Bill Would Break Cartel, Restore Competition
#1
Break up that cartel!  The "iron triangle" of regional accreditation bodies, the universities, and the Department of Education must end!  Allow states to accredit nontraditional education options.  Let trade schools and nontraditional organizations directly compete for funding, and let the marketplace decide, not the government and its elitist drones.


Quote:Student Debt Is a Symptom of Our Broken Education System. This Bill Would Spark a Change
Rep. Ron DeSantis / December 12, 2017

We are facing an education crisis in this country.

While the value of continued education after high school is undeniable, our nation’s singular focus remains on the necessity of traditional four-year degrees, which come at a soaring cost to students and their families.

For many students, a classic bachelor’s degree earned at a brick-and-ivy university is a worthwhile investment that provides the necessary knowledge to succeed in their given field post-graduation. But that is certainly not the case for all students.

Estimates suggest that a quarter to nearly half of college graduates are underemployed, and often work in jobs that do not require a college degree. And college tuition does not come cheap—the amount of student loan debt held by the American people is now higher than credit card debt.

There has to be a better way to give our students the opportunities they deserve while helping drive down the astronomical educational costs that are burdening working-class families.

I recently introduced the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity (HERO) Act, a bill that would foster innovative solutions to the process of higher education accreditation and would essentially put choice and affordability back into the hands of students.

Our country’s burgeoning student loan debt has been driven, in part, by the accrediting agencies that accredit higher education bodies and decide who is worthy of government funding by way of student loans.

The regional accreditation bodies, the universities, and the Department of Education essentially act as a cartel that controls who can enter the system. This impedes the innovation that is needed to tackle high costs, lack of school choice, and the decline of value in four-year degrees.

The HERO Act aims to break up that cartel, opening up higher education to more Americans by empowering individual states to develop their own systems of accrediting educational programs. All accredited programs would then be eligible to receive federal student loan money.

The HERO Act would enable our post-secondary education system to become as diverse and nimble as the industries that are looking to hire.

States would be able to accredit nontraditional education options, such as single courses or vocational programs, to meet the particular needs of their local economy. Students would be able to put federal loan money toward single learning courses, online opportunities, and apprenticeships in skilled trades.

Freeing up states to decide how they wish to accredit education options would spark a new era of competition. Trade schools and nontraditional organizations could directly compete for funding, making their appeals to students who have a variety of interests and seek a return on their investment.

Florida could decide to accredit specialized mechanics apprenticeship programs to cater to our robust flight industry, while California might empower Silicon Valley companies to teach coding programs to students who do not necessarily need a four-year degree.

Not only would the HERO Act allow states to fulfill the educational needs they have identified, but it would give students far greater flexibility to tailor their education to their needs. With the fast pace of innovation and an ever-changing economy, workers can often find themselves in need of educational programming mid-career.

Under the reforms proposed by the HERO Act, students could take shorter courses catered to their specific educational needs rather than leave the workforce completely to go back to school.

It is important to note that this bill would not alter current federal accreditation systems. Federal agencies would, however, have to recognize that individual states are on equal footing to know where the current system is failing, and to accredit programs that will fill this void.

Greater competition would force colleges and universities to reassess their federally subsidized pricing practices and help break the cycle of government subsidies that contributes to rising tuition rates. Some students may no longer choose time-consuming and costly four-year degrees if another educational opportunity at a lower cost could impart the necessary knowledge and skills.

Additionally, the HERO Act would require institutions to publish information regarding student success, to prove that they are fiscally accountable, and to ensure schools are held accountable for student loan defaults.

The HERO Act would expand higher education opportunities to millions of Americans who are underserved by our current system. We cannot allow the iron triangle that currently controls accreditation to stifle innovation and shut out potential students from accessing higher education in a manner that works for them.

Simply put, receiving a four-year degree is not the only means of achieving career success, and our federal education policy should reflect that truth.
Reply
#2
A definite step in the right direction. I would also suggest tuition debt forgiveness.
Reply
#3
Quote:Josh Hawley Wants to Break Up the College Monopoly. Why His Approach Could Help.

Mary Clare Amselem / @MCAmselem / July 19, 2019

[Image: Josh-Hawley-1250x650.jpg]
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation aimed at quelling the student loan crisis and making education at nontraditional trade schools more affordable and accessible. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)


Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced two bills this week to shake up higher education, and the proposals look promising.

One bill would expand access to career and technical education by making career-focused education options—such as apprenticeships or certificate programs—eligible for Pell Grant funding.

The second would require colleges to pay 50% of the student loan balance for loans that enter default, giving colleges “skin in the game” and a powerful incentive to provide an education that translates well into the job market.
Hawley’s proposals are an effort to address serious underlying problems in higher education today.

Colleges and universities are too expensive and often send off graduates with few marketable skills—if they graduate at all. Moreover, colleges have no incentive to step up their game because they have an open flow of cash coming from the federal government, students have few alternatives, and colleges bear little accountability for the quality of education they provide.

The best way to hold colleges accountable is to get the federal government out of the business of lending to students. Federal lending to students, though well-intentioned, has been the leading factor driving today’s out-of-control tuition costs.

But there are positive steps that can be taken short of full reform. Giving students other options and putting colleges on the hook for student loan defaults could be a step in the right direction.

Making trade schools more accessible and affordable through Pell Grant funding could be life-changing for many students.
Currently, the outdated accreditation system allows only traditional colleges to access federal dollars, maintaining a status quo that discourages innovation in higher education.

For too long, the accreditation process has acted as a gatekeeper that keeps out new providers who offer students real skills for less money and less time, while protecting long-standing universities despite their poor track records of success.

Hawley’s proposal would create an entirely new pathway—outside of accreditation—for students who attend career-based programs to be able to use Pell Grants to offset the cost of school.

While some may argue that bypassing accreditation may allow poor-quality schools to receive taxpayer dollars, the senator’s proposal would likely prevent that, since it includes eligibility requirements that are arguably much stricter than those imposed by accreditors.

For example, to receive certification under this alternative pathway, a school must provide student outcome data such as job placement rate, graduate median starting salary, and program completion rate.

Additionally, a school could lose its certification if, for example, its job placement rate within 90 days of completing the program is less than 50%, or if the graduate median starting salary is less than 200% of the federal poverty level.

This would be a real advance from the current accreditation regime, which places relatively little emphasis on student outcomes data and focuses instead on how many books a school has in their library or how many faculty members hold Ph.D.s.

Although it is never ideal to put in place federally defined metrics, these relatively straightforward targets would provide needed transparency to the taxpayers who fund Pell Grants.

Hawley’s second proposal, titled the Skin in the Game Act, is short and to the point.

In fewer than 200 words, the bill proposes that colleges and universities participating in the federal student loan program be on the hook for 50% of the loan balances that enter into default. Additionally, colleges would be disallowed from raising their tuition to try to offset the new financial burden imposed by paying off defaults.

Student loan default rates are a growing problem. Nearly 40% of students are expected to default on their loans by 2023. If students find themselves without the proper training to compete in the job market after spending tens of thousands of dollars to get a bachelor’s degree, it’s safe to say that at some point, their university failed them.

Colleges, like all businesses, should be held responsible for the quality of their product. Requiring schools to pay off a percentage of a student’s debt if they enter default is one strategy to encourage schools to do better while protecting taxpayers and students.

It will be important to follow how this proposal ultimately treats tuition increases. Indeed, having the federal government set a rate at which schools must repay defaulted student loans, and preventing schools from raising tuition to offset that cost, could create distortive issues of its own.

However, the prohibition in the Hawley legislation seems to reflect “supplement not supplant” language that is standard in many federal programs. Such language states that a recipient of federal funds (a state or other entity) cannot supplant, or replace, state spending with the new federal spending, thus safeguarding against the recipient relying on federal aid.

The Skin in the Game Act appears to apply narrowly to schools that raise their tuition specifically in response to being liable for a portion of their students’ loan defaults.

“Skin in the Game” policies could provide needed protection for taxpayers. At the same time, conservatives should continue to keep the big picture in mind: Restoring the private loan market is what ultimately would drive tuition prices in a way that reflects the quality of schools, benefitting students and taxpayers alike.

Breaking up the higher education monopoly is key to solving our $1.6 trillion student debt crisis. Making Pell Grants more flexible and accessible to more schools would add much-needed competition into higher education and encourage colleges to step up their game.

For those colleges that continuously fail students, the Skin in the Game proposal could provide long-needed accountability—to the benefit of students and taxpayers.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rubio: "Will Bust Cartel" Albert Hidel 3 9,743 10-20-2015, 07:29 PM
Last Post: Armando Ramos

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)