California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools
916-447-5500
Email
        Login
CAPPSCAPPS
  • About Us
    • Join CAPPS Email List
    • What is Private Postsecondary Education
    • About ICEPAC
    • CAPPS Memorial Scholarships
  • News
    • Legislation / Advocacy
  • Events
    • 34th Annual Conference, Oct 10-12, 2018
    • Watch Out! New Laws & Regs Webinar – Feb 7, 2019
    • CA CEO Day – Mar 21, 2019
    • 2019 Legislative Policy Conference, Apr 8-9, 2019
    • 35th Annual Conference, Oct 9-11, 2019
  • Resources
    • Classifieds
    • Professional Online Training Center
    • State and Federal Resources
    • Accreditors
    • Boards
    • Associations
  • CAPPS Member Portal & Archives
    • CAPPS Membership Directory
    • Conference Archives
    • Webinar Archives
    • Workshop Archives
    • CAPPS Member Portal
      • CAPPS Legislative Watch
    • Featured Members
    • Select Allied or School Benefits – Why be a CAPPS Member?
      • School Membership Application & Renewal Form
      • Allied Membership Application & Renewal Form
  • Awards
    • Excellence in Community Service Awards
    • CAPPS Hall of Fame STAR Awards
    • Norma Ford Financial Aid Professional of the Year
    • School of the Year
    • Allied Member of the Year

News

  • Home
  • News
  • How to Get Student Loan Repayment Rates Right for Accountability

How to Get Student Loan Repayment Rates Right for Accountability

  • Posted by CAPPS
  • Date November 20, 2018

NASFAA

 

By Allie Bidwell, NASFAA Senior Reporter

With a new Congress poised to renew efforts to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA) in the new year, conversations around institutional accountability and student outcomes will likely resurface.

A key issue at hand is how to better hold institutions accountable for how students fare in repaying their loans. While lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern with the current method for accountability—the cohort default rate (CDR)—they have yet to come to an agreement on how to move forward with a seemingly popular idea to supplement or replace the CDR metric through institutional or programmatic repayment rates.

A new paper written by Robert Kelchen, an assistant professor at Seton Hall University, and published by Higher Learning Advocates, identifies three central questions and potential roadblocks to moving forward with a repayment rate metric, such as how to define and calculate a repayment rate, how to include more students in the calculation, and identifying a time period for measuring the repayment rate.

Lawmakers and think tanks have criticized the CDR metric because it’s easy for institutions to game the system and give an inaccurate picture of just how many borrowers may be struggling to repay their loans. The most recent data from the Department of Education (ED) found that 11.5 percent of borrowers in the latest three-year cohort had defaulted on their loans. But some have questioned whether the measure gives an accurate picture of how borrowers fare over a longer period of time, whether some may be pressured into entering deferment or forbearance in order to avoid being counted in the default metric, or avoid default but fail to make progress toward paying down their principal balance.

Kelchen noted in the paper that new research has shown more than a quarter of borrowers who began college in 2003-04 had defaulted on a federal loan more than 10 years later, in 2015. That research, conducted by Judith Scott-Clayton, an associate professor of economics and education at Columbia University’s Teachers College, also found the default rate for that cohort could increase to as much as 40 percent by 2023.

There has been interest in finding another way to determine how well institutions are serving their students. The PROSPER Act, House Republicans’ bill to reauthorize the HEA, included a provision to link federal financial aid eligibility to program-level repayment rate metrics. Despite the growing interest, many questions about how to structure such a metric remain unanswered.

Policymakers will have to determine, for example, whether to use a repayment rate based on the percentage of borrowers paying down their loans, or one based on the number of dollars repaid. One would be more appealing to students and families, Kelchen wrote, while the other might be preferable to “taxpayers and budget-minding policymakers.” The latter option, he said, could give institutions an incentive to focus on helping borrowers with the largest outstanding debt amounts, “which can raise equity concerns given the strong association between outstanding student loan debt and future earnings.”

Kelchen also said in the paper that policymakers will need to discuss how to define a “program” at an institution, and how detailed of a classification would be necessary or acceptable.

“One possibility to increase the share of borrowers captured by program-level loan repayment measures would be to use a less-nuanced definition of program than the six-digit CIP code used in the gainful employment regulations,” he suggested.

Given the numerous and complex issues to consider, Kelchen suggested policymakers begin with an institution-level repayment rate metric for accountability purposes, and make program-level repayment rates for graduates available to the public—before eventually moving to a program-level accountability metric once more concerns are addressed.

“While students and their families will arguably find program-level repayment rates more useful as they choose which college and program to attend, there are a number of difficulties in measuring repayment rates beyond a potentially small percentage of students who actually graduate,” he wrote.

The two-tiered solution he suggested “would sidestep many of the data concerns … while still allowing students, families, institutions, and accrediting bodies to make their own judgments about the quality of the program based on available data.”

Tag:borrowers, Department of Education (ED), Higher Education Act (HEA), Institutions

  • Share:
CAPPS

Previous post

Betsy DeVos: New Sexual Assault Guidelines Proposal
November 20, 2018

Next post

How many colleges and universities have closed since 2016?
November 20, 2018

You may also like

college 2
Is Career and Technical Education Just Enjoying Its 15 Minutes of Fame?
14 February, 2019
America
Trump signs executive order to boost US-based AI development
12 February, 2019
Business Meeting
For-profit Bridgepoint hires new strategy chief as it retools
12 February, 2019

Search

Memorial Scholarship Information
Donate to ICEPAC
Become an Allied Member
Become a School Member
Events

ABOUT US

  • What is Private Postsecondary Education
  • CAPPS Memorial Scholarships
  • Upcoming Conferences

MAILING ADDRESS:
California Association of
Private Postsecondary Schools
2520 Venture Oaks, Suite 170
Sacramento, CA  95833
info@cappsonline.org
www.cappsonline.org    

Education Theme by Morpho Web Design. Powered by WordPress.