CECU Condemns the “College Affordability Act”

​Following the introduction of the “College Affordability Act,” CECU president and CEO Steve Gunderson sent a letter to Representative Bobby Scott, Chair of the House Committee on Education & Labor, to express disappointment on the bill:

​“We have reached out to you (your staff and your committee colleagues) since January 3rd, seeking constructive collaboration that can produce a Higher Education Act reauthorization that serves all students and all schools, especially those that have for years and continue to provide exemplary service to students and exist as a cherished part of their communities.”

“It is because of this history, that your ‘College Affordability Act’ is both a huge disappointment, and even worse – a threat to the approximately 2 million students enrolled in our sector’s schools. As drafted, the proposal appears to imply that one sector engaged in postsecondary career education simply should not exist, irrespective of institutions that have grown the middle class for over 70 years. Schools such as these – and as collateral damage, the students they serve - suffer when winners and losers are picked through indiscriminate, sweeping provisions. If your goal is to eliminate our sector, just say so.”
​
“No sector of higher education has ever been targeted in one single piece of legislation the way ‘The College Affordability Act’ targets our sector. We count no less than 19 different direct and indiscriminate attacks on our sector. Under your proposed legislation:

• The 85/15 proposal would eliminate access to career education for 158,000 veterans and would close 266 schools alone.
• Your proposal’s short-term Pell Grant proposal would prevent participation by the one sector fully engaged in postsecondary career education – with outcomes more than twice as good as public 2-year institutions.
• Despite serving a larger percentage of low-income students than any other sector of higher education, your proposal denies our sector participation in new programs for low-income students.
• Your proposal imposes on the sector serving primarily adult students marketing limitations that work for schools serving first-time/full-time students just out of high school.
• Your proposal legislatively imposes both the Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense Rules that narrowly attack only our sector when others in higher education could not survive under these same rules.”