Bill Overview
Title: Student Protection Act
Description: This bill expands the list of actions that may result in the change of control of an institution of higher education (IHE) to include a court-ordered receivership. Such changes of control disqualify an IHE from participating in federal student-aid programs unless the IHE establishes that it meets specific requirements following the change of control.
Sponsors: Rep. Porter, Katie [D-CA-45]
Target Audience
Population: Students at institutions undergoing a change of control due to receivership
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill affects institutions of higher education that are under court-ordered receivership. Receivership is a form of financial distress management for institutions facing insolvency.
- Students and families relying on federal student-aid programs are directly impacted due to the potential loss of financial aid eligibility if their institution falls under such a case.
- Faculty and staff employed at these IHEs could also be impacted in the event of changes or closures due to loss of financial aid access, affecting job security.
Reasoning
- The target population affected by this policy primarily involves students attending institutions that might fall under court-ordered receivership, which impacts their access to federal student-aid programs.
- There are varying degrees of impact among individuals based on how close they are to the affected institutions: direct students, faculty, and even family structures may be affected by changes in financial aid eligibility.
- Some individuals will not be directly impacted but may still express opinions or concerns, reflecting a broad spectrum of perspectives on education policy.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy design must focus on ensuring the continuous support of financially endangered students who might lose aid due to their institution's financial status.
- The long-term anticipated benefit of the policy involves securing educational continuity and improving the institutional accountability of colleges under distress.
Simulated Interviews
Student (California)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about losing my financial aid and possibly having to transfer if the school can't meet the new requirements.
- This policy seems positive if it ensures that the schools fulfilling the criteria will still support students like me.
- I hope this policy will also push for more transparency from the institution about its financial condition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Student (Texas)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My biggest concern is staying eligible for my sports scholarship through federal aid.
- If our university falls into receivership, players like me could lose scholarships.
- This policy can help by keeping financial aid safeguards strict but fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Adjunct professor (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on my job here, but if the institution doesn't comply with policies, it could mean layoffs.
- This policy might encourage schools to stabilize their finances to protect students and jobs.
- Stability for my students means stability for me as well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Parent (Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that if the college loses funding, my son won't have the same opportunities.
- The policy seems to ensure quality and security for students, but it could cause immediate turmoil for some families.
- I want to see how the policy helps institutions exercise better financial management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
University administrator (Ohio)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While our school is stable, this policy puts pressure on institutions to maintain transparency and solvency.
- Strengthening regulatory compliance assures current and prospective students of their educational path.
- The financial strain this policy could mitigate from lesser schools benefits the entire education system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Undergraduate student (Florida)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy brings needed accountability for institutions that might misuse or mismanage funds.
- Even though my college is financially okay, it's good to know that protections are in place just in case.
- I hope this leads to even more consistent fund management across all institutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Graduate student (Washington D.C.)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My institution isn't at risk, but I understand the need for such policies to protect students in unstable situations.
- Assurance about aid continuity is crucial not just for current but future students too.
- I believe this policy supports overall graduation rates by maintaining funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
College financial advisor (Georgia)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal aid accessibility guides many financial decisions made by our students.
- A stricter control environment safeguards both students and the institution's fiscal health.
- The concept of requiring schools to prove solvency ensures students invest in their futures wisely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
High school counselor (Missouri)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A change in this policy can directly affect the college choices of the high school students I advise.
- It might make some colleges seem too risky if they could possibly lose aid eligibility.
- Balancing awareness of these financial policies with student aspirations is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
University professor (Pennsylvania)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our college has seen some ups and downs, and financial stability directly impacts students' focus.
- This policy will hopefully push colleges to ensure they aren't stretching beyond their limits.
- I hope this develops a more resilient education system for both faculty and students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- The capacity of institutions to meet new compliance requirements may vary, so the number affected could significantly differ year over year.
- The actual number of institutions entering receivership and the potential for regulatory adjustments could influence the cost more than anticipated.