The Department of Education (DOE) has crafted new proposed “gainful employment” educational regulations that may potentially reduce the capacity in nursing schools that; in the past year, educated 9% of the nurses and 54% of the allied health workers.
This reduction comes at a time when the nursing shortage continues unabated. A higher ratio of nurses to patients shortens the number of hospital days, improves patient outcomes, and reduces the rates of hospital acquired infections. For-profit nursing programs are currently under attack by the DOE. This seems incongruent with President Obama’s campaign promises to support nurses as well as other healthcare providers.
600,000 New Nurses Needed
These proposed rules come at a time when; according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly 600,000 new positions for registered nurses will be created between 2008 and 2018. This is an increase of 22% or 2.12% growth per year. While unemployment has remained at record high; the healthcare sector, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, has shown a net gain of 613,000 jobs since the recession started. Passage of the Affordable Care Act assures the continuing need for nurses. Why then, at this time of increased demand for health services, and a growing documented need for nurses is the Obama administration attempting to restrict students’ access to nursing education? Current efforts to reduce enrollments in for-profit sector nursing programs that are creating jobs and contributing to improvement the health of our citizens seems incongruent with national goals.
The issue seems to stem from a philosophical approach of the Obama administration that health care education should only occur in public sector educational programs. This is directly related to incidences of abuse by some for-profit colleges. By supporting the aggressive pursuit of any public or for-profit schools that employ deceptive practices, the DOE indicates its intention to decrease educational options for millions of Americans.
Some key politicians in the Senate and their enforcers in the DOE have apparently decided that the for-profit education sector should not play a continuing role in the education of nurses and other allied health workers. Apparently, restricting nursing students’ access to schools of their choice and access to private for-profit institutions will serve the public’s interest, i.e. potentially reducing nursing enrollment and those of other health care professionals.
For-Profit Schools Targeted
These concerted attacks on for-profit education sector seem driven by a bias that ALL such schools are only interested in “fast bucks” obtained primarily from Federal student grants and loans administered by DOE through its Title IV regulations. The “for-profit” educational sectors, like all tax payers looks for existing Federal regulations and their approved accrediting agencies to insure any unethical practices are not tolerated. The Federal regulations and accrediting oversight should apply to ALL public and private sector educational programs who participate in the Title IV programs.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) in August of 2010, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report to the Senate’s Health, Education, labor, and Pension Committee hearings regarding “for-profit” educational institutions. The GAO; that is supposed to be the Federal Watchdog and must remain unaffected by industry and political influences, provided the Committee Chairman with testimony that illustrated illegal and unethical activities allegedly done during the undercover investigation of “for-profit” schools. In November, under mounting evidence of the bias and untruths in the report, the GAO released a corrected report that acknowledges significant errors in its findings.
While the ‘for-profit” sector is a relatively minor recipient of Title IV funds in comparison to the public sector, the investigation failed to examine these schools.
For-Profits Colleges Are More Cost Effective
Total federal and state grant subsidies for public colleges are over twice that of proprietary colleges: approximately $7,500 per full-time eligible student subsidy for public colleges versus approximately $3,000 per student (including total cost of defaults) for proprietary colleges. The average community college graduation rate of nearly 7%, costs the taxpayers around $137,000 per graduate. This is more than $32,000 or four times more than it costs taxpayers to educate the same student in a for-profit school. Those who attend a public community college most take up to 5 years to graduate. Students who attend a public community college generally graduate in five (5) years and over 50% drop out by the second year. Only 22% finish within 3 years while for-profits have a two year graduation rate of 60%. While proprietary institutions are criticized for making profits, approximately 40 percent of these profits are returned to the government in taxes.
One argument by the DOE is that “for-profit” students have a significant higher default rate on student loans than those in the public sector. When one compares “apples to apples”, the type of student, not the tax status of the institution influences the default rate. Community Colleges and proprietary schools’ default rates are the same when calculations take into account the higher number of minority and lower income students in each organization.
For-Profit and Public Schools Need To Be Treated Equally
Educating nurses requires innovation, creativity, all within an educational framework of insuring the highest standards. This is not the time to single out one segment of the educational system who is currently educating over 42% of all medical workers. Overzealous regulators and politicians who are opposed to free market solutions to education reform, will hopefully “take a deep breath” and realize that solutions to increasing the number of nurses should be applied to all education institutions. Together, we can work to insure our citizens have access to practical and registered nurses.
