College Access

Bush Administration Announces More Relief for FFEL Lenders

Opposition to Private Student Loan Bailout Mounts

Department of Ed Data Project Sparks Controversy

High Costs Keep Thousands of Qualified Students Out of College, Survey Finds

Financial Crisis Expected to Impact Community Colleges, Survey Finds

Adjunct Faculty Use Can Impact Student Performance

Goal Financial Settles with Cuomo

Student Debt Loads Increase, Report Finds

Economic Downturn Impacting College Decisions, Survey Finds

College Board Unveils Test for 8^th Graders

Small Private Colleges Could Suffer in Credit Crunch

Baylor Pays Students to Retake SAT

Colleges Worried About IRS Questionnaire

NCAA Reports Higher Graduation Rates Among Student Athletes

More than 500 days after being placed on paid administrative leave, Matteo Fontana officially resigned from his position at the U.S. Department of Education in early September, according to a report yesterday in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Department's political leaders are surely breathing a sigh of relief.

After all, over the past 17 months, they have come under heavy fire (including from us) for the way they have handled the case, which revolves around special shares of stock that Fontana received from a student loan company he was in charge of overseeing.

But if Department leaders think that Fontana's resignation brings this case to a close, they are kidding themselves. Serious questions remain about Fontana's actions and about the Department's response to them.

In April 2007, the Department placed Fontana, the then-general manager of the Financial Partners Division of the U.S. Department of Education's Federal Student Aid office, on paid leave after Higher Ed Watch revealed that he had held at least $100,000 worth of stock in the company Student Loan Xpress. It is clear that Fontana's purchase and subsequent sale of the stock represented a substantial conflict of interest -- he was, after all, responsible for overseeing the lenders and guaranty agencies that participate in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.

Congress Approves One-Year Extension of Student Loan Bail Out Bill

Ed Department Projects Pell Grant Shortfall of $6 Billion

Panel Presents Plan for Overhauling Federal Student Aid Programs

Student Loan Defaults are on the Rise

By Christina Satkowski and Stephen Burd

You can't always believe what you read in the papers. That old saying has gained new currency this year with all of the misleading and panicked news coverage of the student loan credit crunch. Unfortunately, the same can be said of recent reports about Congressional efforts to simplify the process of applying for financial aid.

At issue are news stories reporting on a provision in the recently-passed Higher Education Act reauthorization legislation that requires the U.S. Department of Education to create a new "EZ FAFSA," a shorter version of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) that tens of millions of students fill out each year to determine their aid eligibility. Recent articles in Congressional Quarterly, Education Week, The New York Times, and other publications leave the impression that the new bill streamlines the FAFSA -- from seven pages to two -- for all students.

But that's not the case. While the legislation introduces an EZ FAFSA, it makes it available to only those students whose family income is low enough that they already qualify for an expedited review of their finances when applying for federal financial aid. As a result, most aid applicants will still be stuck with the longer form.

Under the new law, students who will be eligible to use the EZ FAFSA include those whose families earn earn less than $50,000 a year and either are not required to file the long version of the 1040 federal income tax return or receive certain federal means-tested benefits such as welfare payments or food stamps. The federal government doesn't take into consideration the assets of families of students who meet these criteria.

By Rupert Wilkinson

The Bush administration has repeatedly called for simplifying the federal student aid system by eliminating two of the main "campus-based" aid programs, which provide colleges with federal funds for needy students that they allocate themselves. Under the administration's plan, funds from the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant and Perkins Loan programs would be transferred into expanded Pell grants, the government's main source of grant aid for low-income students.

A better solution would be to restructure the campus-based aid programs so that they do a better job of leveraging college support for students who are promising but disadvantaged.

In America's decentralized higher education system, the ultimate responsibility for meeting (or not meeting) student financial need lies with the college itself. Outside an elite band of well-endowed institutions, most four-year colleges do not meet all need -- because they are either unable or unwilling to use their own grant aid to fill the gap between the cost of attendance and the family resources and financial aid (including federal loans and a reasonable amount of College Work-Study employment) that students are able to cobble together. Estimating that gap is tricky, but it is the widest for poor students -- probably well over 20% of what they need.

Now that Congress has completed work on legislation to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, momentum is growing among student-aid experts and some policymakers for a fundamental redesign of the federal student aid system. A key question they are asking is whether the federal campus-based student-aid programs are still needed.

The campus-based programs -- College Work-Study, Perkins Loans, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants -- are intended to supplement Pell Grants for low-income students and to provide aid for students who just miss the cutoff for the grants. Unlike Pell Grants, which are awarded directly to students, campus-based aid is distributed to colleges, which add their own dollars to the programs and then give the money to students.

By requiring colleges to provide matching funds, these programs have long played an important role in enticing colleges to spend their own money to help support low- and moderate-income students. The programs, however, are no longer serving the neediest students well. The formula the government uses to distribute the aid overwhelmingly benefits elite private colleges and public flagship universities, even though low-income students predominantly attend community colleges, state colleges, and trade schools.

IG Faults Dept. of Ed's Management of Grant Programs

Shareholders Suffer Setback in University of Phoenix Lawsuit

Massachusetts Governor Asks Colleges to Help Save Lender