evaluations could not begin to reveal what it is like to be in a classroom. Others said relying on scores would turn schools into test-taking factories.

National Schools Debate Is on Display in Chicago (by Motoko Rich, New York Times)

Student scores may be used in LAUSD teacher ratings (by Teresa Watanabe and Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times)

Charter School Lotteries

Critics of charter schools have complained about the spectacle of public lotteries at which some families rejoice and others suffer disappointment when the names of children are announced.

Supporters of charter schools have been accused of turning lotteries in showcases intended to inflate the perception of the schools’ popularity.

“Public lotteries have become a high-octane way to press an expansionist agenda,” the National Education Association (NEA) wrote. “That’s because at the events in the nation’s largest cities, hundreds if not thousands of students are typically vying for a small percentage of classroom spots.”

The NEA cited documents from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools that advise its member schools to “publicize their lotteries to demonstrate the strong popularity of charter schools.”

Exploitative Charter School Lotteries Not Required by Law (NEA Today)

“The Lottery” and Charter School Semiotics (Growing Up In America)

Office of Civil Rights Assault Standards Opposed

Education groups reacted negatively in 2011 to new sexual harassment standards crafted by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the ED.

At least three national organizations worried about one provision governing the amount of evidence that should be required to bring a harassment case forward.

In hearings for these cases, schools must adhere to a standard of “preponderance of evidence,” according to the new policy.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) said such a standard was too low. They believe it means authorities will cast too wide a net, including accusations based merely on hearsay.

“This is the same standard used in hearings for speeding tickets,” Will Creeley, director of legal and public advocacy for FIRE, said.

FIRE also characterized OCR’s new requirements as an intrusion on “universities’ institutional autonomy by telling them how to run their adjudicatory processes in a ‘one size fits all’ model, without regard for the critical differences between institutions or for the familiarity that administrators have with their respective schools.”

The American Association of University Women, on the other hand, believes the standard would be an equalizer, helping women who once felt the system was turning a deaf ear to them.

New sexual assault mandate causes national controversy (by Ashley Withers, Daily Campus)

University Lawyers Frustrated by OCR Mandate (by Azhar Majeed, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Student Due Process Controversy

The ED adopted a new policy in 2011 that required colleges and universities to reduce student due-process rights, according to critics. Institutions that didn’t comply would be denied federal funding and would face investigation.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the American Association of University Professors complained that ED’s Office for Civil Rights was wrong to adopt the regulation that mandated colleges receiving federal funding reduce due-process protections for students accused of sexual harassment or misconduct. (See “Office of Civil Rights Assault Standards Opposed” controversy.)

Another due-process controversy arose in Florida, where lawmakers introduced a bill to bolster student-athletes’ ability to address and fight claims of cheating.

The measure’s sponsors said it would “help combat their predisposition to consider students as guilty until proven innocent, and would establish true due process and rights for student athletes, which the current system clearly lacks.”

Opponents insisted the plan would hamper schools’ ability to police students who want to change schools strictly for athletic purposes, which was previously prohibited in Florida.

One Year Later, Silence from Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on Due Process, Free Speech Concerns (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)

Controversial Head of Dept. of Ed’s Office for Civil Rights Steps Down (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)

The School-to-Prison Pipeline:  A Civil Rights and a Civil Liberty Issue (by Lorraine Kasprisin, Journal of Educational Controversy)

High school recruiting bills a controversial issue (by Kyle Hightower, Associated Press)

High Rate of Student Loan Defaults and Dropouts at For-Profit Schools

Students continued to default on their college loans at an ever-growing rate, according to the ED.

The percentage of borrowers who defaulted on their federal student loans two years after having made their first payment increased to 9.1% in fiscal year 2011, up from 8.8% during 2010.

For-profit schools had the worst three-year default rates, 22.7%. Public schools came next, with an average three-year default rate of 11%. Private, non-profit institutions saw a 7.5% rate.

For-profit colleges were also the subject of bad news in terms of student dropouts. A Senate education committee report revealed 54% of for-profit students dropped out without a degree during the 2008-2009 school year. In some cases, the dropout rate may be linked to the cost of schooling. The study also found that bachelor’s programs at for-profits cost 20% more than at public schools, while associate’s degrees cost four times more.

Student loan default rates jump (by Blake Ellis, CNN Money)

For-Profit Colleges Thrashed In Congressional Report (by James Marshall Crotty, Forbes)

For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success (Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee)

Feds: For-profits could lose federal student aid (Associated Press)

Default Rates Rise for Federal Student Loans (U.S. Department of Education)

Deceptive Pro-Charter Parent Groups

An effort to transform a Los Angeles public school into a charter school came under attack by a leading teachers’ union claiming some of the parents behind the change didn’t have children in the school.

Parent Revolution, a pro-charter school organization, led a signature drive to turn McKinley Elementary School over to Celerity Educational Group, which operated four charter schools in Los Angeles.

The NEA, the largest teachers’ union in the U.S., said the campaign was a sham. Some signatures belonged to people with no children at the school, while others said they didn’t understand what they were signing, according to the union.

In the end, the Compton school board turned down the petition because the number of valid signatures fell below the 50% threshold required under California’s “parent trigger” law that allows residents to petition for a charter school.

That didn’t matter to Los Angeles county education officials—they approved the charter and Celerity opened a kindergarten through fifth grade school in the fall of 2011.

Beware Pro-Charter School “Parent” Groups (by Alain Jehlen, NEA Today)

‘Won’t Back Down’: Parent Trigger Gets the Hollywood Treatment (by Tim Walker, NEA Today)

L.A. County Education Officials OK Compton Charter School (by Teresa Watanabe, Los Angeles Times)

Inconsistent Quality of Charter Schools

As the number of charter schools continued to increase in many states, some critics, including charter school advocates, called for states to do a better job of enacting, overseeing and enforcing quality and operational standards for the schools.

A 2010 study by Stanford University found that students in only 17% of charter schools were outperforming demographically similar student populations at nearby, traditional neighborhood public schools. In 37% of cases, students at the traditional public schools performed at higher levels, and the remainder of the cases showed no statistically significant difference.

To help address the problem, the National Charter School Resource Center and the U.S. ED’s Office of Innovation and Improvement began developing a national database of all charter schools to better understand reasons for charter school successes and failures.

Meanwhile, many state governments considered legislation to improve taxpayer-funded charter school performance.

Educators Urge More Oversight of Charter Schools (by Leslie Brody, North Jersey.com)

States Move to Address Lack of Charter Oversight, Accountability (NEA Today)

Study Finds Charter Schools Avoid At-Risk Students (NEA Today)

Cyber Charter Schools in Pennsylvania Stir Trouble

Cyber charter schools have become very popular in Pennsylvania, where supporters and their detractors have sparred over the merits of the specialized schools.

As estimated by the ED, cyber charter schools, providing lessons to students via computers in their homes, increased their enrollment from 582 in 2001 to 27,779 by 2011—a 4,000% increase.

There are now 11 cyber schools operating in Pennsylvania.

Executives with the schools say they provide students a good education with more flexibility, allowing them to learn at their own pace while offering courses not available in their home districts.

Critics, including school superintendents and officials with traditional public schools, have complained about the cost of the schools and a lack of oversight and accountability.

They also say school districts, which must fund cyber charter schools, are not allowed to know how many hours an individual student spends in cyber class, what their grades are or how they perform on statewide academic tests. In addition, many of the cyber schools are low performing, with 18 under federal investigation over the past five years for such things as overcompensation to executives, corruption, and questionable financial practices.

Controversy swirls about cyber schools (by Terrie Morgan-Besecker, Times Leader)

Taxpayers could save $365 million with charter/cyber school reform bill; Amount could be higher if increased transparency requirements unmask more overfunding (Representative James Roebuck Jr.)

Report: 44 Pa. cyber/charter schools with investigations or problems; Support grows for bill to return $365 million in overpayments (Representative James Roebuck Jr

For-Profit College Company Recruited Unqualified Students to Earn More FSA

Education Management Corp. (EDMC), the nation’s second largest for-profit college company, was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2011 for violating FSA rules. As it had done so since 2003, the government claimed, approximately $11 billion in FSA money went to the EDMC.

The federal government and five states joined two former EDMC employees who claimed the company gave incentives to recruiters for bringing more students into EDMC programs, which was a violation of federal law.

The plaintiffs also said the incentive-based approach resulted in many unqualified students being enrolled by the company’s schools.

“The depth and breadth of the fraud laid out in the complaint are astonishing,” Harry Litman, a lawyer involved in the case, told The New York Times. “It spans the entire company—from the ground level in over 100 separate institutions up to the most senior management—and accounts for nearly all the revenues the company has realized since 2003.”

The EDMC had about 150,000 students in 109 schools nationwide.

Pittsburgh-Based Education Management Squares Off Against Justice Department In Court (by Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

For-Profit Colleges Under Growing Scrutiny (by Nathan Koppel, Wall Street Journal)

Questions Follow Leader of For-Profit Colleges (by Tamar Lewin, New York Times)

For-Profit College Group Sued as U.S. Lays Out Wide Fraud (by Tamar Lewin, New York Times)

International College Recruiters

Banned from use for domestic recruitment in the United States, the use of college recruiters has continued by American universities seeking foreign students.

Economics and international competition have driven many U.S. higher education institutions to rely on overseas recruiters in an effort to boost enrollment.

In 2010, foreign students contributed $20 billion to the American economy through tuition payments and living expenses.

U.S. colleges have also used recruiters because of competition from other countries that have attracted more college-age students. While the U.S. still is one of the most popular places in the world for students from other countries to pursue their education, American universities have experienced a decline in foreign student enrollment.

Colleges and universities pay a recruiter or agent a commission, based on a percentage of a student’s tuition. The more individuals an agent recruits, the more money they earn. The practice can lead to recruiters signing up any and all, regardless of their potential. In fact, nearly two-thirds of students who use agents are ill prepared for college.

Use of International College Recruiters Remains Controversial (by Harrison Howe, Education Insider)

Illegal in U.S., Paid Agents Overseas Help American Colleges Recruit Students (by Tamar Lewin, New York Times)

Buyer Beware (by Elizabeth Redden, Insider Higher Ed)

Social Studies Cause Controversy in Texas

The Texas State Board of Education stirred controversy in 2010 by changing the state's social-studies curriculum standards and potentially affecting not only Texas’ students’ education but that of others as well around the country.

Many of the changes had what was described as a conservative spin on American history, which prompted many historians and educators to ask the board to reconsider its plans.

The revisions included replacing the word “capitalism” with “free enterprise system,” putting the inaugural address of Confederacy President Jefferson Davis on par with that of Abraham Lincoln, questioning the separation of church and state, and other controversial revisions.

Because Texas is one of the largest markets for textbooks in the country, opponents of the changes feared the board’s decision would influence other states to follow suit.

In California, a state senator introduced legislation that would ensure that texts adopted there would not contain Texas-inspired changes.

Cynthia Dunbar, a Republican board member, set the tone for the meeting when she opened it with an invocation. “I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses,” Dunbar said.

Ignoring Experts' Pleas, Texas Board Approves Controversial Curriculum Standards (by Katherine Mangan, Chronicle of Higher Education)

Texas school board approves controversial textbook changes (PBS)

Texas State Board of Education Approves Controversial Social Studies Curriculum Changes (by Lois Elfman, Diverse)

Texas Board of Education's Controversial New Curriculum (by Nadra Kareem Nittle, About.com)

Texas Board Of Education To Vote On Controversial Curriculum Changes (by Jeremy Binckes, Huffington Post)

Head of Texas Education Board Committee Wants to Teach ‘Roles of Men and Women in a Traditional Way’ (TFN Insider)

For-Profit Schools Take Advantage of GIs

For-profit schools have been criticized for targeting veterans with misleading offers of higher education, only to leave them disappointed and in some cases feeling ripped off.

Frontline dedicated one show to how for-profits were aggressively going after GIs, including those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

All of the veterans interviewed by Frontline expressed displeasure with their for-profit education. Such schools specifically went after PTSD veterans, claiming their distance-learning programs were ideal for those unable to endure in-class education.

Some former Marines told how they couldn’t even remember some of the classes they had signed up for, which wasn’t a concern for the school as long as it received federal subsidies for the students.

Pursuing veterans had become a profitable enterprise for these institutions. From 2006 to 2010, the money received in military education benefits by just 20 for-profit companies jumped from $66.6 million to $521.2 million.

Alleged Mistreatment Of Vets By For-Profit Colleges (by James Marshall Crotty, Forbes)

Educating Sergeant Pantzke (Frontline)

Brain-Injured Marines and For-Profit Colleges (by Jean Braucher, Credit Slips)

For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s (by Hollister Petraeus, New York Times)

How Pricey For-Profit Colleges Target Vets' GI Bill Money (by Adam Weinstein, Mother Jones)

International Rankings of U.S. Students Cause Controversy

American 15-year-olds were found to be merely average in terms of reading, math, and science when compared to students in other countries, according to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

The 2009 test, which measured how well students from more than 70 economies were prepared to meet future challenges, revealed the U.S. had made no improvement in reading since 2000, ranking 14th among nations developed countries. In mathematics, American 15-year-olds were below-average performers, ranking 25th. In science, they came in 17th.

“The hard truth,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, “is that other high-performing nations have passed us by during the last two decades. . . . In a highly competitive knowledge economy, maintaining the educational status quo means America’s students are effectively losing ground.”

Some analysts later contended that the results were skewed and that adjusting for oversampling of low-income students, which are disproportionately high in the U.S., should have raised the ratings somewhat.

High performers on the PISA test included South Korea, Finland, Singapore, China, and Canada.

International Education Rankings Suggest Reform Can Lift U.S. (Department of Education)

'We're Number Umpteenth!': Debunking the Persistent Myth of Lagging U.S. Schools (by Alfie Kohn, Huffington Post)

The Real Reason America's Schools Stink (by Charles Kenny, Bloomberg)

Skewed PISA Rankings: US Students Actually Gaining On Finland & Korea (by Sarah Butrymowicz, Wired Academic)

Conservative Groups Demand Firing of Gay School Czar

Conservatives in 2009 went after an openly gay official in the Obama administration, objecting to his past work and remarks on homosexuality.

Kevin Jennings, assistant deputy secretary of education for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (now the Office of Safe and Healthy Students, or OSHS), was previously a teacher and founder of the organization Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, which raises awareness and preaches tolerance for gays in schools.

Rightwing media outlets such as WorldNetDaily, The Washington Times, and Fox News published articles attacking Jennings. The conservative group Accuracy in Media called Jennings a pedophile and erroneously accused him of teaching 14-year-old boys the dangerous sexual practice of “fisting” and discussing oral sex with them.

Jennings weathered the attacks, but resigned from the ED in 2011 to become president and CEO of the nonprofit national service organization Be the Change.

Accuracy in Media's Smear of Kevin Jennings Backfires (by Terry Krepel, Huffington Post)

Wash. Times continues its relentless campaign against Jennings (by Justin Berrier, Media Matters for America)

Think Again: Kevin Jennings, the Mainstream Media, and Right-Wing Target Practice (by Eric Alterman and Mickey Ehrlich, Center for American Progress)

Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job (by Maxim Lott, Fox News)

Ex-pupil defends Obama aide over controversial advice in 1988 (by Jessica Yelin, CNN)

Kevin Jennings Leaving Education Department to Head "Be The Change" (by Chris Geidner, Metro Weekly)

Kevin Jennings Takes on Critics (Advocate)

College Tuition Cost Increases—Linked to Federal Aid?

With the push by President Barack Obama to increase federal student aid came arguments and studies that claimed such spending helped cause increases in college tuitions.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the relationship between increasing aid and soaring prices at nonprofit four-year colleges was not a sure thing, saying studies showed everything from there being no link to a strong causal connection.

One new study found that tuition at for-profit schools where students receive federal aid was 75% higher than at comparable for-profit schools whose students don't receive any aid.

Andrew Biggs wrote in The Atlantic that economic research suggested that colleges siphoned off a “significant portion of federal education aid rather than lowering costs to students. Simply put, much of federal student aid is corporate welfare for colleges.”

Conservative critics like William Bennett, former secretary of education in the administration of President Ronald Reagan, insisted the cost of college tuition would continue to rise as long as FSA programs continued to increase with little or no accountability.

New Course in College Costs (by Josh Mitchell, Wall Street Journal)

The Truth About College Aid: It's Corporate Welfare (by Andrew Biggs, Atlantic)

Why Student Aid Is NOT Driving Up College Costs (by David L. Warren, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities)

How Can It Be? Student Financial Aid Fuels Increase In College Tuition (by Richard Vedder and Andrew Gillen, Center for College Affordability and Productivity)

Stop Subsidizing Soaring College Costs (by William J. Bennett, CNN)

Aid Elimination Penalty for Drug Use Causes Controversy

A Democratic lawmaker tried in 2009 to revoke a provision in federal law that prohibits students convicted of drug possession from receiving federal student loans.

Representative George Miller (D-California) introduced the provision into the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 that would reverse a 1998 amendment making students convicted of drug possession ineligible to collect federal funding unless they completed a rehab program and passed two unannounced drug tests. Students convicted of selling drugs would continue to be prohibited from receiving financial aid under the amendment.

Kris Krane, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said current law represented “an unfair penalty.”

“It’s double jeopardy, and it impacts students of color and low income students predominantly,” she told Fox News. “It actually creates more drug abuse, because we know that the best way to prevent drug abuse later on in life is to get a college degree. That opens opportunities for economic advancement later on in life.”

Some law enforcement groups opposed the change, saying the current policy deterred students from using drugs. Opposition to the amendment prevented it from remaining in the final bill when the House adopted it.

Drug Offenders To Get Federal Student Aid Under New Bill (by Maxim Lott, Fox News)

Student Drug Policy Reform Dropped From Health Bill (by Jane Teixeira, The California Aggie)

Drug Busts Hit Students Hard (WI Druggies Lose Financial Aid) (by Megan Doughty, Madison.com)

Theresa Shaw Controversy

The George W. Bush administration’s head of the FSA office resigned in 2007 following accusations that the FSA had been lax in policing the $85 billion student loan industry.

Theresa Shaw’s departure from the FSA was unrelated to reports that lenders had leveraged universities and financial aid officers with favors to win more business, according to officials in the Department of Education.

It was also reported that Shaw had received $250,000 in bonuses, which alarmed Democratic lawmakers in Congress.

Andrew Cuomo, attorney general of New York State, claimed the Education Department had been “asleep at the switch” in regulating the practices of lenders, prompting him to launch his own investigation.

Shaw was appointed in 2002 by Education Secretary Rod Paige after 22 years in industry, mostly at Sallie Mae, the largest student lender.

Federal Student Loan Official Is Resigning (by Jonathan Glater, New York Times)

Audit Report (U.S. Department of Education)

Dems Question $250,000 in Bonuses for Gov Official (by Justin Rood, ABC News)

Student Loan Scandals

Student loan officials working in universities and the federal government were caught owning stocks or receiving perks from lenders in a violation of conflict of interest rules.

Matteo Fontana, a federal worker who oversaw a student financial aid database, was suspended from his job in the U.S. Department of Education in 2009 after it was learned he owned 10,500 shares of stock in the Education Lending Group, parent company of Student Loan Xpress, which was the eighth-largest provider of student loans.

Fontana was the first government official caught up in a probe led by then-New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo focusing on conflicts of interest between lending companies and universities.

The Cuomo inquiry discovered revenue-sharing agreements in which lenders paid back schools a fixed percentage of the net value loans steered their way.

It was also reported that three major universities—Columbia, University of Texas-Austin, and University of Southern California—suspended their financial aid directors for also owning stock in Education Lending Group during their university tenures.

In 2007, Ellen Frishberg, financial aid director at Johns Hopkins University, was found to have accepted more than $130,000 from eight lending industry companies during her tenure.

Fed Suspended In Student Loan Probe (by Phil Hirschkorn, CBS News)

Hopkins Aid Officer Was Paid More by Lenders Than Disclosed (by Amit Paley, Washington Post)

Student Aid Financial Conflicts Draw Scrutiny of New York Official (by Elizabeth Weiss Green, U.S. News & World Report)

Arizona’s Segregation of English-Language Learners

Arizona’s controversial English emersion program for students represented de facto segregation, according to critics.

Under the English Language Development (ELD) program, students were forced to study English four hours a day, usually in separate classes from English-proficient students. The program was developed in 2007 in response to federal court orders (stemming from a 1992 case, Flores v. Horne, which eventually landed in the Supreme Court) requiring that the state offer an appropriate education to English-language learners (ELLs).

Two researchers from UCLA found numerous problems with the program, calling it “A Return to the Mexican Room.”

The program, wrote Patricia Gandara and Gary Orfield, was harmful to students’ achievement and social and emotional development, and exacerbated the existing segregation of these students.

Furthermore, the ELD was not moving the great majority of these students toward full English proficiency within one year, thus exposing them to “years of this unnecessary segregation and lack of access to the regular curriculum, pushing them further and further behind academically.”

“Arizona’s ELL program is a Draconian way to force children to learn English in a year, which is stupid and contrary to research,” Carlos Ovando, an Arizona State University professor and scholar who has co-authored several books on Arizona’s ELL programs, told Cronkite News.

Another ASU professor, Laida Restrepo, said: “The state implements these laws for political reasons with very little scientific backing. It gets people elected and it gives the politician brownie points, but it is not rooted in science.”

In 2009, the Supreme Court sent the case back to Arizona so that the efficacy of the ELD program could be examined. Tom Horne, the former Arizona public instruction superintendent who implemented the program, contended that it was sent back to the state as a response to Arizona’s recent adoption of a strict illegal-immigration law. In March 2013, a district court found that the four-hour daily immersion program did not violate civil-rights laws.

Segregating Arizona’s English Learners: A Return to the "Mexican Room"? (by Patricia Gandara and Gary Orfield, Teachers College Record)

A Return to the “Mexican Room” (by Patricia Gandara and Gary Orfield, UCLA)

Hearing on Federal ELL Case Gets Under Way in Arizona (by Mary Ann Zehr, Education Week)

Judge Upholds Arizona Program for English-Language Learner Classes (by Anne Ryman, Republic)

Arizona’s English Immersion Program Could Be Unlawful (by Lauren Gambino, Cronkite News)

State-Mandated English Policy Under Fire In Arizona (by Claudio Sanchez, NPR)

States Slow to Meet Federal ELL Goals

A report from the U.S. Department of Education released in 2012 revealed that most states were still struggling to meet federal goals for ELLs regarding mathematics and reading.

Seventeen states in the 2006-07 school year reported meeting all three academic goals for ELLs, which included progress in learning English, attainment of fluency, and demonstration of proficiency on state content tests in reading and math.

But that progress stalled by the 2007-08 school year when just 11 states reported that they met all three targets. In the following year, 2008-09, the number dropped again—to 10 states. Those that met the targets in that year included Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia.

States Show Slow Progress With English-Learners (by Lesli A. Maxwell, Education Week)

Study: Most ELLs Are in Districts That Fall Short on Federal Goals (by Lesli A. Maxwell, Education Week)

Schools Fail to Meet Goals for ELL Students (by Julie Wootton, Magic Valley)

National Evaluation of Title III Implementation—Report on State and Local Implementation (American Institutes for Research) (pdf)

Director Violates Ethics Rules

Eric Andell, a former appellate judge in Houston, Texas, got into trouble while heading the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (now the Office of Safe and Healthy Students, or OSHS) during the George W. Bush administration.

Andell was charged with billing the government for personal expenses related to 14 trips he took. He also did not disclose to the federal government that he received salary and paid sick leave from the state of Texas as a visiting retired judge.

In 2005, Andell pleaded guilty to unlawful conflict of interest. His punishment consisted of one year of unsupervised probations, a $5,000 fine and 100 hours of community service.

But he did not lose his law license in Texas, where he continued to practice law.

Former judge Andell gets probation, $5,000 fine (by Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle)

Attorney Eric Andell of Houston; scofflaw, moron, ethical gremlin (Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials)

Government Hires Media Commentator

In an effort to promote the No Child Left Behind program, the George W. Bush administration hired a conservative black commentator, Armstrong Williams, to promote the controversial plan on television and radio. Education Secretary Roderick Paige defended the move, calling it a standard “outreach effort” to minority groups who stood to benefit most from the administration’s showcasing of NCLB.

The ED’s inspector general criticized the contract, under which Williams also agreed “to regularly comment on” and promote the law during his syndicated TV show. Williams contended that he did nothing illegal. The $240,000 deal produced one radio ad and one TV ad before the contract was suspended.

Pundit Armstrong Williams settles case over promoting education reforms (by Greg Toppo, USA Today)

Administration Paid Commentator: Education Dept. Used Williams to Promote 'No Child' Law (by Howard Kurtz, Washington Post)

ED Overpays Student Loan Lenders

In 2004 the Government Accountability Office warned Education officials that legal loopholes could result in the government paying billions of dollars in unnecessary subsidies to banks that provided loans to college students. The department chose to do nothing about the problem, and even as of 2007, after the inspector general found serious financial mistakes committed by the department, then-Education Secretary Margaret Spellings gave no indication that she would order banks to repay the government.

The inspector general concluded that the government had overpaid one lender, Nebraska-based Nelnet, $278 million from 2003 to 2005. The Washington Post conducted its own analysis and determined that potential overpayments to other lenders from 2003 to 2006 could total roughly $300 million. Two lenders, the New Hampshire Higher Education Loan Corp. and the Arkansas Student Loan Authority, said they returned millions of dollars in subsidy payments voluntarily after they discovered errors themselves.

Spellings acknowledged that the federal government “had some responsibility” for “confusion” over subsidy rules that helped student loan companies reap hundreds of millions of dollars in potentially excessive payments at taxpayer expense. But she would not seek a full accounting of the cost of what the ED’s inspector general termed “improper” payments in a program that guaranteed lenders a 9.5% interest rate for certain loans even when market rates are much lower. Nor did the department plan to seek reimbursement.

In 2010 President Barack Obama and a Democratic-led Congress ended the federal guaranteed student loan program, thereby cutting out banks as the middleman and, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), saving $62 billion by 2010 and providing more funds to go directly to students.

Confusion Cited in Overpayments To Student Lenders (by Amit R. Paley, Washington Post)

ED Official Allows Extra Payments to Loan Company

In January 2007, then-Education Under Secretary Sara Martinez Tucker allowed student loan company Nelnet to keep $278 million in overpayments that Department of Education auditors had declared improper. Then it was revealed that Tucker had ties to Nelnet through her years at the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF)—which went from a philanthropic organization to a major fund-raising operation under her leadership.

Officials at the Department of Education defended Tucker’s work regarding Nelnet. They also indicated they were unwilling to recover the funds from Nelnet for fear it would force the department to pursue other lenders, which could potentially eliminate some student borrowing options.

Coverage of the Nelnet Settlement (New America Foundation)

Upward Bound

In March 2008, the Department of Education halted a controversial study on the “Upward Bound” program that helps prepare first generation and low-income students for college. Begun in 2007, the study was designed to measure whether narrowing the focus to students considered less likely to pursue higher education would make the program more effective. Critics called the study—which required grantees to enroll twice as many students as normal and assign one half to a control group—unethical, even immoral, for recruiting disadvantaged students and then denying them entry for the purpose of determining numbers.

Education Dept. to End Controversial Study of Upward Bound, Chronicle of Higher Education (by Kelly Field, Chronicle of Higher Education)

Sallie Mae Uses Freedom of Information Act to Obtain Student Data

In October 2007, student loan giant Sallie Mae filed a New York Freedom of Information Law request (pdf) asking community colleges in the State University of New York (SUNY) system to provide the company with the names, telephone numbers and home mailing and e-mail addresses of “all admitted and enrolled students for academic year 2007-2008.”

The request, which came from the company’s Direct Marketing division, also asked the schools to identify the age, graduating class and major of each student listed.

Such requests from direct-to-consumer private student loan companies are raising alarms among college financial aid administrators, who worry that the companies are trying to lure their students to take on unnecessarily high levels of debt.

After word got out about Sallie Mae’s activities, the company shut down the effort.

Sallie Mae Demands SUNY Colleges Turn Over Students' Personal Data (by Stephen Burd, New America Foundation)

New America in The Chronicle of Higher Education on Sallie Mae (The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Are Education Research and Randomized Trials Any Use?

In the wake of the George W. Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind law, educators were instructed by policymakers to rely more on “scientifically based” research. But by the end of the Bush era, officials in education found themselves confronted with a mixed bag of methods and research that often was labeled inconclusive, politically charged or less than useful for classroom teachers.

During a meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), critics said education researchers too often focused on topics that didn’t help schools solve practical problems such as how to train teachers, improve skills, and lower dropout rates.

“Some good work is getting done, but the balance of influence in AERA is not with people doing rigorous, carefully designed, obviously important research,” Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, told USA Today.

Another point of contention revolved around randomized trials and their use in evaluating educational methods.

Critics labeled the trials as unethical, saying students in the experimental group were subjected to methods that were not only ineffective but also harmful, while students in the control group were denied the benefits of new and useful methods.

Others argued that educational outcomes depended on more factors than could be controlled by a randomized trial, as in medicine, leading to doubts about whether the results were truly “scientific.”

Still others criticized the emphasis on randomized trials in the absence of additional funding for schools that agreed to implement them.

Usefulness of Education Research Questioned (by Greg Toppo, USA Today)

Searching for Science to Guide Good Teaching (by Maria Glod, Washington Post)

What can educators learn from the Red Sox? (by Beth Gamse and Judith Singer, Usable Knowledge, Harvard Graduate School of Education) 

What Does Scientifically Based Research Mean for Schools? (by Lesley Dahlkemper, SEDL Letter)