Under the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (HEA), $103.6 billion in grants and loans was
made available to students in 2003.[1] The law, which is
due for reauthorization, offers guaranteed loans, grants, and
support services to students and their families, as well as aid to
institutions. Over half of the full-time undergraduates attending
four-year colleges and universities received aid under one of these
programs. (This percentage is higher for those attending private
schools.)[2] While participation in federal
higher education programs was greater among low-income students,
one quarter of undergraduates from families with incomes over
$100,000 also received financial aid.[3] When reauthorizing
the HEA, Congress should restore the purpose of the original
law by awarding taxpayer subsidies and grants only to those who
cannot afford higher education.
Since the HEA's
inception, Congress has added numerous programs, expanded
eligibility to middle- and upper-income students, and increased
institutional aid. The rising usage of federal higher
education programs by middle-class and wealthy students is
costly to taxpayers, contributes to student indebtedness, and
fosters greater dependency on the federal government by individuals
and institutions. Even more alarming, some researchers have found a
link between government loan usage and the rising cost of
education.[4]
The HEA was enacted to
help low-income students gain access to higher education, but
it now subsidizes institutions and higher-income students.
Taxpayers- three out of four of whom do not have a bachelor's
degree-should not have to subsidize wealthy and middle-class
students and college graduates.[5] Additional changes
to the act could reduce education costs for consumers and
taxpayers.
Federal Aid and Rising
Tuition Costs
Higher Education Act
programs cost taxpayers $22.7 billion in 2003. (See the
Appendix for a description of the various aid programs.)
Ironically, these subsidies are largely borne by those without
college degrees. Three out of four Americans do not hold a
bachelor's degree. Those who do, make-on average-$21,800 more per
year than those who do not, which translates into almost $1
million of additional lifetime income that accrues to the college
graduate.[6]
Equally troubling is
the impact of federal aid on college prices. There is evidence that
federal loans have contributed to the rise of tuition.[7] Tuition and fees at public and
private four-year institutions have risen 38 percent in the
past 10 years. In the past 22 years the cost of a four-year public
college education has increased by 202 percent.[8]
Forbes writer Ira Carnahan
puts it this way,
Over the past three
decades the Federal Government has poured three-quarters of a
trillion dollars into financial aid for college students….
So why is college getting less-not more-affordable? One answer
seems to be that all those federal dollars have given colleges more
room to jack up tuition…. The more cash the government pumps
into parents' pockets, the more the schools siphon from them.[9]
Dependency on
government aid affects students and their families. Such programs
encourage borrowing rather than saving. A Hart Research
Associates poll found that half of parents surveyed had
saved less than $1,000 for college.[10] Programs can
also promote a sense of entitlement among students and special
interest groups who continuously push Congress to increase
loan limits and enact new programs. Moreover, high loan
limits-$23,000 for dependent undergraduates, $46,000 for
independent students, and $138,500 for professional students-
encourage students to take on large amounts of debt and may
discourage wise shopping and saving.
When the government
subsidizes activities, people are more likely to engage in them.
The National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education,
established by the 1998 HEA reauthorization to examine the
rising cost of higher education, found that higher loan limits, the
"unsubsidized" Stafford loan program, and an increasing preference
for borrowing rather than saving had contributed to the increase in
student borrowing.[11]
The constant influx of
funding has other consequences, such as dulling universities'
sensitivity to costs. According to Chester Finn, president of the
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, costs continue to rise because of
"administrative bloat; costs of recruitment, remediation, and
attrition of unprepared students; reduction in faculty
teaching loads; and a weak governance structure that creates
inefficiencies, prevents tradeoffs, and treats any change-a new
academic program, different student service, technology upgrade-as
an added expense rather than a substitution."[12]
A course manual reveals
some of these inefficient practices. Courses of dubious
academic value like the University of Iowa's "Elvis as Anthology"
course, "Ecofeminism" offered by the University of Florida,
"Philosophy and Star Trek" at Georgetown University, "Environmental
Justice" at the University of Colorado, and "Queering American
History" at the University of California, Los Angles, are not
uncommon.[13] Extravagant facility
improvements are also on the rise. New York Times journalist
Greg Winter wrote recently of the growing practice of
providing students with lavish perks like hot tubs, pools,
manicures, climbing walls, and movie theatres. He states, "[T]he
competition for students is yielding amenities once
unimaginable on college campuses, spurring a national debate over
the difference between educational necessity and excess."[14]
Taxpayers should not be
required to subsidize higher education for middle-class and wealthy
students and their families. As Chester Finn states, it is a
"common-sense notion that the primary beneficiaries of higher
education are the students and that they should pay for it. Only
the needy should receive tuition subsidies as a matter of
course."[15]
During this
reauthorization, Congress should return the HEA to its original
purpose of serving those who could not otherwise afford an
education. Subsidies to students from middle-class and wealthy
families should be phased out. Congress should also reduce fraud
and abuse, cut duplicative and outdated programs, enable
universities to become self-sufficient, and reform
accountability provisions.
Recommendations for
Reforming Higher Education
Congress can enact a
number of reforms that would return federal higher education aid to
its original purpose.
Phase Out Subsidies to
Middle-Class and Wealthy Americans
Congress should end the
PLUS Loan program and remove the subsidies from the Stafford Loan
program by bringing the interest rate closer to the market rate.
The student interest rate, currently linked to the Treasury Bill,
is 2.82 percent (in school) and 3.42 percent (in repayment),
far lower than the rate charged to students using private education
loans.[16] Taxpayers make up for the
difference between what the student pays and what the bank
receives. Taxpayers also pay for administration, default insurance,
and other costs not covered by the small origination fee paid by
students. Congress should change the mechanism for calculating
the interest rate and the origination fee structure so that the
"unsubsidized" program becomes truly unsubsidized and imposes
little or no cost on the taxpayer. Students would still receive the
loan guarantee and a rate that is lower than the maximum 14.2
percent interest rate charged for unsecured loans (to individuals
with no credit history), a benefit that saves them $8,900-or
more- in interest on a $10,000 loan.[17]
Additionally, Congress
should amend the consolidation loan program so that interest
rates fluctuate according to the market. At present, borrowers
may consolidate their loans at a fixed rate for up to 30 years.
When interest rates rise, taxpayers pay the difference. According
to a recent study, subsidies on current and future loans could cost
taxpayers $35 billion or more between 2005 and 2011 if no
legislative changes are made.[18]
Reduce or Maintain
Total Loan Limits for Stafford Loans
A
January 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that
"the majority of students from low-income families are able to
finance their college costs without exhausting the
government-subsidized loans for which they are eligible."[19] The loan limits on Stafford
loans for dependent students are $2,625 for the freshman year,
$3,500 for the sophomore year, and $5,550 for junior and senior
years. Total debt from all Stafford loans is $23,000 for dependent
undergraduates, $46,000 for independent undergraduates, and
$138,500 for graduate and professional students.[20] In any event, Congress should
not raise the loan limits. Higher limits will encourage more
borrowing. Higher rates of borrowing will increase student
indebtedness and could further inflate college
costs.
Ensure That Subsidized
Loans and Other Benefits Are Given to Needy Students
This
can be accomplished by including home equity in the determination
of benefits, as was done prior to 1992.
Eliminate Loan
Forgiveness
The
government should not favor one profession over another.
Additionally, Congress should eliminate loan cancellation in
the Direct Loan program. These are intended to be loans, not
grants.
Phase Out Campus-Based
Programs: Perkins Loans, Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants (SEOG), and the Work-Study Program
The
savings from this phase out should be used to increase grant awards
under the Pell Grant program. The Perkins program is outdated,
duplicative, and less efficient than the other loan programs.
Congress should end the program but allow universities to keep
existing funds in their revolving accounts. The SEOG program is
also redundant. The Work-Study program subsidizes up to 75
percent of student salaries for jobs that are often located on
the university campus. Institutions make up the rest. The public
should not subsidize the labor costs of institutions. By replacing
campus-based programs with more direct aid to students, Congress
will eliminate the middleman.
Reduce Fraud in the
Pell Grant Program
The
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported that Pell
Grant fraud cost $600 million from fiscal year (FY) 2001 to FY
2002. Funds were given to students who were not eligible and
submitted incorrect information on their applications. To
reduce fraud, Congress should authorize the Internal Revenue
Service and the Department of Education to share information about
applicants' eligibility.[21] Representative Sam Johnson
(R-TX) has proposed such cooperation in H.R. 3613.
Treat Institutions and
Programs Equally
Congress should help
minority-serving institutions become self-supporting by
establishing endowments and by phasing out yearly funding. The
default cohort rate system should be the same for all institutions.
Congress should also end Title II teacher education programs that
duplicate programs in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and
should transfer reporting requirements to NCLB.
Reform Accountability
Provisions and Make Reporting Transparent and Useful to Students,
Parents, and the Public
The
current system is costly, provides little public accountability,
and does not adequately measure quality. According the National
Commission on the Cost of Higher Education,
Institutions of higher
education, even to most people in the academy, are financially
opaque. Academic institutions have made little effort, either on
campus or off, to make themselves more transparent, to explain
their finances. As a result, there is no readily available
information about college costs and prices nor is there a common
national reporting standard for either.[22]
Congress
should create a system to collect information or to use
information that is already being collected about college and
university costs and quality outcomes. This information should be
disseminated in a way that parents, students, and the public
can easily understand. Representative Howard P. "Buck" McKeon
(R-CA), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness, is spearheading an effort to create an
information database for parents and the public. However,
information availability alone is unlikely to change the behavior
of institutions and individuals if the government continues to
pay out billions of dollars in aid.
At present, to
participate in loans and grant programs, higher education
institutions must meet three standards-state licensing,
accreditation by agencies recognized by the Department of
Education, and certification by the Secretary of
Education that the institution has the administrative and
financial capacity to participate.
There are six regional,
and approximately 60 specialized, accrediting agencies that
evaluate higher education institutions based on a set of standards
regarding its mission, resources, practices, and other
criteria. Institutions submit a lengthy "self-study" document and
submit to campus inspections. After 10 years, the institution
must seek reaccredidation, which
requires another self-study and a campus visit.[23] The
public does not have access to the reports.
However,
even if they did, the information might not be useful. According to
the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), "[T]he
accreditation system does not attempt to gauge academic quality
directly, but only judges institutions as either acceptable or
not acceptable based on inputs and processes."[24]
Process is a poor proxy for academic quality. By focusing on
process, the accreditation system has done little to stop
grade inflation, the decline in academic standards, the
erosion of core curriculums, and the proliferation of courses with
dubious educational value. According to ACTA "If accreditation ever
served as a reliable proxy for acceptable educational quality,
it no longer does."[25] University accreditation is
rarely revoked. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Education has
never ceased to recognize an accrediting body.
Accreditation
is also very costly. The National Commission on the Cost of Higher
Education found that "The time-consuming self-study procedures
involved with specialized accreditation, the focus on additional
resources without regard to their connection to student learning or
the welfare of the larger institution, and the expensive
duplication involved with different entities, increase red
tape and drive up costs."[26] ACTA estimated that the
average accreditation cost is $63,000 in staff time, fees, and
other resources. Accreditation recommendations can also add
costs. "Accreditors have a tendency to recommend actions by
schools that will require them to use scarce resources to little or
no purpose," according to ACTA experts.[27] Not all costs
are financial: Controversial requirements can affect the culture
and mission of colleges and universities. For example, the
Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass
Communications (ACEJMC) recently adopted a standard for
accreditation mandating that a school's "curriculum fosters
understanding of issues and perspectives that are inclusive in
terms of gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation."[28]
Given the
cost and inadequacy of accreditation as a gatekeeper for the HEA,
Congress should de-link accreditation from HEA eligibility.
Institutions would still be free to seek accreditation, but it
would not be required for participation in federal programs or to
admit students carrying federal aid. Accountability would be
maintained through state and U.S. Department of Education
certification and the public database. Representative Thomas E.
Petri (R-WI) has introduced H.R. 838, a bill that would achieve
this reform.
Colleges
and universities would be required to obtain certification by the
Secretary of Education demonstrating that the institutions are
legitimate and have the administrative and financial capacity to
participate in aid programs. To prevent fraud and "fly by night"
operations, the Department of Education should have additional
authority to seek out and prosecute fraud. By disseminating
information about schools to consumers and actively prosecuting
fraudulent operators, Congress could provide consumer and
taxpayer protection in a more efficient and less costly
manner.
Conclusion
Every
year, billions of dollars of federal, state, institutional, and
private aid is made available to students. What was once out of
reach is now accessible for low-income students. "[F]inancial
barriers are not a major obstacle to college attendance" for
low-income families, according to a new Congressional Budget Office
study.[29]
Despite
success in helping to meet these needs, the Higher Education Act of
1965 still needs reform. Since its inception, the act has shifted
from focusing on meeting the needs of low-income students to
subsidizing students of all income levels. The increasing use of
federal higher education programs by middle-class and wealthy
students is costly to taxpayers, contributes to student
indebtedness, fosters greater individual and institutional
dependency, increases entitlement spending, and contributes to the
rising cost of higher education.
Congress
has an opportunity to significantly reform the HEA during the
current reauthorization by ending outdated and duplicative
programs, eliminating subsidies to middle-class and wealthy
families, and creating a public database in place of
accreditation to encourage smart consumer decision making. By
enacting these reforms, Congress would return the HEA to its
original purpose of serving those who could not otherwise afford a
higher education.
Krista
Kafer is Senior Policy Analyst for Education at
The Heritage Foundation.
APPENDIX: A PRIMER ON HIGHER
EDUCATION AID
The
History of Federal Aid to Students
Most
federal student aid is given in the form of grants and loans-either
directly to students or indirectly through campus-based grants and
loans. Other federally funded programs provide eligible students
with preparation and support.
The G.I.
Bill
Federal
aid to students for higher education began in 1944 when Congress
passed the Serviceman's Readjustment Act, also known as the
Montgomery G.I. Bill. The G.I. Bill was intended to help returning
soldiers adjust to civilian life by providing education,
training, employment assistance, and other benefits. Veterans
received an education voucher worth $500 per year for tuition,
books, and fees.[30] The program continues to this
day. The monthly benefit for an individual who has completed at
least three years of active duty and attends school full-time is
$985 for college or vocational training or $738.75 for an
apprenticeship program.[31] In the 2002-2003 school year,
veterans and active military personnel received $3 billion in
education and training.[32]
The
Perkins Loan Program
In 1958,
Congress initiated the National Defense Student Loan program, the
first federal college loan program. Later renamed the Perkins Loan
program, it provides low-income students with loans that are
disbursed and administered by colleges and universities. The
colleges and universities supplement the federal funds and
disburse loans to students with financial need. Loan payments
are added back into the school's revolving loan account to be used
for new loans. The interest rate on Perkins Loans is 5 percent.[33]
Federal
"loan forgiveness" programs provide partial or full debt
cancellation to those who enter certain approved professions or
participate in government-subsidized work in the non-profit
sector (e.g., Americorps).
Other
Campus-Based Programs
In 1964,
Congress established the Work-Study program, which subsidizes
student employment. The Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants (SEOG) program provides grants of $100 to $4,000 per year to
low-income students.[34] The Leveraging
Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP), which began in 1972
as the State Student Incentive Grant program, provides federal
matching grants to states for need-based and work-study
aid.
College
Preparation and Support
In 1964,
Congress enacted Upward Bound, a college preparation program
and the first TRIO program. (The term trio was adopted after
Congress had enacted three college preparation programs.)[35] There are now six federal TRIO
programs providing college preparation and support for completion:
Talent Search, Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math/Science,
Student Support Services, Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate
Achievement Program, and Education Opportunity Centers. A similar
program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), provides services and
scholarships to select middle school and high school students. The
program begins working with these students in the 7th grade and
continues through high school.[36]
Pell
Grants
The
Higher Education Act of 1965 created the Educational Opportunity
Grant Program-the precursor of the Pell Grant. Pell Grants are
essentially federal vouchers that low-income students can use
at any eligible institution of higher education. Amounts vary
according to a needs-based formula and the maximum award is $4,050.
Students received $11 billion in Pell Grants in 2003.[37]
Stafford
and PLUS Loans
The 1965
HEA also created the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, which was
later renamed the Stafford Loan Program. Since then, the
Guaranteed Loan Program has grown exponentially. In nearly four
decades, the government has guaranteed more than $485 billion in
loans.[38] Federal aid program
participation increased after the 1992 reauthorization enabled
more middle-income and high-income students to receive "subsidized"
and "unsubsidized" loans.[39] The 1992 HEA
also raised loan limits. The creation of the "unsubsidized loan"
programs and the higher loan limits caused "an explosion in federal
student loan volume," according to the Institute for Higher
Education Policy.[40] The Higher Education Act
includes three loan programs: Stafford Loans, PLUS loans, and
Perkins Loans.
There are
two kinds of Stafford loans-"subsidized" and "unsubsidized"-and two
delivery systems: the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP), and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program
(Direct Loans). The total loan volume of newly originated
loans under FFELP and Direct Loans (including consolidation loans)
was $87 billion in 2003.[41] The total outstanding loan
volume is much higher.[42]
For
"subsidized loans" under both the FFELP and Direct Loans programs,
taxpayers fund the interest while the student is in school. The
student pays the interest on "unsubsidized" loans. (The term
"unsubsidized loan" is misleading because all guaranteed loans are
subsidized by the taxpayer.) Under the FFELP, taxpayers pay
subsidies to banks on behalf of the students to keep the interest
rate lower than the market rate. With Direct Loans, the loan
capital is taken directly from the U.S. Treasury. In both cases,
the public pays for defaulted loans. Under Direct Loans, taxpayers
also pay off loans that are still outstanding after 25 years. Both
the FFELP and Direct Loans programs allow students to consolidate
their loans into one payment. The interest rate is fixed at
the time the loan is made. The cost of subsidies under the FFELP
was $3.4 billion in 2003. The subsidies will rise when interest
rates go up. The Bush Administration is requesting $7 billion to
cover subsidies in 2005.[43] The default rate is around 5
percent, although this is likely a low estimate because the 1998
rules allow the Department of Education to exempt the number of
loans in forbearance and deferment. Delinquent borrowers have an
additional 90 days (for a total of 180) before they are considered
in default.[44]
PLUS
Loans
In 1980,
PLUS Loans-which cover the full cost of tuition minus other
financial aid-were made available to the parents of dependent
undergraduate students. The interest rate for these loans in
2003-2004 is 4.22 percent.[45] Parents may use either
Direct Loans or the FFELP.
Federal
Aid to Higher Education Institutions
The HEA
provides grants to universities for teacher education, foreign
language acquisition, and other area studies. The HEA also provides
funds to institutions serving large numbers of minority
students.
Institutional
aid was increased during the 1990s. Currently, Title II of the HEA
provides grants for states and partnerships (of education schools,
districts, education organizations, and schools of arts and
sciences) to improve the training and recruitment of teachers.
This title also includes annual reporting requirements for states
and education schools to ensure that graduates are of high
quality.
Evidence
suggests that the reporting requirements have not yielded
reliable information about teacher quality.[46] The
HEA requires states to report passing rates on the licensure exam
for those who complete the program. In some states, program
completers include those who have already passed the licensure
exam. Such states boast 100 percent passing rates-a statistic that
does not show how many students in education programs actually pass
the test.[47]
The U.S.
House of Representatives passed H.R. 2211 on July 9, 2003. This
bill would standardize the requirements to provide greater clarity
and allow state-by-state and school-by-school comparisons. States
and institutions report the percentage of students who completed at
least half of a teaching preparation program and passed the
certification or licensure test. The report must include the
state's criteria for assessing the quality of education school
programs.
Title III
and Title V of the HEA provide funding for institutions that serve
Alaskan and Hawaiian natives, historically black universities and
colleges, and Hispanic-serving and tribally controlled
institutions. Titles VI and VII include funding for
graduate and undergraduate language and international studies
programs, centers for international business education,
research, programs for disabled students, and other
programs.
The Fund
for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education is intended
for exemplary local programs and is used during appropriations
to fund congressional pork projects.
The HEA
is not the only source of federal funding for higher education
institutions.[48] The Department of Health and
Human Services, for example, provided over $771 million for "health
professions training programs."[49]
There are
also tax credits and deductions for higher education. President
George W. Bush's FY 2004 budget estimates costs of $3.4 billion for
the HOPE tax credit (which benefits mostly middle-class and
upper-income students and their families); $2.2 billion for
the Lifetime Learning Credit; $110 million for education savings
accounts with tax-exempt interest; and $760 million for student
loan interest deductions.[50]
[1]This figure
includes federal funds and non-federal matching funds. See
U.S. Department of Education, "Student Financial Assistance,"
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, February 2, 2004, at (February 20, 2004).
[2]U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, "Fast
Facts: Financial Aid," at (April 15,
2004).
[3]Ibid.
[4]National Commission
on the Cost of Higher Education,"Straight Talk about College Costs
and Prices," American Institutes for Research, 1998, p.
11.
[5]Bachelor's degree
holders make an average of $21,800 more than those with only a high
school diploma and $14,000 more than those with an associate's
degree. Figures are for full-time, year-round employment. See
Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Eric C. Newburger, "The Big Payoff:
Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life
Earnings," U.S. Census Bureau, July 2002, at (February
20, 2004).
[6]Ibid.
[7]]National Commission
on the Cost of Higher Education,"StraightTalk," p.
11.
[8]Committee on
Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, "Fact
Sheet: The Skyrocketing Cost of Higher Education," October 10,
2003, at (February 20, 2004).
[9]Ira Carnahan, "Back
to School: Why Federal College Aid Makes School More Expensive,"
Forbes, September 1, 2003, p. 60.
[10]Robin Wallace,
"College Tuition Scare: Don't Believe All the Hype," Fox News,
September 26, 2003.
[11]National Commission
on the Cost of Higher Education,"Straight Talk," p.
11.
[12]Chester E. Finn
Jr., "A Different Future for Higher Education?" American
Outlook,Spring 1998.
[13]Young America's
Foundation, Comedy & Tragedy 2003-2004: College Course
Descriptions and What They Tell Us About Higher Education
Today, 2003, at
(February 20, 2004).
[14]Greg Winter,
"Jacuzzi U.? A Battle of Perks to Lure Students," The New York
Times, October 5, 2003, p. 1.
[15]Finn, "A Different
Future for Higher Education?"
[16]The private loan
market is linked to the prime rate, which is the rate that banks
give to corporations with good credit (roughly 8 percent).
Congressional Budget Office, Private and Public Contributions to
Financing College Education, January 2004, p.
17.
[17]America's Student
Loan Providers, "Student Loan Fact Book 2003," at
(February 20, 2004).
[18]Kevin A. Hassett
and Robert J. Shapiro, "The Fiscal and Social Costs of
Consolidating Student Loans at Fixed Interest Rates," March 9,
2004, at
(February 20, 2004).
[19]Congressional
Budget Office, Private and Public Contributions, p.
17.
[20]U.S. Department of
Education, The Student Guide 2003-2004, p. 19, at
(April 12, 2004).
[21]For more
information, see Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., "Data Sharing Can Reduce
Fraud in the Pell Grant Program," Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder No. 1714, December 17, 2003, at
(April 12, 2004).
[22]National Commission
on the Cost of Higher Education, "Straight Talk," p.
16.
[23]George C. Leef and
Roxana D. Burris, Can College
Accreditation Live Up to Its Promise? (Washington, D.C.: American Council of
Trustees and Alumni, 2002), at
(February 20, 2004), and National Commission on the Cost of
Higher Education, "Straight Talk," p. 31.
[24]Leef and Burris,
Can College Accreditation Live Up to Its
Promise?
[25]Ibid.
[26]National Commission
on the Cost of Higher Education, "Straight Talk," p.
31.
[27]Leef and Burris,
Can College Accreditation Live Up to
Its Promise?
[28]See University of
Kansas, "Accrediting Standards," ACEJMC Standards of Accreditation,
September 2003, at
www.ukans.edu/~acejmc/BREAKING/New_standards_9-03.pdf
(February 20, 2004).
[29]Nabeel
Alsalam, Seth Giertz, and Dennis Zimmerman, "Private and Public
Contributions to Financing College Education," Congressional Budget
Office, January 2004, p. 17, at
(February 20, 2004).
[30]See U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, "G.I. Bill History," at (February 20, 2004).
[31]The Montgomery
G.I. Bill provides benefits up to 36 months for degree and
certification programs, correspondence courses, licensing and
certification tests, and apprenticeship programs for active duty
military up to 10 years after discharge. Benefits are also
available for Selected Reservists, certain older veterans, and
survivors and dependents of veterans who became significantly
disabled or who have died during duty. Payments vary. For more
information, see Department of Veterans Affairs Web site, at .
[32]U.S. Congressional
Budget Office, Private and Public Contributions to Financing
College Education, January 2004,
at www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4984&sequence=0(February 20, 2004).
[33]America's Student
Loan Providers, Student Loan Fact Book 2003.
[34]U.S. Department of
Education, The Student Guide 2003-2004, p. 1.
[35]FinAid, "History
of Student Financial Aid," at (April 12, 2004).
[36]See U.S.
Department of Education, "Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP)," at (April 12, 2004).
[37]See U.S. Department
of Education, "Student Financial Assistance."
[38]America's Student
Loan Providers, Student Loan Fact Book 2003.
[39]U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, "The Condition
of Education 2003," NCES 2003- 067, p. 81.
[40]Catherine
A. Wegmann, Alisa F. Cunningham, and Jamie P. Merisotis, "Financing
Higher Education and Choice in Private Loans," The Institute for
Higher Education Policy, July 2003, at (February 20, 2004).
[41]U.S.
Department of Education, "Student Financial Assistance."
[42]The
total outstanding loan volume in 2000 was $224 billion, of which 20
percent were newly originated funds. U.S. Department of Education
and U.S. General Accounting Office, Alternative Market
Mechanism for the Student Loan Program, GAO-02-84SP, December
18, 2001, at (February 20, 2004).
[43]See
U.S. Department of Education, "Student Financial Assistance."
[44]The
Department of Education's Inspector General released a report
calling into question the default rate. According to the report,
the default rate in 2001 was 5.4 percent. See Michael Cardman,
"Inspector General: ED Underestimating Default Rate," Education
Daily, January 23, 2004,p. 2-3.
[45]U.S.
Department of Education, "Student Financial Assistance."
[46]Committee
on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives,
"Bill Summary: The Ready to Teach Act- H.R. 2211," at
(April 12, 2004).
[47]Julie
Blair, "Ed. Schools Strain to File Report Cards," Education
Week, March 28, 2001, p. 16.
[48]Charlene
Hoffman, "Federal Support for Education Fiscal Years 1980 to 2002,"
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, NCES 2003-006, October 2002.
[49]U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
"Table 365: Federal On-Budget Funds for Education, by Level or
Other Educational Purpose, by Agency and Program: Fiscal Years 1965
to 2002," in Digest of Education Statistics, 2002, at (April 12,
2004).
[50]Office
of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government,
FY 2005: Analytical Perspectives, p. 288 at .