Scandal

What do an appendix, plica semilunaris, and student-loan guaranty agency all have in common? They're all vestigial structures whose original purpose is no longer necessary. But unlike the first two examples, guaranty agencies are desperate to show -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- that they are still relevant.

As parts of a system known for its complexity and confusion (the Federal Family Education Loan Program, otherwise known as FFEL), guaranty agencies are the ultimate amorphous entity, branching out into numerous roles that are completely unrelated to their original purposes.

Soon after Congress created the FFEL program in 1965, it authorized the involvement of guaranty agencies (many of which were already in existence in the states), to encourage lenders to offer student loans by providing default insurance. Congress also gave the guarantors important oversight responsibilities, such as ensuring that only eligible students obtain federal loans, and that lenders make a concerted effort to keep delinquent borrowers from defaulting.

While it made sense for guaranty agencies to occupy these roles at a time when technological limitations made it difficult for solely the federal government to oversee FFEL, the program's current setup and recent oversight failures make it clear that guaranty agencies should not be the ones to carry out these functions.

If the events of the last two years have taught us anything, it's that the U.S. Department of Education's oversight of the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program has been unconscionably lax. The recent revelations that the Department had inadvertently allowed convicted felons to become eligible FFEL lenders is just the latest example of the agency's negligence.

Why then, despite all evidence to the contrary, does the Government Accountability Office (GAO) no longer consider the FFEL program to be at a "High Risk" for waste, fraud, and abuse?

Every two years the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, puts together the "High Risk" list, an official compilation of federal programs it considers to be the most vulnerable to exploitation. Started in 1990, the goal of the list is to help set the oversight agenda for each new Congress. For 15 years, the federal student aid programs stood at the top of the list, along with other notorious trouble areas such as the Defense Department's contracting practices, and the IRS's efforts to police tax law violations.

Among the government's financial-aid programs, the GAO expressed the most serious reservations about the FFEL program. For instance, a January 1999 update to the report noted that the guaranteed loan program was "particularly vulnerable because of its size, the large number of participants, and the federal guarantee under which the federal government bears most of the risk when students default on their loans."

We hope you all enjoyed your Fourth of July vacation. While it’s nice to have the occasional hard-earned day off, we know someone else who has been on a very long paid break.

It has been 459 days since Matteo Fontana, the then-general manager of Financial Partners Division of the U.S. Department of Education’s Federal Student Aid office, was placed on administrative leave. The Department took this action after Higher Ed Watch revealed that he held at least $100,000 worth of insider stock in the student-loan company Student Loan Xpress. At the time, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings promised that she was taking the matter “very seriously.” But as far as we can tell, the Department hasn’t done anything beyond giving Fontana his regular paycheck and telling him to disappear.

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. In addition, at the time he received the stock he was in charge of the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), a national database that keeps track of the student aid awards of tens of millions of students. Last year, the Department was forced to shut it down temporarily because, as Higher Ed Watch also revealed, student-loan companies had been mining it to collect personal information about borrowers for marketing purposes.

Too many times of late, we have seen mainstream journalists fall for the spin of lenders, who in the wake of the credit crunch have had a vested interest in raising panic levels about the availability of student loans.

That's why it's such a pleasure for us to see good, critical, and insightful reporting on the loan industry receive the recognition it deserves. Case in point: Paul Basken, a senior reporter at The Chronicle of Higher Education, has received a National Press Club award for a revealing piece he wrote last May showing how the revolving door between the Bush Administration and the student loan industry brought great rewards to Sallie Mae and put financially needy students in harm's way. [Disclosure: the author of this post used to work for the Chronicle.]

We wrote about Basken's article last year. But at a time when the student loan scandals of yore are fading fast from memory, we felt that it was important to remind our readers of just what he found. The conflict of interest that he uncovered still exists and needs to be dealt with.

At Higher Ed Watch, we have written much about the U.S. Department of Education's lax oversight over the lenders and guarantee agencies that participate in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. But until we read a recent investigative report in the St. Petersburg Times, we didn't fully grasp just how lax that oversight has been.

As that report revealed, the Education Department does not conduct criminal background checks on individuals who are seeking to become eligible FFEL lenders. The agency leaves it to student-loan guarantee agencies to verify eligibility for participation. But apparently most guarantors often don't even bother to ask about past criminal records of those who apply to become federal student loan providers.

As a result, the St. Pete Times reports, some convicted felons and others with criminal records have gained entry into the guaranteed-loan program and taken advantage of the rich rewards the government bestows on lenders that participate in the FFEL program.

We have long been concerned about the close ties between the student loan industry and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), an organization that lobbies on behalf of college aid officials. These ties have been so strong in recent years that the group's policy positions on student loans have more often than not mirrored those of the Consumer Bankers Association and Sallie Mae.

NASFAA's leaders deny that lenders have influence over the organization's policy positions. In arguing this point, they often note -- as the group's former president Dallas Martin did in an interview with The Wall Street Journal last year -- that the association prohibits loan industry officials from serving on its national board or voting "on policy and membership issues."

What they fail to mention, however, is that these rules do not apply to the organization's state affiliates and regional associations. In fact, by most accounts, these groups depend heavily on student loan providers for both leadership and financing.

Shortly after being named the new president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, Philip Day said in an interview that he was not interested in becoming a student aid expert.

"One of the questions I got in my interview is, "how long do you think it will take you to get up to level of technical speed?'" Day told The Chronicle of Higher Education. "I said, 'I hope never.' Because I think that's not what this institution needs now. What they need is somebody who can advocate and focus on issues at the 10-to 15,000-foot level."

Judging from a more recent interview that Day gave Higher Education Washington Inc., a publication owned and run by a top student loan industry lobbyist, NASFAA's new chief seems to be succeeding. As we noted yesterday, the interview shows that Day is not only ill-informed, but also, in spite of last year's revelations in the student loan "pay for play" scandal, NASFAA has not changed its stripes. The views that Day expresses on federal student loans in general, and the Direct Student Loan Program in particular, are confused and misleading, and reflect a strong bias in favor of the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.

Up until now, we've been willing to give Philip Day the benefit of the doubt.

In March, Day, the former chancellor at the City College of San Francisco, became the president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), a group with such strong ties to the student loan industry that in recent years its policy positions have closely mirrored those of the Consumer Bankers Association and Sallie Mae.

At Higher Ed Watch, we have been critical of NASFAA in the past. We were hopeful, however, that the organization's first presidential change in its 32 year history -- coming on the heels of reforms imposed on NASFAA by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that cut into the financial support the group receives from loan providers -- would set the association on a new track.

We were especially encouraged by statements Day made shortly after accepting the job. In January, he told The Chronicle of Higher Education that NASFAA needed to "reassess" its relationship with lenders. "It's something I don't feel 100 percent comfortable with," he stated. Amen to that.

By now anyone with access to a television, radio, newspaper, or internet connection knows that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has become ensnared in a federal investigation into an interestate prostitution ring. It's a major disappointment for both his family and the people of the state of New York. The internets are abuzz with speculation about the salacious details and whether or not Spitzer will step down as governor. As a family blog, we'll eschew the tawdry aspects of this story to ask a substantive question: What does this mean for early education in New York State?

House Approves Bill to Reauthorize Higher Education Act

[slideshow]In an overwhelming 354 to 58 vote, the House approved legislation on Thursday that would reauthorize the Higher Education Act for the next five years. The College Opportunity and Affordability Act (H.R. 4137) would impose new restrictions on the relationships between student loan providers and colleges, increase transparency in the private student loan market, simplify the process of applying for financial aid, keep textbook costs down, increase aid for veterans and military families, and tackle rising tuition costs. The legislation would also significantly weaken a provision in the law that protects students from unscrupulous for-profit trade schools.