12

operated in a collegial framework and cooperatively governed by the local school district, a university (or consortium of universities) and school professional groups, Professional Practice Schools integrate educational theory and practice and function in ways similar to teaching hospitals. Grants under this program would be divided among the states based on their Chapter 1 populations and, within states, three-fourths of the funds would be targeted to districts with at least 50% Chapter 1 populations. Professional Development Grants to Reforming Districts. The AFT proposal establishes a new program that enables school districts to meet national education goals by implementing top-to-bottom reforms in school organization and in professional staff development.

Grants under this program would be distributed among the states with a high Chapter 1 population and to high Chapter 1 districts that agree to become "reforming districts."

Reforming districts are those that can demonstrate that they have created district-level mechanisms promoting school-wide change, coupled with comprehensive staff development plans. Districts must demonstrate that: (1) the reform policies are targeted to the objectives of the national goals; (2) they have established partnerships that include teachers, professional associations, higher education institutions and administrators; and, (3) staff will receive time subsidies for their participation in professional development activities. activities permitted under this grant would include professional training (administrator, teacher and paraprofessional), experiments with technological innovations in the classroom, staff training and support activities focused on math, science and literacy, and engagement of

Some of the

federally funded research labs and centers in a consultative and

The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 may be most important education issue addressed in the 102nd Congress. We believe the proposals outlined in this testimony will significantly strengthen this legislation. By restructuring the Pell Grant, we would reverse the imbalance between loans and grants, greatly increasing access to higher education and, for the first time, assure access to local commmity and state colleges and universities. By revamping the financial needs analysis system for adult students and by reviving aid to students attending less than half-time, we would assure that needy and working adults with the ability and motivation to get a college education are given a fair break.

By strengthening the regulation of for-profit trade schools and requiring that ability-to-benefit students receive high school equivalency training, we would create, in effect, a consumer bill of rights for students in short-term training programs. By greatly enhancing support for the training of elementary and secondary school teachers and college faculty, we would go a long way toward reversing the catastrophic teacher shortages expected to hit all levels of education during this decade.

2

Introduction

The American ideal of diversity in postsecondary education has long tolerated the peaceful if uneasy coexistence in its universe of for-profit trade schools. These schools do not profess to be institutions of higher education. Their omission of liberal studies, which are widely considered the sine qua non of higher learning, is both their weakness and their strength. Without such substance, the proprietary institutions may not afford their students the personal and intellectual empowerment that is the greatest benefit of college attendance. By the same token, a trade-school curriculum allows the vocational schools to offer a narrow and relatively fast track toward skilled employment. They may thus open an avenue of additional opportunity to those who will not or cannot be served by our colleges and universities.

Today, however, the proliferation of trade schools, their practices and their consumption of federal student aid have called into question their place in the postsecondary firmament.

There are now over 4,000 proprietary schools in the United States, more than the number of colleges. Their enrollment grew 13 percent in the 1980s while collegiate enrollment grew less than one percent. Between 1980 and 1987, Pell Grants to students at proprietary schools increased from $275 million to more than $1 billion-273 percent, compared with a 30 percent rise in the collegiate sector. Between 1987 and 1989, more than half the loans made under the new Supplemental Loans for Students program went to trade school students.

The growth of trade school enrollment and the mushrooming of their share of federal student aid are not unrelated. Nor would the latter be worrisome if it simply reflected their greater capacity to educate low-income students. The problem, however, is that recruiting, educational and financial practices at these schools have raised serious questions about the real value of their programs for the students they attract and about their impact on the rest of postsecondary education.

The most publicized manifestation of trade school irregularities is their share of the skyrocketing default rates in Guaranteed Student Loans. The default rate for proprietary schools has been close to 40 percent, about double the percentage for two-year colleges and more than four times the rate for four-year colleges. Other abuses have come to light-misrepresentation and deceptive advertising, recruitment of students from unemployment lines, insupportable guarantees of financial aid and employment, inadequacies of physical and staff resources, the absence of adequate

standards of academic progress, and widespread failure to enforce whatever standards are in place.

The results of these abuses are not a private matter. Surely, not every trade school should be condemned for the academic corruption that obtains at some institutions. But large numbers of students appear to be shortchanged — they do not get what they pay for, they drop out, and they do not find jobs in their chosen fields. Furthermore, the schools' abuses have compromised public support for all postsecondary student aid programs.

Because the ramifications of trade schools' modus operandi affect all of American postsecondary education, their full dimensions must be understood. For this purpose, the American Federation of Teachers commissioned the study that follows.

It is issued at a crucial time. The nation is focused as never before on the quality and availability of postsecondary education. Many are concerned over the accessibility of quality education to members of minority groups and the apparent "tracking" of such students to less rewarding programs and occupations. Others question the adequacy and distribution of the $10-billion system of federal student aid. The legislative and executive branches are currently scrutinizing that system in preparation for the coming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Deliberations on all those issues and their resolution in public policy should be informed by a thorough understanding of the roles and practices of for-profit trade schools. We hope that the following report makes a contribution to that end.

Dr. Irwin Polishook, President

Professional Staff Congress, City

University of New York; Chairman,

AFT Advisory Commission on Higher Education