I used to think Democratic Party legislators were the ones guilty of wasting taxpayer money, money so hard to come by in this state.
First, let’s look Bridgepoint Education with their 1,250 dollar contribution to Bob Huff. Who is Bridgepoint Education? Bridgepoint Education is a for-profit education company that operates online and on-campus based schools in the San Diego region and they are the fifth highest private employer in San Diego. Fine, it’s great that there are expanded education opportunities for people looking to expand their skills. However, there’s one major problem with Bridgepoint Education they get federal and state grants and the taxpayers are getting little in return with the company. Their profits are going up, but students are not completing their programs or even getting a decent job from their education.
The story began when a former executive for the for-profit University of Phoenix decided to look for a private liberal arts college for sale. They found and bought one in Iowa which was already accredited, making it easier to quickly get students. Then, regulations by the Department of Education in 2006 allowed schools with more than 50 percent of their students online to be eligible for federal assistance, leading to the growth of their company.
Bridgepoint has been more concerned with padding their bottom line by selling their “services,” rather than providing a product to their “customers.” 84 percent of their students dropped out of their education program in 2010 according to the US Senate Education Health Labor and Pensions committee. Meanwhile Bridgepoint has milked the taxpayers for almost $600 million in federal subsidies annually to help bring the school a tidy profit. Aside from scrutiny from the Senate education committee, they are also being investigated by the Iowa Attorney General and the New York State Attorney General offices.
Bob Huff as a member of the Senate Education committee has some pull, but very limited influence in a state dominated by the Democratic Party. Bob Huff voted NO on SB 70, an education trailer bill that dealt with many issues including the regulation for-profit colleges in their acceptance of Cal-Grants. If more than 30% of students default on their loans from institutions that accept the state grants, that institution will have its aid rescinded.
Senator Huff is a proponent of “distance learning,” as demonstrated in his press release for his education summit in Fullerton back in April of this year. Perhaps Senator Huff got his contribution because he is a big proponent of distance learning, but voters would rather appreciate it when he gets money from donors who actually graduate their students to the workforce and don’t leave us with more unfunded mandates to clean up after.
Private schools that operate on a for-profit basis should not be operating without oversight. As long as they provide a good product and help lead students to success there should be nothing to complain about. When the private sector fails to perform then it’s justifiable to give them the boot for a given period of time until they comply with the regulations to accept public money. Education is the same as health care: services must be rendered to the highest standards. The problem with the for-profit sector in these two industries is they try to skimp on their services in the effort to attain the highest profit. If they want to behave in this manner then they should operate on private sector money alone.
Financial literacy and career counseling is vital, whether at a public-sector or private-sector institution of higher education. With an over 1 trillion dollars in student loan debt in our nation we need to make sure our limited money is spent effectively to help provide opportunity to those who need it due to the likely budget cuts to compensate for our 16 billion in shortfalls in California. Oddly, the majority of Republicans in both chambers voted against reforming the for-profit education sector, but maybe if they realized that they are helping to encourage government waste and ruin they will recognize the error of their ways.
Many things in life come with both a promise and a guarantee. Too often, as here, the promise is that some policy will help serve society — but the guarantee is that some one company will make a profit and funnel it back into the campaign of a political sponsor. The promise is often forgotten, but the guarantee is not.
I really hate this sort of thing. Thanks for the article, Matt.
This posting provides the perfect proof that, sometimes, it truly is better to stay silent and let people think you are an idiot than it is to speak up and remove all doubt.
You’re being a little vague there: is your barb aimed at Matt or at Huff?
This Frontline expose highlights the frenzy for GI benefits by the for-profit colleges. Congress has taken note.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/educating-sergeant-pantzke/
Thanks — maybe Matt would like to append that link to the text of the story.
Matt’s posting might be one of the more intellectually lazy hit-posts I’ve seen on this blog. Allow me to clarify:
Let’s start with the fact that he claims for-profits shouldn’t operate without “scrutiny” two paragraphs after he states that Bridgepoint has been scrutinized by Senate education committee and being investigated by the Iowa Attorney General and the New York State Attorney General offices. He even uses the word “scrutiny” twice to contradict himself!
Secondly, why hold the private sector to different standard than the public schools? Do you know how many students graduate or transfer from community colleges? – spoiler alert! — It’s about 30%.
Do you know that CSUs have similarly embarrassing graduation rates? Is anyone from those institutions getting any better jobs than the private school graduates? 50% of CSU students are doing remedial work as soon as they end their studies! What exactly does Matt propose to do to those schools?
Instead of cheap sensationalism-leaden headlines, perhaps it would be wise to do a more informative (and accurate) post that compares how much taxpayers money goes into public schools versus private schools and what kind of comparative results we are getting for those investments.
More than anything, however, is how disgustingly disingenuous it was to call an 81 page long SB 70 “A BILL INTENDED TO REGULATE COLLEGES IN THEIR ACCEPTANCES OF CAL-GRANTS”.
Do you want to know what SB 70 REALY did? Here, read it for yourself.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_70_bill_20110324_chaptered.pdf
Ender, I may not agree with you much but you do have some merit and it is going to be addressed.
There will be some changes to this article.
First SB 70 is adjusted to say SB 70 is a trailer bill that has numerous issues to include the regulation of private for-profit schools.
Private sector charges more money than the public sector in most cases and we are not getting much in return. My last sentence in that paragraph compares health care companies with those education companies.
Yes, the remedial-ism in our colleges is costing us much money. But that is for another column. We would need to reform our K-12 system to help save money in the long run for the CC to UC systems.
I linked to the bill, I knew it was a trailer bill. But the legislators should of just abstained because it would of tarred and feathered the legislators that they stood against reforming the schools that accept cal-grants and take federal loans.
Hi Matt – You said “Private sector charges more money than the public sector in most cases and we are not getting much in return.”
That’s just not true when you look at true costs to the taxpayer. Check out this report for example: http://camod.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IHELP-Dollars-and-Sense-9-28-11.pdf
It says that the cost of completion per community college student is $65,474 and sometimes more. That’s how much it cost to get a student through a system that frankly doesnt do a very good job in the first place. Costs per student are way higher at public schools compared to private — but it’s worse because taxpayers foot the bill.
So just because it;s cheap for the student to go to a public college, doesnt mean the actual costs are low.
I’m glad you brought this issue up, I think this is a common misconception.
Its around 8000 bucks a year for the classes and to be generous I’ll say 2000 bucks for auxiliary services. If students stay for 3 years (due to budget cuts it ends up costing the state more money in the long run) that is 30,000. And that is still cheaper than Platt or Bridgepoint.
I would think of solutions such as charging community college students more money if they do not do assessment testing and counseling before they sign up for classes. I would have incentives to get students out the door in 3 years such as offering 200 bucks in cash, or 500 dollars towards their first semester at an accredited school (public or private) to help the issue of completion counts if they graduate on time (which helps to clear space for another student). Community colleges have an open access mission which makes it a bit difficult to calculate because some people may be taking 1 or 2 classes for enrichment or some people may be going for career skills or to transfer.
Taxpayers are still footing the bill in the private schools. However I agree that we need to do more with less no matter if it is public or private.
Good post. You’d think that this discrepancy about the per-student cost of public education could be resolved with some actual citations to studies.
I was reading the study and I could not picture 65,000 bucks unsubsdized. Maybe they are counting pell grants and other supplemental aid.
Okay, Matt. So let’s review:
Your earth-shattering headline claimed that “Senator Huff Loves Corporate Welfare for failing, for-profit schools”.and as evidence for this “Chicken Little, sky-is-falling” clarion, you submitted the fruits of your due diligence, which were that the State Senator
1. voted “no” on a bill, (the subject matter of which you mis-represented to be something other than just one piece of a considerably larger package of
INTERDEPENDENT bills that collectively represent what is commonly referred to as the UNBALANCED State Budget.)
2. ,held an educational summit to discuss the topic of “distance learning” (which you inaccurately implied to be either a teaching tool used exclusively by, or term simply synonymous with, “for-profit schools”)
3 took a $1,250 campaign contribution from a San Diego company that owns a for-profit schools business (whose revenue includes some $600M/yr in FEDERAL student grants.)
First, the Senate Education Committee that holds its hearings in Washington D.C., is not the same Senate Education Committee of which Senator Huff is a member. Votes taken by members of the Senate Education Committee that meets in Sacramento have no effect on FEDERAL expenditures of the Senate Education Committee that meets in Washington D.C. That point notwithstanding, it can only be graciously called a “stretch” to relate a ‘No” vote on an unbalanced budget bill to any kind of expression of love for your corporate welfare construct. Beyond that, implying that a $1,250 campaign contribution might be the motivating factor behind such a vote by the Senate Republican Leader is just a simple but glaring example of ignorance..
Next, The guest speaker list for the Senator’s Education Summit included Keith Boyum, Executive Assistant to the President of CSU, Fullerton , Diane J. Donnelly-Toscano, ED. D., Innovative Programs Coordinator at Anaheim Union High School District and Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District Administrator Elizabeth Moore. They were all there to describe how their PUBLIC SCHOOLS were using “distance learning” education tools (classes offered via the Internet).to provide a better education to the communities and local businesses they serve. (Oh, and the public school costs you’re missing in your earlier ramblings are the dollar amounts included in the State’s Annual budget line items for UC, CSU and CCC.)
Further, if you are seriously looking for legislative leaders that are willing to help fight government waste and corruption, I suggest you start with those that cast their “No” vote every time the Democrats present them with yet another unbalanced Annual State Budget. If we had listened closer to their sage advice for the last thirty years we wouldn’t have a $16 Billion dollar State Budget Deficit to deal with today, Here’s a link to a site where they tend to congregate and converse.: http://cssrc.us/publications.aspx There are some excellent reports there on a broad range of issues.
Finally, I encourage you to do some more digging. I think with a little more “distance learning” you’ll probably find out you’ve been criticizing the wrong folks. Here’s a good place to start that journey: http://your-ca-taxes-at-work.webs.com.
Personally, I think you owe the Senator an apology for putting this blatant and unwarranted character assassination attempt online. But considering your Buddy, Mr. Diamond is the Democrat candidate to replace Senator Huff in the 29th District this coming November, I doubt you will.
So, have a nice Summer, Good bye and thanks for all the fish.
I wrote the headline for the story.
I am not totally against distance learning, western governors university has done it right and I am going to enroll there in July. At least they are not going to rip off students or taxpayers as badly as other places.