اینترنت

برچسب: measures

  • As feds plan new measures to prevent financial aid fraud, colleges hope real students still enroll

    As feds plan new measures to prevent financial aid fraud, colleges hope real students still enroll


    The 2025-26 FAFSA form.

    Credit: Andrew Reed

    Top Takeaways
    • California’s community colleges have dispersed $14 million and likely much more in financial aid to fraudsters.
    • The U.S. Department of Education says colleges must verify the identities of more students this summer. In the fall, it plans to launch permanent screening. 
    • Colleges worry that the new measures could burden students too much and prevent some from enrolling.

    California colleges are worried that new federal measures seeking to crack down on financial aid fraud, which has stolen millions in grants, could result in the unintended consequence of fewer legitimate students enrolling. 

    At California’s community colleges, where the fraud has been most pronounced in the state, financial aid officials hope the new steps will strike a balance between deterring bad actors while also minimizing the burden on real students. Some students may find taking extra steps to prove their identity to be an extra barrier to enrolling, possibly scaring them off, administrators say. 

    “How do we do fraud mitigation, but also still have students apply? The more barriers, the harder we make it to get in our systems, the less people will come,” said Tina Vasconcellos, associate vice chancellor of educational services at the Peralta Community College District. “It’s great the federal government wants to help us and cut down on fraud, but at the same time, is it going to create another hoop for our students to jump through to get to us in the first place?”

    The U.S. Department of Education announced last month it will roll out new ways to verify the identities of students who apply for aid. Most of the fraud has tapped federal aid, in the form of Pell Grants intended for low-income students, but some state and local aid has also been stolen in California and elsewhere. 

    The federal department said it would require colleges this summer to verify the identities of additional first-time applicants. That will apply to about 125,000 students in total nationwide, but the department didn’t say how that will be split among the colleges. To get verified, students will have to show government-issued identification such as a passport or driver’s license. If the college determines that a student is unable to show the identification in person, the student can be given the option to do so on a video call.

    “Although we recognize that these verification selections could be challenging for some institutions and students, it is a critically important and targeted step toward preventing fraud,” the department wrote in an announcement.

    The additional verification for the summer term is only a temporary solution before the department implements a permanent screening process for every financial aid applicant for the upcoming fall term.

    Officials have not said what that process will entail in the fall. Among the possibilities, college officials speculate that requiring more students to come in person to prove they are real, which could be potentially challenging for students who live far away and take entire course loads online.

    Community colleges have been plagued by financial aid scammers who target those institutions because they are open-access and offer many classes fully online. That makes it much easier to enroll in classes online and be eligible for aid. At least $14 million in aid, and likely much more, has been dispersed to fraudsters at California community colleges since 2021. 

    It’s also easier to defraud community colleges than more expensive universities because tuition is so low or otherwise covered, and much of the grants go directly to students for living costs, rather than to the colleges for tuition. 

    “We don’t know what the plan is for the fall,” said Jill Desjean, the director of policy analysis at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Ideally, Desjean said, the process would be automated so that additional steps aren’t required of students or staff. “There’s just a limit to what the schools can do.” 

    Pretending to be legitimate students, fraudsters start by applying for admission online. Some of them are caught there, but others successfully get admitted and enroll in classes. At that point, they can request financial aid, which, if they’re successful, gets distributed to personal bank accounts via direct deposit.

    Beyond stealing aid, the scams have additional consequences for real students. Since each course has a finite number of seats, genuine students are sometimes left on waiting lists and can’t enroll because fraudsters are taking up the available seats.

    In a statement when the new measures were announced, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the department “has a responsibility to act” because fraud is “taking aid away from eligible students, disrupting the operations of colleges, and ripping off taxpayers.”

    Jasmine Ruys, vice president of student services at College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita, acknowledged that “it’s our job to make sure that fraud is not happening and that we’re good stewards of taxpayer money.” 

    She added, though, that the college strives to balance that responsibility with not asking too much of students.

    “Some students work during the day, so they might have to take time off work to be able to come over to us to verify,” Ruys added. “So we try really hard not to put any kind of barriers up for a student.”

    Even being asked to upload additional documents online could be difficult for some students, said Vasconcellos of the Peralta district, which serves Oakland and the rest of northern Alameda County. 

    “We still have a digital divide. There are students within our community who have less access to all aspects of technology,” she said. “A lot of our students are actually still using their phones to take their classes. So what I’d be concerned about is if the technology on the receiving end isn’t working and if it’s not easy to upload your ID, or whatever it is that they’re asking for, it’s going to potentially be a barrier.”

    Vasconcellos and Ruys both said they’re hopeful that whatever the department implements this fall will be something that doesn’t require much extra from students. 

    One possible solution, Ruys said, would be to add something at the beginning of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), so the verification happens quickly rather than when students are getting ready to start their classes. That could be something similar to ID.me, an online identity verification platform already being used by many community colleges. 

    It’s not clear, however, whether the department is considering that option.

    “Whatever it is, we’re going to abide by all laws,” Ruys said. “We just hope that it doesn’t limit our students from being able to enroll and attend college.”





    Source link

  • California takes a big step in how it measures school performance, but there’s still more to do

    California takes a big step in how it measures school performance, but there’s still more to do


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Accountability has been a central plank in California’s — and our nation’s — school reform efforts for over two decades. Over nearly that entire period, California has been criticized (including by me) for being one of the few states that does not include a measure of student achievement growth in our accountability system. The current approach, exemplified in the California School Dashboard, rates schools on their average performance levels on the state’s standardized tests, and on the difference between the school’s average performance this year and last year.

    But the state doesn’t have, and has never had, a student-level growth model for test scores. Student-level growth models are important because they do a much better job than the state’s existing measures of capturing school effectiveness at improving student achievement. This is because growth models directly compare students to themselves over time, asking how much individual children are learning each year and how this compares across schools and to established benchmarks for annual learning. The crude difference models the state currently displays in the dashboard could give the wrong idea about school performance, for instance, if there are enrollment changes over time in schools (as there have been since the pandemic).

    Growth models can help more fairly identify schools that are often overlooked because they are getting outsize results with underserved student groups. In other words, they send better, more accurate signals to report card users and to the state Department of Education about which schools need support and for which students. Along with Kansas, California has been the last holdout state in adopting a report card that highlights a growth model.

    Though the state’s task force on accountability and continuous improvement, on which I served, wrapped up its work and recommended a growth model almost nine years ago, the process of adopting and implementing a growth model has been — to say the least — laborious and drawn-out. Still, I was delighted to see that the California Department of Education (CDE) has finally started providing growth model results in the California School Dashboard! This is a great step forward for the state.

    Beyond simply including the results in the dashboard, there are some good things about how the state is reporting these growth model results. The growth model figures present results in a way I think many users will understand (points above typical growth), and results for different student groups can be easily viewed and compared.

    There is a clear link to resources to help understand the growth model, too. The state should be commended for its efforts to make the results clear and usable in this way.

    It doesn’t take a detailed look at the dashboard to see, however, that there are some important fixes that the State Board of Education should require — and CDE should adopt — as soon as possible. Broadly, I think these fixes fall into two categories: technical fixes about presentation and data availability, and more meaningful fixes about how the growth model results are used.

    First, the data are currently buried too deeply for the average user to even find them. As far as I can tell, the growth model results do not appear on the landing page for an individual school. You have to click through using the “view more details” button on some other indicator, and only then can you see the growth model results. The growth model results should, at minimum, be promoted to the front page, even if they are put alongside the other “informational purposes indicator” for science achievement. A downloadable statewide version of the growth model results should also be made available, so that researchers and other interested analysts can examine trends. Especially in light of the long shadow of Covid on California’s students, we need to know which schools could benefit from more support to recover.

    Second, the state should prioritize the growth model results in actually creating schools’ dashboard ratings. Right now, the color-coded dashboard rating is based on schools’ status (their average scale score) and change (the difference between this year’s average score and last year’s). It would be much more appropriate to replace the change score with these growth model results.

    There are many reasons why a growth model is superior, but the easiest to understand is that the “change” metrics the state currently uses can be affected by compositional changes in the student body (such as which kinds of students are moving into and out of the school). Researchers are unanimous that student-level growth models are superior to these change scores at accurately representing school effectiveness. Even for California’s highly mobile student population, growth models can accommodate student mobility and give “credit” to the schools most responsible for each child’s learning during that academic year.

    To be sure, I think there are other ways the dashboard can likely be improved to make it more useful to parents and other interested users. These suggestions have been detailed extensively over the years, including in a recent report that dinged the state for making it difficult to see how children are recovering post-Covid.

    The adoption of a growth model is a great sign that the state wishes to improve data transparency and utility for California families. I hope it is just the first in a series of improvements in California’s school accountability systems.

    •••

    Morgan Polikoff is a professor at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link