The Higher Education Act of 1965 ( HEA ) (Pub.L. 89-329) is a law signed into the law of the United States on November 8, 1965, as part of Lyndon's President of the Great Britain's Great Society agenda. Johnson chose Texas State University (later called "Southwest Texas State College"), his alma mater, as a signatory. The law is intended "to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education". It increases federal money granted to universities, creates scholarships, provides low-interest loans for students, and sets up the National Teachers Corps. "Financial aid to students" is covered in Title IV of HEA.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 has been reauthorized in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, and 2008. The current authorization for the program in the Higher Education Act expires at the end of 2013 but has been extended to 2015 Congress prepares changes and amendments. Prior to any re-authorization, Congress changes additional programs, alters the language and policies of existing programs, or makes other changes.
Video Higher Education Act of 1965
1965 Act
In January 1965, Representative Edith Green of Oregon introduced H. R. 3220 as a bill to "strengthen our college and university education resources and to provide financial assistance to students in postsecondary education." Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon introduced the Senate version bill, S 600. The bill seeks to create an advisory board to review teacher training programs and to create a National Teacher Corps, which will recruit teachers to serve in low-income areas and train teachers through apprenticeship. Other provisions of the bill include financial assistance, scholarships, study work, and library upgrading. Throughout 1965 many hearings were held by the Special Subcommittee on Education and Education Subcommittees of the Senate Committee on Employment and Public Welfare held many hearings. Based on recommendations from University administrators, educators and student assistance officers, a new bill was introduced: H. R. 9567. Authorized by the House of Representatives on August 26 and the Senate passed the bill on September 2.
In the signing of the 1965 Higher Education Act into law, President Johnson said that the law, along with the Basic and Secondary Education Act of 1965, was the "keystone of the remarkable and remarkable Congress of the 89th" will spread the "root of change and reform" of the whole nation.
Maps Higher Education Act of 1965
Changes in 1998
Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP) was first authorized under the 1998 Higher Education Amendment. Also in the 1998 amendment were the Terms of the Elimination of Assistance, which prevented students from drug accusations of receiving federal assistance for colleges and universities. This is where the 31st question on the FAFSA form comes from. The question is whether the student was ever convicted of a drug crime while receiving federal financial assistance. This legal provision is upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the face of constitutional challenges by the ACLU in the case of Students for Reasonable Distribution Policy v. Spelling .
Changes in 2003
In 2003, much of the Higher Education Act was set to expire. As a result, a number of minority groups unite to request certain changes. Calling themselves the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education, the group comprises the "American Higher Education Consortium, Collegiate Collegiate Colleges and Universities, and the National Association for Equal Opportunities in Higher Education, an advocacy group for historical black colleges and universities , [and they] presented their joint recommendations for reiterating the Higher Education Act. "The Alliance aims to help minority students enter areas where they appear to be under-represented and provide incentives for minorities to enter these programs. These incentives include more skills in full loan collection and government funding for minority education. The Alliance also calls on the government to create funds for students in university postgraduate programs serving minority populations.
Although the Alliance's request to amend the Higher Education Act was heard, an important part was rejected. In 2003, the demand to increase the amount offered in Pell Grant, to better cover student costs, was rejected by the Senate. However, other issues are fixed. There is an approved part, by the House, which indeed allows more funds to go to the institution, to keep them current; and a grace period for colleges that demanded more loans be eliminated. So, if more funds are needed, minority institutions do not have to wait.
With the proposed changes in 2003, the actual Higher Education Act is not re-authorized. In contrast, many of its parts are updated, with little radical change. Many extensions have followed, with the latest extension lasting until August 15, 2008. The Senate passed the HEA re-authorization law in July 2007, as did the House of Representatives in February 2008.
On August 14, 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (Public Law 110-315) (HEOA) was enacted. This re-authorized an amended version of the Higher Education Act of 1965. This action made a major change in the disposal of student loans for people with disabilities. Previously, to qualify for dismissal, disabled people could have no income. This has been changed to no "useful activity", which is the same standard used by the Social Security Administration in determining eligibility for Social Security Damage Insurance (SSDI). The changes take effect on July 1, 2010.
Also included in the 2008 HEOA revision is a requirement that requires action by US colleges and universities to combat illegal file sharing. After significant lobbying by the American Film Film Association (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the addition of HEOA in 2008 included the requirement that all US colleges and universities (1) release and annual disclosure to students regarding copyright law and (2) a written plan, submitted to the Department of Education, to combat copyright misuse using one or more technology-based deterrents, and (3) an offer for alternative students to download illegally. Significant controversy surrounded the entry of anti-P2P law into HEOA in 2008, producing letters from a number of leaders in higher education.
In addition, the Cost Reduction of Universities and Access Act (CCRA), the budget reconciliation bill signed into law in September 2007, made significant changes to the federal financial aid program included in the HEA. In addition to raising the maximum Pell Grant award and reducing subsidized student loan interest rates, the bill closes the loan payments of 15% of one's personal income, raises income protection allowances, withdraws loan forgiveness for civil servants under the Direct Loan program, establishes publicly funded student loans fixed interest rates on variable-rate loans, and take action to address problematic practices in the lending industry. Most of the CCRA provisions come into effect on October 1, 2007.
The law for the first time also requires post-secondary institutions to become more transparent about fees and require nearly 7,000 post-secondary institutions receiving federal financial aid (Title IV) to send clean-price calculators on their websites as well as security and copyright. policy on October 29, 2011.
As defined in HEOA, the purpose of a net pricing calculator is "to help current students and families, and other consumers estimate the individual net worth of a higher education institution for a student. [Clean price] calculators should be developed in a way that enables students, family, and current and prospective customers to determine the approximate net price of the current individual or prospective student in a particular institution. "
The law defines "net price estimate" as the difference between the average Attendance Amount (total tuition and fees, rooms and meals, books and supplies, and other costs including personal and transportation expenses for the first time, full - undergraduate students receive assistance) and the required median grants and service-based grants.
Elise Miller, director of the US Department of Education's Integrated Education Education Data Management (IPEDS) program, expressed the idea behind the requirements: "We just want to break the myth of the sticker price and go beyond it.This gives the students some indication that they will not ] paid the full price. "
This template was developed based on suggestions from the IPEDS Technical Review Panel (TRP), which met January 27-28, 2009, and included 58 individuals representing federal and state governments, post-secondary institutions from all sectors, association representatives, and contractors template. Mary Sapp, assistant vice president for planning and institutional research at the University of Miami, served as chairman of the panel. He described the purpose of the mandate "to provide prospective and current undergraduate students with some insight into the difference between agency sticker price and the price they will pay".
TRP faces difficult challenges in creating a tool that can be used by various institutions - from small career schools, profitable to large research universities - while balancing simplicity for users.
To meet these requirements, post-secondary institutions may choose a basic template developed by the US Department of Education or an alternative net price calculator that offers at least the minimum elements required by law.
As part of the cost-transparency measures, HEOA 2008 requires also on the College Navigator Web site, a report that provides an average institutional net price for first-time students receiving financial assistance. It also forms the basis for a list of transparencies; reports on the College Navigator Web site, net pricing of attendance institutions for beneficiaries IV Title by category of income; and for the US Department of Education to develop multi-year tuition and cost-required calculators for undergraduate programs for the College Navigator Web site.
HEA has been criticized for pricing based on federal student loan law based on political considerations rather than risk-based pricing.
Title VI
During this 2008 reform period, Title VI of HEA has been reviewed. Title VI provides federal funds for 129 international studies and a foreign language center at a national university. The aim of this action is to ensure and encourage diverse perspectives to improve national security. Thus, Title VI provides grants for international language studies, business and international education programs as well as international policy. In addition, the recipients of these funds are required to engage in 'public outreach' for K-12s, teachers, educators, and the general public.
Over the past decade, concerns have been raised over the funded VI degree programs. Conservative critics have emphasized that many internationally funded programs are involved in biased, anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric, with no balancing offer.
Of course, the 2006 congressional review mandated by Congress found that the programs did not achieve their goals. Seeking to fix this, Congress expressed greater need for greater scrutiny by the Ministry of Education, as well as an inquiry to ensure these programs reflect "multiple perspectives".
Despite these reforms, the problems in Title VI have been considered endemic. Writing on The Hill, Founder Louis D. Brandeis Center, Kenneth L. Marcus argues that "the title VI does not need to be refined-it needs to be overhauled". The declaration follows a joint statement released by 10 groups on September 17, 2014, to which Brandeis Center coordinates.
This joint statement expressed deep concern over the misuse of taxpayer money, arguing that "these outreach programs, which have no congressional oversight, often spread anti-American and anti-Israeli hatred." Furthermore, groups voiced the notion that "too often exclude experts with diverse perspectives while a choking discourse on critical issues." The biased learning environment results in suppressing the academic freedom of students and faculty with different views. "In some institutions, students are afraid to disagree with their professor. "This statement is accompanied by a white paper published by the Brandeis Center and a report by the AMCHA Initiative underscores the negative effects generated by this biased perspective on college campuses, in particular UCLA. The AMCHA study found that "whenever UCLA centers sponsor or sponsor events that mention Israel from Autumn 2010 to Spring 2013, 93% of the time is critical and negative - as if Israel were a barrier on the planet."
The UCLA media relations office issued a statement saying that the university "remains dedicated to complying with all federal laws and respecting the exchange of free and open ideas representing diverse perspectives."
In light of these issues, the joint statement calls for a change in the Title VI program that will 1) "[r] request the recipient of the Title VI fund to establish a grievance procedure to deal with complaints that the program does not reflect diverse perspectives and views" and 2) " [r] requested the US Department of Education to establish a formal complaint settlement process similar to that used to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "
In response to this statement Amy W. Newhall, executive director of the North American Middle East Studies Association (MESA), asserted that MESA "strongly opposes all forms of hate speech and discrimination, including anti-Semitism," but "worried that some of the reports issued by partisan political groups based outside the academy may in fact undermine efforts to combat anti-Semitism by portraying all criticisms of Israeli policy as a form of anti-Semitism or as 'anti-Israel'. "
However, as Kenneth L. Marcus puts it in a letter to the editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education, the joint signing of the joint statement "urges the opposite: a system of accountability to ensure that these programs offer diversity from a perspective that the existing law requires. "As the statement concludes:" Arguably, the Title of the VI program no longer serves a legitimate purpose... In 2011, Congress reduced Title VI of national funding by 40 percent, from $ 34 million to $ 18 million Unless effective and necessary reforms are enforceable, Congress may have to consider reducing or eliminating the funding of Title VI from the Middle East study center. "
See also
- Public service laws in the United States
Note
Resources
- Federal Policy: Higher Education Opportunity Act. Center for Law and Social Policy.
- Postecondary and Economic Success Centers. Center for Law and Social Policy.
- Title 20, Chapter 28, Section IV, Code United States 1070, et seq.
External Resources
- The Great Society Congress
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments