Regulating Vocational Schools

The article by William Trombley, reporting on the recently signed vocational school regulatory legislation (“Trade Schools Threaten Suit on State Rules,” Part A, Dec. 13), brings to the public forum a much needed focus on the rights and responsibilities of both proprietary schools and students seeking educations from those schools. While it is inappropriate for the federal government, i.e., the Department of Education, to comment on the merits of the debate in progress between proponents and opponents of the law in question, it is important for the American taxpayer to understand that the California debate will have a very real impact nationwide.

At issue here is the concept of consumer rights and institutional responsibility. From the perspective of the federal government, the taxpayer, who will in the coming year contribute nearly $10 billion toward federally assisted student loans and grants, must believe that those hard-earned dollars will not be squandered or wasted.

The students who apply for and receive those dollars must be assured a fair and equitable return on their tuition; they must believe that they will receive the best education possible resulting in access to better earnings and quality of life in general. The students have a right--as do American taxpayers--to expect quality from their chosen institutions of higher education.

In return for the fees they collect, those institutions must exercise a great degree of responsibility. The promise of a quality education should not begin in the cashier’s office, and it must certainly not stop there. There is no place in this nation’s education continuum for sellers of hollow promises and baseless dreams.

The U.S. Department of Education is faced with a staggering $8 billion in student loan defaults. While there are virtually as many stories behind each default as there are students in default, there is one story that troubles us all and that is the one of deceit and misrepresentation, of institutional financial and management failure, of unrealized opportunities and broken dreams.

How many students complete a course, what percentage of students are placed in course-related employment, and institutional effectiveness are valid issues for discussion simply because they are very visible indicators of an institution’s ability to carry out its advertised mission. The debate that surrounded the California legislation is being carried on in the much larger national forum as the U.S. Department of Education begins to frame language for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, due for congressional action in 1991. The same issues of accountability, responsibility and rights come up time and time again in our public meetings all around the country.

And while reauthorization is not restricted to proprietary, for-profit vocational schools, we do intend to promote stringent regulations, within the federal government’s role, to protect consumers of education--students--who may be more at risk, and, therefore, more susceptible to institutional abuses, in the burgeoning vocational-school marketplace. Education is America’s investment in itself, and that investment must be protected against institutional abuse and/or mismanagement, whether intentional or not.

The Department of Education is already prepared to deal with proprietary schools that fail to deliver on their promises and the reasonable expectations of their students. As stewards of the public’s education dollars, we owe it to this nation’s citizens to require fair and equitable access to quality education for all. The decade ahead will be a decade of opportunity and a decade of action for education programs all across America. The U.S. Department of Education, in partnership with the governors, legislatures, and departments of education in all 50 states will exercise its responsibility to vouchsafe the rights of our students, and we encourage our partners to do no less.

LEONARD L. HAYNES III

Assistant Secretary

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, D.C.