California lawmakers unanimously approved legislation designed to prevent for-profit schools from preying on veterans at taxpayer expense as the session drew to a close this week – but not before the bill’s author removed most of its significant provisions.
If signed by the governor, the legislation will bar about two dozen of the state’s121 unaccredited schools from receiving GI Bill money.
Nevertheless, Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Fairfield, called his measure a “monumental step in the direction of greater safeguards and accountability for our student veterans.”
Industry officials had vigorously opposed the measure. In an interview, Robert Johnson, executive director of the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools, characterized it as part of the Legislature’s effort to kill the for-profit college sector through a “death by a thousand cuts.”
Johnson said a handful of “boutique schools” would be affected by the bill, which requires all for-profit schools that get GI Bill money to be approved by the state Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, an agency with the power to investigate complaints and refer substantiated allegations of fraud to California’s attorney general.
Major for-profit chains would not be affected by that provision, Johnson said, because they already have been approved by the bureau or are covered by a carve-out in the bill for schools accredited by approved institutions.
The bill that emerged from the legislative process is far weaker than the sweeping reform measure Frazier introduced in February, which would have significantly curtailed large for-profit college chains’ access to GI Bill funds.
It originally would have barred colleges from receiving GI Bill money if they failed standards the state has set for its own financial aid program, Cal Grants.
The Center for Investigative Reporting revealed in June that nearly 300 California schools had received GI Bill money even though they failed those standards. The total cost to taxpayers was $638 million over five years.
Schools failed the standard because they lacked accreditation or had low graduation rates or high rates of student loan default. The University of Phoenix, the largest recipient of GI Bill money in both California and the nation, was among the schools that fell short.
Facing opposition from the for-profit education industry, Frazier removed that provision before the bill’s first hearing in April. In May, he removed another section that would have required schools to tell regulators whether veterans graduate or find jobs.
That provision was removed after the University of Phoenix’s lobbyist, Scott Govenar, sent a letter to Mike Gatto, D-Burbank, chairman of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, arguing that it would be cumbersome and “of little practical value.”
The for-profit education lobby was not the only one that expressed concern about Frazier’s bill. California’s state colleges and universities complained to lawmakers about the expense of reporting graduation rates of student veterans.
In early August, state Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, held the bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee until Frazier removed a provision that would have required schools receiving GI Bill money to comply with voluntary guidelines established by President Barack Obama called the Principles of Excellence.
Those guidelines include providing a personalized form for each veteran detailing the cost of his or her education program, ending fraudulent or aggressive recruiting tactics, and providing a single point of contact for veterans seeking academic and financial help.
Many for-profit schools do not comply with the principles, but 15 California State University campuses and 27 community colleges also failed to follow the principles, according to a Senate committee analysis. Lawmakers did not want to appropriate the $50,000 per school that legislative analysts estimated would be needed to bring the public schools into compliance.
The bill sustained its final blow last week as it awaited a vote by the full Senate.Frazier removed its ban on GI Bill money going to any unaccredited schools in California.
That measure would have frozen out 121 schools, according to a CIR analysis of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data. CIR found those schools had received $23 million from the GI Bill since 2009.
Instead, the final bill cut off only “degree-granting institutions” without accreditation. Among the schools saved by that change are unaccredited massage schools, yoga programs and Bible colleges.
It’s unclear why it happened. A spokesman for Frazier said the legislation never was supposed to increase regulation on those kinds of for-profit schools.
Reached by phone, a representative of the Cinema Makeup School in Los Angeles said he believed his school would continue to be eligible for the taxpayer subsidies because it offers “diplomas” rather than degrees.
The two dozen schools that stand to be barred because they grant unaccredited degrees wouldreceive GI Bill money until 2017 if they show they are trying to become accredited.
Ryan Doan, executive director of the for-profit International American University in Los Angeles, which offers unaccredited business degrees, said his school haslaunched a pre-emptive strike: seeking accreditation through the federally recognized Distance Education and Training Council.
“It’s a big, costly process and a time-consuming one,” Doan said, “but we can see which way things are going.”
This story was edited by Amy Pyle and copy edited by Sheela Kamath and Nikki Frick.
Republish this article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Republish Our Content
Thanks for your interest in republishing a story from Reveal. As a nonprofit newsroom, we want to share our work with as many people as possible. You are free to embed our audio and video content and republish any written story for free under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license and will indemnify our content as long as you strictly follow these guidelines:
-
Do not change the story. Do not edit our material, except only to reflect changes in time and location. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Portland, Ore.” to “Portland” or “here.”)
-
Please credit us early in the coverage. Our reporter(s) must be bylined. We prefer the following format: By Will Evans, Reveal.
-
If republishing our stories, please also include this language at the end of the story: “This story was produced by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit news organization. Learn more at revealnews.org and subscribe to the Reveal podcast, produced with PRX, at revealnews.org/podcast.”
-
Include all links from the story, and please link to us at https://www.revealnews.org.
PHOTOS
-
You can republish Reveal photos only if you run them in or alongside the stories with which they originally appeared and do not change them.
-
If you want to run a photo apart from that story, please request specific permission to license by contacting Digital Engagement Producer Sarah Mirk, smirk@revealnews.org. Reveal often uses photos we purchase from Getty and The Associated Press; those are not available for republication.
DATA
-
If you want to republish Reveal graphics or data, please contact Data Editor Soo Oh, soh@revealnews.org.
IN GENERAL
-
We do not compensate anyone who republishes our work. You also cannot sell our material separately or syndicate it.
-
You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, please contact Sarah Mirk, smirk@revealnews.org.
-
If you plan to republish our content, you must notify us republish@revealnews.org or email Sarah Mirk, smirk@revealnews.org.
-
If we send you a request to remove our content from your website, you must agree to do so immediately.
-
Please note, we will not provide indemnification if you are located or publishing outside the United States, but you may contact us to obtain a license and indemnification on a case-by-case basis.
If you have any other questions, please contact us at republish@revealnews.org.