Senate HELP Committee Holds Hearing on Student Aid

Last Friday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on college affordability. It was the latest in a series of Congressional action on increasing access to higher education. The focus was on general ideas and statements from the invited panelists regarding the federal student aid system. The broad focus of the hearing is likely due in part to the fact that Committee Chairman Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has introduced multiple bills regarding student aid, including S. 359, S.486, and S. 572. These bills are intended to increase grant aid, reduce borrowers’ student loan burdens by tying repayment to their incomes, step up regulation of lenders, and reshape the playing field of the government’s two competing student loan programs.

The hearing definitely appeared to be more for posturing and showmanship then actual substantive debate. The featured panelists were Suze Orman, a personal finance guru who hosts a late-night talk show on CNBC that focuses on consumer issues, and Tamara Draut, director of the economic opportunity program at the nonprofit Demos Group and author of Strapped: Why America’s 20- and 30-Somethings Can’t Get Ahead. Other panelists included Sandy Baum, a Skidmore College economist and senior policy analyst at the College Board, and Jon Oberg, a longtime Education Department researcher who recently helped to blow the whistle on a practice in which some lenders were improperly profiting from an interest rate loophole in federal student loan programs.
Although they all agreed that the government has to do more in order to help more middle and low income Americans pay for college, they differed on the details. For example, Orman believes that there needs to be more financial education for young people, a point on which the other panelists agreed. The other three witnesses all embraced the belief that increased competition in the student loan industry is a positive thing, a fact to which Orman objected. At the same time, Draut stated that a decline in state support is the driving factor in rising college costs, and Baum agreed. The two disagreed, however, on where the focus of increased aid should be. Draut’s focus is on the $19,000 debt that the average undergraduate accumulates. Baum believed the focus should be on the 15% of borrowers that have an accumulated debt of more then $30,000.

Senator Kennedy used the time to point out the work he has done and are will continue to do to help average Americans receive a college degree without going into massive debt. He took the time to mention the legislation he has introduced, as well as bills that he intends to bring to the committee, including another attempt to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Efforts for reauthorization died out in the 109th Congress, a mistake that Senator Kennedy does not want the 110th to repeat.
Resources:

Doug Lederman and Sarah Rosser, “Scattered Thoughts on Student Aid,” Inside Higher Ed, February 19, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Winkelman v. Parma City School District, No. 04-4159 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2005)

Supreme Court Hears Argument on Parent Pro Se IDEA Representation
On February 27, 2007 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Winkelman v. Parma City School District, No. 04-4159 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2005) on the issue of whether parents are permitted to represent their children pro se in due process hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Jeff and Sandee Winkelman are the parents of Jacob, an autistic child receiving special education services. The original complaint alleged that Jacob’s individualized education program failed to provide him with a free and appropriate education, as required under IDEA. The Winkelmans spent $30,000 in legal fees for representation in the original hearing and before a review office. When the hearing office and then the review office found in favor of the school district, the Winkelmans appealed again, but hoped to represent themselves as they could not longer afford legal representation.

The Winklemans appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. They claimed that, in addition to Jacob’s substantive IDEA rights, their procedural rights as parents were also violated. The Winkelmans claimed that the school district predetermined a placement for Jacob without their input. They also alleged that the hearing officer impermissibly allowed a research assistant to “co-preside” over the proceedings and that the decision violated the forty-five day time limit allowed by IDEA.
Parma City School District filed a motion to dismiss petitioners’ appeal because they were prosecuting the appeal without a lawyer. On November 4, 2005, before any briefing of the merits of the appeal had been conducted, the court of appeals granted the motion.

Currently, there is a division among six circuits over whether non-lawyer parents have the right to prosecute an IDEA dispute pro se and, if so, whether they can represent themselves regarding their own rights under IDEA and/or the rights of their children. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals found that parents may represent both themselves and their children under IDEA. The 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 11th Circuit courts have ruled that parents can only act on their own behalf, while the 6th Circuit ruled that parents cannot represent themselves or their children in court under IDEA.
With the Supreme Court’s decision, the split between the circuits will finally be settled and the scope of parental rights under the IDEA hopefully resolved.

Resource: http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004067.php
Author: TRW

Read More...

Summary only...

H.R. 990 Pell Grant Equity Act

On Tuesday, the House passed H.R. 990, The Pell Grant Equity Act, in yet another attempt to make college more affordable for middle and lower income families. The bill, sponsored by House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-CA), passed by voice vote with almost no opposition. H.R. 990 repeals a provision in the Higher Education Act (HEA) known as “tuition sensitivity.”

The tuition sensitivity provision, added to the HEA in the 1992 reauthorization (PL 105-244), lowers the maximum Pell Grant award available to students at schools where tuition and fees are less than $675 per year. Under this system, the government calculates the amount of Pell Grant funds that students at the lower-cost schools can receive using a different formula than for students at more expensive schools. Reps. Miller and Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, claimed that the legislation would correct an inequality and have an immediate impact by allowing roughly 96,000 students to receive, on average, an additional $108 per year.

The bill would be in effect for one year, allowing lawmakers time to include a permanent change in a reauthorization of the HEA this year. Both chambers of Congress passed an HEA reauthorization that included this repeal in the last Congress, but neither bill made it through conference. Aides to Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said he still supports the change. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced S. 707, a companion to H.R. 990, though no timetable has been set for the HELP Committee to hold a mark up on the bill.

Resources:
Libby George, “Bill Ending Limits on Pell Grants for Lower-Cost Schools Gets Passing Grade,” CQ Today, February 27, 2007
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

We are hoping this blog will allow us to bring together all the updates on news and events relating to national education policy. This could possibly become a vehicle for distributing the Federal Update, or at least a general source of information for current and potential clients. We will have to see where things go from here.

Read More...

Summary only...