IBJNews

Proposal: Link federal aid to performance of ITT, peers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Obama administration released a proposal that would tighten for-profit colleges’ access to federal student aid, threatening growth in the industry that received $26.5 billion in U.S. funds last year.

The proposed rules released Friday by the U.S. Department of Education would link U.S. student aid eligibility at Carmel-based ITT Educational Services Inc., Apollo Group Inc., Career Education Corp. and other education companies to former students’ salaries and debt repayment rates. The rules may cut off access to federal student grants and loans at about 5 percent of all for- profit education programs, Secretary Arne Duncan said in a telephone call with reporters Thursday.

Students earning two-year associates’ degrees at for-profit colleges had an average student-loan debt of $14,000 in 2007- 2008, about twice that of students at not-for-profit colleges, the department said in a statement. While most education companies provide valuable training and skills, high-cost education programs that lead to low-wage jobs are harming students, leaving them with hard-to-pay debts, Duncan said.

“We want to hit the ones at the bottom, those that simply aren’t working for students,” Duncan said in the press briefing. “The 5 percent would frankly be the bottom of the barrel.”

Education companies have been hurt as investors have waited for the Education Department to write its regulations. The Standard & Poor’s 1500 Education Services Sub-Industry Index, which tracks nine education companies, fell 13 percent over the past 12 months.

Apollo, the Phoenix-based operator of the University of Phoenix and the biggest U.S. education company, fell 32 percent over the past 12 months in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading. ITT Educational slid 20 percent. Still, it reported a second-quarter profit of $96 milion on Thursday.

If the rules were in effect today, programs enrolling about 8 percent of the students at for-profit colleges nationwide would lose eligibility, the Education Department said. There were about 1.8 million students enrolled in education companies’ programs in 2008, according to a June 24 report from Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

The rules may hurt ITT Educational, Illinois-based Career Education and California-based Corinthian Colleges Inc., because they may not meet the repayment standard and they offer high-priced programs, said Trace Urdan, an analyst with Signal Hill Capital Group in San Francisco. Expensive courses of study that lead to relatively low-paying careers, such as those in criminal justice, may begin to disappear, he said Thursday in a telephone interview.

“You will see some programs being terminated,” Urdan said. “No one’s going to be kicked out into the street, but programs that are no longer profitable at contemplated prices will be ended.”

Under the proposed rules, the Education Department would monitor loan repayments and starting salaries among graduates of for-profit colleges. To remain fully eligible for student loans, education companies would have to show the agency that at least 45 percent of their former students are paying off their student loans, or that graduates pay less than 8 percent of their total income or less than a fifth of their “discretionary income” on student loan payments.

When a program’s repayment levels and debt-to-income ratios both miss those targets, its access to federal student aid may be restricted, the statement said. That may mean that the program would have to limit enrollment growth or warn applicants that the program’s graduates have high debt levels. About 55 percent of for-profit college programs would have to issue such warnings if the proposed regulations were now in effect, the statement said.

Companies would lose their eligibility for aid if less than 35 percent of former students are repaying and their educational debt is at least 12 percent of their annual total income or 30 percent of discretionary income, the statement said. No more than 5 percent of programs nationally will lose U.S. aid access under the regulations during their first year, the department said.

Average annual tuition at for-profit colleges was $14,000 in 2009, compared with $2,500 at community colleges, Harkin’s report said.

Congressional staffers who were briefed on the proposed rules said they expected the education industry to fight them. The Career College Association, a Washington-based industry group, didn’t respond to telephone calls and e-mails requesting comment. Apollo company officials declined to comment because they hadn’t seen the new regulations. “Apollo cautions against policy with the potential for unintended consequences that could restrict educational access, limit students’ choices or unfairly disadvantage hundreds of thousands of historically underserved students,” Manny Rivera, a spokesman, said in an e- mail.

Robert Jaffe, a spokesman for Corinthian, Lauren Littlefield, a spokeswoman for ITT Educational and Jeff Leshay, a spokesman for Career Education, didn’t immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.

While the proposed rules are a step in the right direction that may eliminate many abuses of the student financial aid system, the government may have set the standard for loan repayment too low, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars & Admissions Officers in Washington.

“I defy anyone to say that an institution with a 45 percent loan-repayment rate represents the gold standard,” he said in a telephone interview. “This says something about how rampant waste and fraud and abuse are in this sector.”

While the expectations for repayment appear low, the rules appear to have some “real teeth” in them, said Pauline Abernathy, who oversees policy and advocacy for the Institute for College Access and Success in Washington. Her group will urge the administration to strengthen the regulations in the 45- day comment period that starts Friday.

“This regulation is plain common sense,” Harkin said in a statement. “If a school can’t show that its students are repaying their college debt and not defaulting, this is a sure sign that the school is failing to prepare its students for gainful employment, as the law requires.”

An earlier draft of the proposal said that starting salaries would be estimated using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The proposed rules instead call for the salary data to come directly from graduating students’ Internal Revenue Service filings, the Education Department said.

“Therein lies the problem for the sector given that actual wages are generally lower than the Bureau of Labor Statistics data,” said Jarrell Price, an analyst with Height Analytics in Washington who follows the for-profit education sector. “There’s a lot of uncertainty about the income levels of graduates of for profit colleges.”

Federal aid to for-profit colleges jumped to $26.5 billion last year from $4.6 billion in 2000, according to the Education Department. About 96 percent of students who graduated from for- profit colleges in 2008 had taken out student loans, and 24 percent of that graduating class had more than $40,000 in U.S. student loan debt, according to the June report from Harkin.

“These schools—and their investors—benefit from billions of dollars in subsidies from taxpayers, and in return, taxpayers have a right to know that these programs are providing solid preparation for a job,” Duncan said in the statement. “The rules we’ve proposed today will help ensure that career college and training programs use federal student aid to prepare students for success.”

The government has been determining for-profit programs’ eligibility for student grants and loans in part by monitoring default rates. Those rates underestimate the proportion of students who don’t pay back loans on time, because many receive postponements known as forbearances or deferments. The new rules link a program’s eligibility for federal aid to the percentage of former students who are repaying principal on their loans three years after leaving school, the department said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Now we are getting somewhere.
    This is decades overdue and it still isn't enough. This article brought a smile to my face.
  • Apply the rules to ALL Educational Institutions
    I have no problem with these kind of rules, but lets apply them to ALL Education Institutions. Lots of young people graduate from State and Private Universities and are no better off than the for profit schools.
  • Check Tuition Rates
    The story says that tuition for for-profits like ITT ESI are $14000 a year. At ITT Tech, it's closer to $45,000 for an associate degree.

    ITT Tech also counts graduates who use a cash register as working in the computer field if that is the student's major. Graduates are not actually working in their degree fields, but the numbers are changed to make it look like they are.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT