Letter to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

July 19, 2005

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 2.7 million members, we would like to offer our views on the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 (H.R. 609). A list of NEA positions on selected amendments will follow shortly. Votes in committee on these issues may be included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 109th Congress.

Over the past few decades, the Higher Education Act (HEA) has successfully helped millions of financially pressed students attain access to postsecondary education. However, challenges remain, particularly because of rising costs at institutions of higher education, reductions in state funding, and level funding in federal programs. The reauthorization process offers a tremendous opportunity to improve access and affordability to higher education and reinforce the primacy of the United States system of higher education.

Unfortunately, we cannot support H.R. 609 as approved by the subcommittee. We offer the following recommendations in the hopes that the committee can improve the bill by addressing these concerns.

Free Speech

• Protect free speech by rejecting provisions (Section 103, Student Speech and Association Rights) that imply a federal role in directing, evaluating, promoting or cajoling any aspect of speech in education by students, professors, classroom teachers, or anyone else. NEA certainly agrees with the fundamental principles of fairness, openness, and liberty in student speech in postsecondary education. We steadfastly defend the rights of all citizens, including all students and educators, to express their views under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. States, universities, community colleges, and K-12 systems have their own policies and practices for determining curricula, evaluating programs and employees, and resolving problems or disputes about fairness and protection of free speech. Therefore, we strongly urge deletion of Section 103.

• Reject politicization of professional programs on campus by striking provisions creating an International Higher Education Advisory Board. Establishment of this new board would undermine a longstanding bipartisan consensus that the federal government should respect academic freedom and independence. Current policy has been successful and should not be abandoned. We are concerned that H.R. 609 could allow the proposed Board to intrude into academic conduct and content of higher education and could impinge on institutional decisions about curriculum and activities. Indeed, the powers vested in the proposed Board make it more of an investigative, rather than an advisory, body. At best, the Board would be duplicative -- at worst, it would tarnish the Title VI program's professional reputation in the university community both here and abroad.

Proprietary Schools

• Retain the existing "50 percent rule," which excludes institutions offering more than half of their coursework by distance education from receiving federal student aid. We are concerned that H.R. 609 would eliminate current language ensuring that students receive the full range of educational experiences by continuing to value face-to-face instruction. The 50 percent rule recognizes that effective teaching and learning can be heavily influenced by the interactive nature of face-to-face instruction and exchanges among students. We strongly support retaining current law. However, if the 50 percent rule is lifted, we support amendments that would provide safeguards against fraud and abuse as recommended in a GAO audit of a model distance education program.

• Reinstate the existing 90/10 rule, which mandates that for-profit schools demonstrate that 10 percent of their revenue is derived from sources other than federal student aid funds. The 90/10 rule was put into effect to ensure that federal student aid was not the sole funding stream for these schools. As a result of the implementation of the rule, fraud and abuse in federal student aid programs has been reduced dramatically. There is no evidence to believe this protection is no longer necessary.

• Retain the current-law definition of an institution of higher education (IHE). H.R. 609 calls for a "single definition" of an IHE, thereby making all IHEs, including for-profit institutions, eligible for a wide range of federal education programs such as the HEA's Title III and Title V. These programs are intended to foster development of public and private nonprofit institutions serving special populations and addressing national needs. The limited funds available for these programs should not be diverted to for-profit institutions, which, by definition, need to concentrate primarily on the bottom line. Maintaining separate definitions for public/nonprofit institutions and for-profit institutions recognizes the different missions of the two types of institutions, while still allowing students at for-profit institutions to take advantage of federal student assistance programs.

Student Aid

• Double the Pell Grant maximum award to $11,600 over the next six years and support any amendments that will move the maximum grant award closer to this goal. Access to postsecondary education allows individuals to succeed in jobs with career potential and upward mobility. Expanding postsecondary education opportunities also helps ensure a well-educated workforce that is competitive for the 21st century. As public universities, long seen as the "affordable" option, have to raise their tuition to make up for severe state budget cutbacks, the ability for low-income individuals to pay for college becomes an even greater challenge. When the Pell Grant program was first created, the maximum grant for the poorest students covered 84 percent of the cost of a public four-year college. Today, it covers only 39 percent.

• Retain the ability for students to consolidate loans at a fixed interest rate. We are concerned about provisions that would prevent students from consolidating loans at a fixed rate. This will create significant, long-term financial burdens for students who depend on loans. Current law provides students struggling to make their payments with a fixed payment structure that allows them to budget and plan accordingly. H.R. 609's variable rate could make college much more expensive for students while also making financial planning more difficult. We understand efforts are underway to maintain the use of fixed rates as an option for borrowers. If enacted, however, we caution that this option should not be coupled with additional fees that make consolidation at a fixed rate more expensive in the long run.

• Cap the variable rate for student loans at 6.8 percent. H.R. 609 would raise the interest rate cap on student loans by repealing a scheduled change to lower the cap. Just a few years ago, Congress passed legislation to ensure that students would not be forced to pay more than 6.8 percent interest on student loans beginning in July 2006. H.R. 609 would break that promise by increasing the cap to 8.25 percent. Over a 10-year loan repayment, the average undergraduate borrower could pay nearly $2,000 more in interest costs under this interest rate hike. Given that current interest rates are below 6.8 percent, we support a variable rate in the Stafford loan program capped at 6.8 percent.

Loan Forgiveness

• Shorten the period of time before the effective date of loan forgiveness. Too many new teachers leave the profession within the first few years. An earlier graduated loan forgiveness benefit would provide encouragement and incentive to stay in the field through the most difficult early years.

• Broaden the pool of teachers eligible for loan forgiveness. We support expanding loan forgiveness to teachers in high need areas such as urban and rural districts as well as in a broader range of content areas, including pre-K teaching. With significant numbers of teacher retirements expected in the coming years, every incentive possible will be needed to meet growing demands.

Teacher Preparation

We are pleased that H.R. 609 includes community colleges in the definition of eligible partnerships. Community colleges increasingly provide the first two years of teacher education and play a key role in addressing teacher shortages. We are also pleased that the bill emphasizes mentoring of new teachers. We do, however, have some concerns regarding the provisions on teacher preparation:

• Strike provisions referring to merit pay, teacher advancement, and teacher removal. Such provisions are not relevant to the Higher Education Act as they do not relate to teacher preparation, but rather to teachers' working conditions and job status.

• Ensure that any evaluation of teacher prep programs includes more factors or indicators than a single test. We are concerned about the inaccuracy and unreliability of using No Child Left Behind tests to measure teacher prep effectiveness. We also urge you to clarify that pre- and post-participation tests of teacher knowledge are those used to exit a program or as part of state licensure.

• Reject reporting requirements for teachers who have not completed teacher education programs. Such requirements pose administrative burdens and produce seemingly unusable and inconclusive data. Rather than requiring data collection on those who complete a few semesters or a percentage of a program, we suggest measuring those who actually complete the program -- a more relevant and less cumbersome approach.

• Prohibit "private education organizations," from being the fiscal agents of public funds. We are concerned that H.R. 609 offers no definition of such organizations. We believe the higher education institution should be the fiscal agent.

• Add language mirroring the use of funds for gifted and talented students for both special education students and English Language Learners. Likewise, we recommend including "enhancing teacher preparation programs to better integrate general education and special education preparation courses" under the use of funds for Teacher Effectiveness.

• Strike the redundant phrase “(including recertification)” under the use of funds for certification or licensure requirements. Also strike “charter colleges of education” from the use of funds for innovative programs.

• Define “follow-up services” under uses of funds for Teacher Recruitment Grants.

• Strike the clause "as a highly qualified teacher" from Section 206, Accountability and Evaluation, (a)(3). This phrase is unnecessary as all newly hired teachers must be highly qualified.

We thank you for your consideration of our views on these important issues.

Sincerely,

Diane Shust, Director of Government Relations

Randall Moody, Manager of Federal Policy and Politics