Overview
Title
To establish the Proprietary Education Interagency Oversight Committee and to facilitate the disclosure and reporting of information regarding complaints and investigations related to proprietary institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal education assistance.
ELI5 AI
S. 3727 is like creating a special team to make sure for-profit colleges (schools that try to make money) are doing a good job and not breaking rules. This team will also make a list to warn kids and parents if a college might be in trouble, but they forgot to say how they will pay for all of this work.
Summary AI
S. 3727 aims to create a committee to oversee and improve accountability for for-profit colleges that receive federal education assistance. The bill introduces the Proprietary Education Interagency Oversight Committee, tasked with ensuring these institutions provide high-quality education, comply with laws, and prevent fraud. An advisory committee will assist with providing recommendations, and a complaint system will be set up to track and respond to student grievances. Additionally, a For-Profit College Warning List will be published to inform students and parents about colleges with issues such as lawsuits or regulatory actions.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill proposes the establishment of the Proprietary Education Interagency Oversight Committee to oversee for-profit colleges that are eligible for federal educational assistance. It aims to enhance transparency and accountability in proprietary education institutions by ensuring the public can access information about complaints and investigations related to these schools. The proposed committee's main objectives include improving enforcement of federal laws, reducing fraud, and promoting high-quality education programs in the for-profit education sector.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several significant issues arise from this proposed bill:
Accrediting Agencies: The definition of an "accrediting agency" depends on recognition by the Secretary of Education, which may limit competition and favor certain agencies, potentially impacting fairness in educational quality assessments.
Funding Mechanism: The bill does not specify a funding mechanism for the oversight committee, raising concerns about how it would be financially supported.
For-Profit College Warning List: The criteria and process for inclusion on the "For-Profit College Warning List" are not clearly defined, which could lead to disputes from proprietary institutions regarding their inclusion on the list.
Privacy and Data Security: There is a lack of detail on how privacy and data security will be safeguarded, especially concerning student complaints, which is crucial to maintaining public trust.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill could enhance the transparency and accountability of for-profit colleges, providing prospective students and parents with necessary data to make informed decisions about their educational investments. This improved access to information could lead to better educational outcomes and financial decisions. However, the bill's emphasis on proprietary institutions without comparable data from public institutions may skew public perception and potentially create a bias against for-profit schools without context.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Students and Parents: They stand to benefit from increased transparency and consumer protections against fraudulent or low-quality educational programs. The publication of detailed reports and the warning list could help them avoid problematic institutions.
Proprietary Institutions: These institutions might experience increased scrutiny and could face challenges if included on the warning list. Inclusion criteria need to be transparent and fair to avoid potential reputational damage without due process.
Accrediting Agencies: Agencies recognized by the Secretary may maintain or gain dominance in certifying educational quality, which raises competitive fairness issues.
Federal and State Agencies: Agencies involved in the oversight may experience increased cooperation and data sharing, potentially leading to more effective enforcement. However, they might also face challenges coordinating and implementing new systems without clear funding or procedural guidelines.
Overall, while the bill aims to address important concerns in the oversight of for-profit colleges, there are issues pertaining to implementation details, transparency in criteria, and equity across different types of education institutions that need to be resolved to ensure it functions as intended.
Financial Assessment
In reviewing S. 3727, it is important to note the bill's focus on enhancing oversight and accountability of proprietary institutions, also known as for-profit colleges, that receive federal education assistance. However, the bill does not explicitly provide details on financial allocations or appropriations to support its implementation. This absence raises several questions and potential issues regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of the bill's proposed actions.
Absence of Financial Provisions
One notable aspect of S. 3727 is the lack of a specified funding mechanism or budget allocation for the operations of the newly established committees. The Proprietary Education Interagency Oversight Committee, tasked with coordinating and improving enforcement of laws related to proprietary institutions, does not have a designated budget. This absence could hinder its ability to fulfill its responsibilities effectively, as federal agencies involved will likely need additional resources to carry out the bill's mandates. This is directly tied to one of the identified issues where concerns about financial oversight and sufficiency are raised due to the lack of a specified funding plan.
Financial Measures and Oversight
The bill's emphasis on oversight includes the creation of an annual report to provide detailed industry-wide data on proprietary institutions. This report will cover financial aspects such as federal education assistance amounts received, student loan burdens, and institutional revenue distributions. However, the report will focus solely on proprietary institutions and does not require similar financial data from public institutions, which raises fairness concerns. This could be perceived as a bias or imbalance in the scrutiny of different types of educational institutions.
Financial Effectiveness and Accountability
In terms of accountability, the bill outlines the creation of mechanisms to track complaints and produce warning lists for the public. Yet, without clear financial arrangements or budgeting plans for these activities, it remains uncertain how these initiatives will be sustainably funded. Complaints tracking, response systems, and list publications all entail costs and resource allocations. The bill lacks clarity on how these aspects will be managed financially, which relates to concerns about potential wasteful spending and allocation of resources.
Summary
Overall, the financial dimensions of S. 3727 are somewhat ambiguous, focusing more on the goals of oversight and accountability without detailing how these will be financially supported or managed. The absence of specified funding or budget allocations for the committees and activities it proposes is a significant gap, potentially impacting the bill's effectiveness and raising questions about how financial oversight will be ensured within the scope of its ambitious agenda.
Issues
The definition of 'accrediting agency' in Section 2 might limit competition because it depends on recognition by the Secretary, potentially favoring certain agencies over others.
Section 3 lacks a specified funding mechanism or budget for the Proprietary Education Interagency Oversight Committee's operations, raising concerns about financial oversight and sufficiency.
The process and criteria for inclusion and removal from the 'For-Profit College Warning List' in Section 7 are not clearly defined. This vagueness could lead to disputes or legal challenges from proprietary institutions.
The lack of clear articulation in Section 3 regarding how the Committee's success in achieving its purposes will be measured raises concerns about accountability and efficacy.
Section 4's broadly defined qualifications for Advisory Committee members may result in appointments that do not adequately reflect expertise in proprietary education, risking favoritism or political bias.
Section 5 lacks detail on privacy and data security measures for the complaints database, raising concerns about the protection of personally identifiable information.
The term 'recruiting and marketing activities' in Section 2 includes a wide array of activities without clear boundaries, leading to potential overreach or exploitation of exceptions by institutions.
The report's focus on proprietary institutions alone in Section 6 could lead to perceived bias since similar data is not required from public institutions, raising fairness concerns.
Section 7's lack of specific timelines for addressing deficiencies before list publication could leave institutions on the warning list without adequate time to respond, causing reputational harm.
The potential cost and resource allocation implications in establishing mechanisms for complaint tracking and response in Section 5 are not explicitly detailed, leading to concerns about wasteful spending.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states the short title, which is “Proprietary Education Oversight Task Force Act.”
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text defines terms related to higher education regulation, such as "accrediting agency" as a private group recognized for assessing education quality, "Federal education assistance" which refers to federal funds for student costs, and "recruiting and marketing activities" involving advertising by educational institutions. It also clarifies who the "Secretary" refers to, defines a "proprietary institution of higher education," and outlines what a "veterans service organization" is, among other terms.
3. Establishment of Proprietary Education Interagency Oversight Committee Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Proprietary Education Interagency Oversight Committee is established to oversee for-profit colleges and includes members from various federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Justice Department. Its main goals are to ensure these colleges follow laws, prevent fraud, and provide good-quality education through coordinated efforts and shared information.
4. Proprietary Education Oversight Advisory Committee Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Proprietary Education Oversight Advisory Committee is set up by the Department to give advice at least twice a year, and its 13 members are chosen based on experience and knowledge in proprietary education. The committee's main role is to provide recommendations on issues like complaints and enforcement actions involving proprietary institutions, student enrollment, educational outcomes, student loan burdens, and recruitment practices, while ensuring the privacy of those involved in complaints.
5. Collection and tracking of complaints Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a plan to create a centralized system for collecting and tracking student complaints about proprietary colleges that receive federal aid. This system, managed by a Committee and coordinated with various federal and state agencies, will be used to share complaint information to investigate problems, prepare reports, and improve regulatory oversight, all while protecting personal information and ensuring data security.
6. Report Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The report outlined in this section must be submitted annually by the Committee to various Senate and House committees, ensuring it excludes personal information and is publicly accessible. It will cover various aspects of proprietary institutions of higher education, including negative government actions, student complaints, financial data, graduation and employment outcomes, and comparisons to public institutions, with specific attention to publicly traded corporations and federal education assistance programs.
Money References
- (b) Confidentiality and public access.—The report described in subsection (a)— (1) shall not contain any personally identifiable information; and (2) shall be made available to the public in a manner that is easily accessible to parents, students, and other stakeholders. (c) Contents.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The report described in subsection (a) shall include— (A) a description of the role of each member of the Committee in achieving the purposes described in section 3(b); (B) an accounting of any negative or adverse action taken by the Federal Government, any member agency of the Committee, or a State to enforce Federal or State laws and regulations applicable to a proprietary institution of higher education; (C) a summary of complaints received, resolved, or pending against each proprietary institution of higher education during the applicable year, including— (i) student complaints collected by the complaint system established under section 5 or received by any member agency of the Committee; (ii) any complaint filed by a Federal or State agency in a Federal, State, local, or Tribal court; (iii) any administrative proceeding by a Federal or State agency involving noncompliance of any applicable law or regulation; (iv) any other review, audit, or administrative process by any Federal or State agency that results in a penalty, suspension, or termination from any Federal or State program; and (v) any complaint, review, audit, or administrative process by an accrediting agency that results in probation or equivalent action, denial, withdrawal, suspension, or termination of accreditation; (D) the data described in paragraph (2) and any other data relevant to proprietary institutions of higher education that the Committee determines appropriate; and (E) recommendations of the Committee for the legislative and administrative actions as the Committee determines are necessary to— (i) improve enforcement of applicable Federal laws; (ii) increase accountability of proprietary institutions of higher education to students, parents, and taxpayers; (iii) reduce and prevent fraud and abuse by proprietary institutions of higher education; and (iv) ensure the promotion of quality education programs. (2) DATA.— (A) INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA.—The report described in subsection (a) shall include data on all proprietary institutions of higher education that consists of information regarding— (i) the total amount of Federal education assistance that proprietary institutions of higher education received for the previous academic year, and the percentage of the total amount of Federal education assistance provided to institutions of higher education (as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)) for the previous academic year that reflects the total amount of Federal education assistance provided to proprietary institutions of higher education for the previous academic year; (ii) the total amount of Federal education assistance that proprietary institutions of higher education received for the previous academic year, disaggregated by— (I) educational assistance in the form of a loan provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); (II) educational assistance in the form of a grant provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); (III) educational assistance provided under chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code; (IV) assistance for tuition and expenses under section 2007 of title 10, United States Code; (V) assistance provided under section 1784a of title 10, United States Code; and (VI) Federal education assistance not described in subclauses (I) through (V); (iii) the percentage of the total amount of Federal education assistance provided to institutions of higher education (as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)) for the previous academic year for each of the programs described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (ii), that reflects the total amount of Federal education assistance provided to proprietary institutions of higher education for the previous academic year for each of those programs; (iv) the average retention and graduation rates for students pursuing a degree at proprietary institutions of higher education; (v) the average cohort default rate (as defined in section 435(m) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(m)) for proprietary institutions of higher education, and the cohort default rate for each proprietary institution of higher education; (vi) the average pre-enrollment expenditures on a per-enrolled-student basis, including expenditures on recruiting and marketing activities; (vii) the average educational and general expenditures (as defined in section 502 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a)) per student, excluding all pre-enrollment expenditures; (viii) for careers requiring the passage of a licensing examination— (I) the passing rate of individuals who attended a proprietary institution of higher education taking the examination to pursue such a career; and (II) the passing rate of all individuals taking the exam to pursue such a career; and (ix) the use of private education loans at proprietary institutions of higher education that includes— (I) an estimate of the total number of those loans; (II) information on the average debt, default rate, and interest rate of those loans; and (III) the names of each lender providing private education loans to borrowers with respect to each proprietary institution of higher education in the prior academic year, including— (aa) the number of borrowers receiving loans from each lender; and (bb) the volume of dollars provided to borrowers with respect to the proprietary institution of higher education by each lender.
7. For-profit college warning list for parents and students Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a plan for the Secretary to annually publish a "For-Profit College Warning List for Parents and Students" featuring the names of certain for-profit colleges. These colleges may have been sued for financial misconduct, required to pay settlements, faced student claims for loan relief, had federal aid eligibility issues, or are found ineligible for future aid. The list will also summarize why each college is included and follow specific procedures for evaluation and the opportunity for institutions to respond before publication.