Reauthorization Highlights and Facts
"BEST FOR THE STUDENTS" By Jack Taylor
While some may not want to read about my concerns in serving on the NASFAA Reauthorization Task Force, I believe they are essential to understanding the Task Force's view on many of the issues. Everyone on the Task Force was guided by the same principle of "Best for the Students".
When I got the call in September 2001 from Larry Zaglaniczny, my first response was "Larry, are you crazy?! I don't have the experience to serve on that committee." Without a doubt, many of you might agree with that assessment. Larry pointed out to me that NASFAA wants people from many sectors, experience levels, and every region. This was not enough to make me serve, since we had great people in RMASFAA who might be better. Larry said, "Jack, we are looking for people who can do whatever is best for the students. Members who can put aside their sector hats, and their personal and institutional views for the sake of the students are needed. Can you do that?" With those words he had me committed to the Task Force.
At the first meeting, it became very clear that the other members had heard the same words. "Best for the Students" became our rallying cry, mantra, and arbiter of discussions. Each of us at some point realized that our stance on an issue was predicated on what was good for our sector or our situation, not necessarily all of the students. We had to remember "Best for the Students." The essence of these words can be found in many of the recommendations put forth by the Task Force. Several of our votes began with the "Best for the Students" cry because the vote might take funding from one sector, in favor of giving it to where the neediest students are.
Loan limits and repayment are issues where we followed the guiding principle. If you remember the last Reauthorization, loan limits did not increase, because the student organizations were vocal about not doing this. NASFAA and her sister higher education organizations did not want to publicly stand against students. Together these groups supported increased grant funding. Unfortunately, Congress did not come through with sufficient appropriations, either.
This Reauthorization is quite different. From our first meeting with House and Senate staffers, it was obvious that grants would not see a significant increase, due to the economy. The American Council on Education, the Education Finance Council, Consumers Bankers Association, and American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers gave the Task Force the impression that their legislative efforts would be directed toward increased loan limits.
In keeping with "Best for the Students", we recommended changes on the repayment side, since people could believe that we were not thinking about the students. The recommendation was made to increase subsidized aggregate limits to $35,000 for undergrad dependents and $85,000 for grads. The Task Force wanted borrowers to tailor a repayment plan that meets their personal and financial needs. A modification to the extended repayment plan would allow every borrower to be eligible. We recommended that the DL Program's Income Contingent Repayment plan be extended to FFELP. We also recommended the variable interest rate to be capped at 6.8% instead of 8.25%. Another suggestion was to shift the insurance premium and origination fee to the federal government rather than the students.
I have only mentioned one area of the Higher Education Act in which the Task Force spent hours of discussions. You can go to the NASFAA website (http://www.nasfaa.org) to see all of the recommendations that were discussed through our meetings. You'll find a link to Reauthorization on the left-hand side. While you may not agree with some of the recommendations, remember that the Task Force was thinking what would be BEST FOR THE STUDENTS.
|
|
