Do We Really Need Yet More Evidence that the 21st Century GI Bill is Seriously Flawed and Unfair?
I have written for months that the 21st Century GI Bill was unfair because it denied veterans who attend a higher education program online access to the housing allowance that would be paid to those attending a face-to-face program.
http://www.theother85percent.com/2008/07/what-is-wrong-with-the-21st-century-gi-bill
The latest explanation for why policy-makers went this route is that they assumed that online students “already have jobs and don’t need the housing allowance.” Never mind the disabled veteran who cannot attend college face-to-face, or the single mother veteran who cannot afford the child care necessary to go to campus – neither of whom will be given a housing allowance under the assumption they are already employed. This a bad way to make public policy and especially policy that sets up, for the first time, legislation that discriminates against a relatively new but very popular mode of learning.
And now we hear that the amounts to be paid to veterans under the new bill are also unfair. See http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/16/gibill. The bill is set up to pay veterans at the rate of the most expensive public university in the state of the school they attend. What this means is that if you are a veteran attending a school located in the District of Columbia, you get $310, while a veteran attending a school located in Texas gets $15,130 a term. Is this fair? Does it make sense? Obviously the answer to these questions is an emphatic “no,” just as it is to whether it makes sense or is fair to assume that veterans who want to study online can be assumed to have jobs and do not need a housing allowance.
Fortunately, Representative Bob Filner of California, Chair of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, whose website points to his work on behalf of “justice for veterans,” has introduced a bill that would remove the language preventing veterans attending online programs from receiving the housing allowance. While Representative Filner’s bill would not address the pay level issue, it would correct the assumption about online study and I am hopeful that his bill will get support.
Your thoughts? Feel free to leave a comment.
Mike
Share This2 Responses to “Do We Really Need Yet More Evidence that the 21st Century GI Bill is Seriously Flawed and Unfair?”
Leave a Reply
Let us know what you think. All comments will be reviewed prior to going live. Comments that are profane or obscene, or unrelated to the topic of the post will not be published.
Welcome to The Other 85 Percent. So what does "the other 85 percent" refer to? Research has shown that only about 15 percent of higher education students still fit the traditional definition of young adults age 18 to 22 who live on campus and go to school full time. more
- July 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
-
Capella University
Changing Higher Education
eLearning Roadtrip
The Presidents’ Forum
Transparency By Design
Wally Boston Says:
Mike:
I agree with you. In addition to the disabled vet and the single parent vet, the law ignores the fact that over 60% of the active duty soldiers, sailors, and airmen study via distance learning because of the convenience (available in any country via the internet), the relevance (degrees offered such as Homeland Security, Strategic Intell, etc.), and the affordability (active duty tuition is capped at $250/credit hour and many distance institutions offer military discounts so that their tuition approaches that cap). When these soldiers return home, should they be denied access to the school that they attended when serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo or a state-side base not near their home? The provision was placed into law because someone was not aware of “the other 85%” or did not think it worthy of consideration. Distance ed is a serious alternative to attending a campus and in some states, may be the only alternative if a campus is not nearby.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:54 am