Pelosi wrong about for-profit schools

With  all the heat that San Francisco based for-profit colleges take from  media, lawmakers and even their own alumni, it would seem that their  likeliness to make powerful friends would be zero to none.

Nancy  Pelosi came out publicly in support of for-profit colleges and their  federal loan-sharking tactics earlier this year when she voted in favor  of a GOP-sponsored amendment to block the Secretary of Education’s loan  revision plan.

The  plan, which was eventually finalized June 2 amidst opposition, places  heavy restrictions on the eligibility of schools to receive federal  financial aid. On average, if graduates of a school are unable to pay  for their loans, the school then becomes ineligible for the federal aid.

Pelosi,  who is currently the House Minority Leader, also spoke at City  College’s recent commencement, where she spoke about the necessity of  community colleges to the communities they serve.

“City  Colleges are the big stepping stone, President Obama called them ‘the  bridge,’” Pelosi said in a Guardsman multimedia interview after the  commencement. Adding that community colleges are essential to the  community as well as the students.

City College vs College Inc
City  College’s Culinary Arts and Hospitality program has an enrolment of  over 250 students every year and was the first two-year culinary program  in the country.

Even  with this resource available, many students choose to enroll at  for-profit culinary schools such as California Culinary Academy.

Many  alumni of these schools have stated that the schools guaranteed job  opportunities and tricked them into taking loans when, in reality, the  degrees from the schools are seen as worthless in the culinary fields.  In fact, many restaurant owners specifically turn away new graduates of  CCA.

"For  me it seemed that it was more about money — it was more a body factory,  and not as much about education," CCA alumni Chris Kronner told SF  Weekly. "As long as you pay your $50,000, they will give you a degree."

Career  Education Corporation, the parent company of CCA, has been engaged in  lawsuits with alumni of its San Francisco school as well as with others  across the country.

A  lawsuit filed in 2007 was recently settled by CEC, costing the company  $40 million to avoid admitting wrongdoing. The settlement came mere  weeks after Pelosi turned against her fellow Bay Area representatives to  vote against the amendment in early April.

Deep pockets, deep influence
As Matier and Ross pointed out in their April 10 column, a large number of very wealthy colleges or their founders call San Francisco home.

This  includes John Sperling, a major democratic donor and founder of  University of Phoenix, as well as the large number of for-profits in the  city, from Everest College to the Academy of Art University and  everything in between.

Univeristy  of Phoenix itself has been under scrutiny for predatory practices,  using underhanded techniques to persuade low income students into heavy  loans to attend their online universities, as evidenced in a report by  PBS’ Frontline.

According  to Matier and Ross, San Francisco based schools make up a large portion  of the $32 billion given to for-profit colleges for student loans and  Pell Grants each year.

The  lack of experience and training alumni of for-profit colleges receive  in these programs makes for a poor job placement record. These jobless  graduates make up 43 percent of the total number of students nationally  who default on these federal loans, even though they only account for 10  percent of the college population, says the Department of Education.

That’s  just too much money from the federal government, and too little  oversight. Students of the Bay Area and the nation needed our  representative, Pelosi, to back us up in the uphill battle against  wealthy for-profit schools. When the loan revision plan came to the  house, she had a chance to defend her constituents.

She wasn’t there.

Pelosi should place her bets on public education
“Many  young people are able to be trained in for-profit schools,” Pelosi told  the Guardsman. “Some of them are exploitative, I think that should be  subjected to review, but I don’t think you should paint everyone with  the same brush.”

Pelosi is wrong.

Time  and time again, for-profit colleges have shown that without significant  oversight, they will continue to exploit the students they claim they  serve. And even though one battle against them has been won in the form  of loan oversight, this is by no means the end of regulations needed to  reign in private school scandals.

The  bill doesn’t address their predatory practices, or their exorbitant  costs. In fact, since the bill only requires that a certain  percentage of students pay their loans on time, this may increase the  number of underhanded techniques these colleges employ in order to make  sure their percentages are met.

Pelosi’s  support for for-profit colleges is shameful. The hypocrisy of maintaining  federal financial support for corrupt private education, while at the  same time slashing funds for community colleges left and right is  patently absurd.

Instead  of assisting the corrupt practices of for-profit schools, Pelosi should  direct her energy at fixing the slow decline of public schools and  providing funds to help them become more accessible and equipped to  compete in the modern era of education.

Pelosi  has spent years as one of the most powerful people in Washington. If  anyone knows how to play the political game it’s her. She may put a  smile on in front of her constituents at events like City College’s  commencement, but she’s shown that her hands are controlled by the  puppet strings of the rich and powerful, who show no regard for the rest  of us.

Students  need all the help they can get in this day and age. Pelosi needs to  make a choice: either she is the defender of for-profit schools, or she  can be a powerful supporter in the cause of public education.

Also watch our Video Editorial on Pelosi and for-profit schools: