The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act yesterday on a largely party-line vote. While most of the attention has been focused on the dramatic overhaul of the federal student loan program and large new investments in Pell grants, community colleges, and early childhood education, there are some additional provisions that deserve scrutiny, particularly the proposed Access and Completion Innovation Fund. I’m a big supporter of the idea, but I think the specific provisions need some work, and one amendment that went through yesterday took the bill in the wrong direction. Basically, it’s a bid by private colleges to get public funding while avoiding public obligations. The language reads as follows:

PARTICIPATION OF PRIVATE, NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

(a) VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION.–A private, non-profit institution of higher education may voluntarily elect to participate in a State’s efforts under this part to increase postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and completion. A State–

(1) shall not require any private, nonprofit institution to participate in such efforts; and

(2) may require such an institution that voluntarily elects to participate in such efforts to provide appropriate information to allow the State to assess the institution’s progress toward the goals described in subclauses (I) and (II) of section 782(c)(2)(A)(i).

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.–Nothing in this part, including voluntary participation described in sub-section (a), shall be construed to–

(1) authorize the Secretary, a State, or an officer or employee of the Department or of a State to exercise any direction, supervision, or control other than that is currently granted over a private, nonprofit institution of higher education, including control over curriculum, program of instruction, administration, governance, personnel, articulation, the awarding of credit, graduation or degree requirements, or admission;

(2) authorize the Secretary, a State, or an officer or employee of the Department or of a State to require a private, nonprofit institution of higher education to participate in a longitudinal data system; or

(3) limit the application of the General Education Provisions Act.

(c) ENFORCEMENT.–If any State fails or refuses to comply with any provisions of this section, the State shall no longer be eligible for assistance under this part.

This is really outrageous.

I have no problem with private colleges receiving federal funds. Nor do I think they should be compelled to participate in the program. But if they do so voluntarily, they should play by the same rules as everyone else.

Presumably, states that receive funding under this program will distribute it with some expectation that the money will be used to improve things like, say, access and completion. Generally that works through an application process whereby an institution says “Here’s how we’re going to improve access and completion,” and the state says “Okay, here’s some money,” and then at a later point the state makes sure that the institution spent the money the way they said they would. How is the state supposed to do that if they’re legally prohibited from directing, supervising, controlling, or glancing sideways at the institution in any way?

And while it’s true that the law allows states to require private colleges to provide “appropriate information,” the best way for states to do that is to require private colleges to provide appropriate information via a longitudinal data system, which this provision explicitly prohibits. This leaves states in the position of having to ask for information via separate, cumbersome, information-deficient forms, which private colleges will then complain about on the grounds of burdensome administrative expense.

Private colleges and their DC representatives at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) approach the issue of government interference with NRA-like extremism, fighting anything that even hints of regulation tooth and nail. While I disagree with that approach, at least it’s based on a discernible principle. This, by contrast, is the worst kind of having-it-both-ways: asking the government for money but refusing to be accountable for how the money is spent or whether it actually helps students finish college.