Injustice for All: The Truth about the Annihilation of American Education Ideals
A Special Report by Mary Lyn Hammer
Publisher: Champion Empowerment Institute
Box 97001, 3920 E Thomas Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85018
ISBNS: 978-0-9970978-0-1 (paperback) 978-0-9970978-1-8 (eBook)
Price: $69.95
Details: 6×9, 312 pages
Features: 96 data tables with detailed analysis pluce images; index, glossary

CEO of Champion College Services, Mary Lyn Hammer has almost three decades of experience in the education industry.

Shock-ED #1 For the last four years, certain federal student loan (conduit) portfolios purchased from the private sector are now managed by ED and have had default rates well above the national average with some just under 60%. ED ruined the financial standing of several hundred thousand student borrowers during these conduit purchases and the transition to 100% direct lending by mismanaging these students’ loans. Many of these students were actually in good standing on their loans when they were transferred from private lending agencies to the federal government’s management and were almost immediately put into default because the current status didn’t properly transfer. When Ms. Hammer notified the DOE of these colossal errors right when they began occurring, the DOE did not correct this problem and allowed the financial reputations of these students to be ruined.
1. How did the DOE damage the financial standing of several hundred thousand student borrowers and why was nothing done?

Shock-ED #2 ED misreported loan program performance in 2012 and 2013 by reporting its own default rates lower than data shows and the private-sector FFELP default rates higher than data shows. In 2014 and 2015, ED has failed to provide data on its own direct loan default rates which are significantly higher than the national student loan default rate. Is this is an attempt to cover up ED’s own poor performance and mismanagement of the student loans?
2. How has ED cover up its own poor performance and mismanagement of student loans?

Shock-ED #3 The provisions in SAFRA (Student Aid & Fiscal Responsibility Act) that eliminated new bank-run loans for the FFEL Program (Federal Family Education Loan Program) as of July 1, 2010, were passed under the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA) of 2010. Yes, that’s right—the elimination of FFELP was included in the law that brought us Obamacare. Now, ED has a monopoly on student loans.
3. How did ED end up with a monopoly on student loans?

Shock-ED #4 Student loan debt is $1.47 trillion, or 9% of overall U.S. debt of $17 trillion. This makes the federal government the largest financial (money-lending) institution in the country.
4. Who is the largest financial (money-lending) institution in the country?

Shock-ED #5 While the federal government projected earnings (profits) on student loans at $100 billion over 10 years, actual profit for 2013 alone was $41.3 billion. With student loan debt rising at the current growth rate, this means the government will earn over HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS in a ten-year period.
5. How much will the government actually earn off of the interest on student loans?

Shock-ED #6 The government IS making a massive PROFIT off the interest on student loans through Obama’s PAYE and REPAYE programs that offer repayment schedules with little to no principal reduction. Then, ED masks this as a “loan forgiveness” program but fails to emphasize that a lump sum tax payment will be due on the forgiven loan; thereby acting like a loan shark.
6. How is the government making so much money on student loans?

Shock-ED #7 For the last two years and without Congressional approval to change the legal mandates, ED ignored statutory definitions and “adjusted” the default rates of some schools, then refused to provide a complete or accurate list of which schools’ rates were adjusted.
7. Which schools were included in ED’s “adjustments” for cohort default rates?

Shock-ED #8 The DOE only adjusted rates for those schools in jeopardy of losing federal funding—was this an attempt to keep these schools from performing loan servicing appeals that would reveal the tragedy that had unfolded for hundreds of students with defaulted loans that never should have occurred? If this was an important issue, why hasn’t the DOE corrected the problem for students living with the consequences of defaulted loans and all institutions affected?
8. Why hasn’t the DOE corrected its mistake for students and institutions hurt by the “arbitrary” adjusted rates?

Shock-ED #9 Certain non-profit schools knew about the adjustment before the announcements were made and had press releases already written. Other for-profit schools were not notified of the adjustments in advance and were unjustly forced out of business.
9. Why was the information on adjusted default rates only made to non-profit schools?

Shock-ED #10 For the last four years of cohort default rates (CDR) analyzed, the DOE’s “national official” briefings have not matched the institutional data. Patterns show that the public sector numbers have been reported lower than the data shows and the proprietary sector numbers have been reported higher than the data shows. Up until 2015, the private sector numbers matched but have been reported lower than the data shows for the FY 2013 CDR. It appears that ED is manipulating numbers to fit their agenda, not to accurately report school performance.
10. How does it appear that ED is manipulating cohort default rates and what does this mean for higher education?

Shock-ED #11 ED has misreported debt-to-earnings rates for both for-profit proprietary institutions and for public institutions. The DOE appears to have manipulated data to eliminate reporting for most non-profit programs (less than 5% reported) and to show higher debt-to-earnings rates at for-profit institutions and lower debt-to-earnings rates at public institutions than data actually shows. The original gainful employment (GE) “final” data shows that ED grossly exaggerated the annual payments for most proprietary programs—and when the payments were properly calculated, there were only 6 failing proprietary programs, not the 193 that the DOE reported. This is likely the catalyst for the “zone” eligibility criteria in the less-forgiving second round of gainful employment regulations. The misreported gainful employment information swayed public opinion in favor of non-profit schools and against for-profit proprietary schools when most non-profit schools are not held to the same quality standards.
11. How does it appear that ED is manipulating gainful employment rates and what does this mean for higher education?

Shock-ED #12 ED did not include the “median debt” needed to verify the accuracy of the gainful employment rates released with the notice of proposed rulemaking for gainful employment 2.0 published in March 2015. Could this lack of transparency be another indicator of inaccurate and manipulated GE rates?
12. Why did ED not include “median debt” to verify the accuracy of the gainful employment rates?

Shock-ED #13 The original College Scorecard originally hosted on whitehouse.gov did not include all schools, was missing information for many of those reported, and included misleading information for others. This data was removed from the website within a month of Ms. Hammer’s first speech about the inaccurate information. The 2015 College Scorecard data released in September 2015 became unavailable. (Error: Forbidden)
13. What problems existed with the original College Scorecard hosted on whitehouse.gov?

Shock-ED #14 The College Navigator hosted by ED provides extensive information about schools but the downloadable reports exclude all financial information and are not available in an inclusive data set—the information must be pulled manually to see that the proprietary sector represents the highest graduation rates at the lowest student loan costs for students. Again, is this lack of transparency another way to cover up the truth about sector-level performance?
14. How does the College Navigator hosted by ED lack transparency?

Shock-ED #15 This many errors in reporting cannot be coincidental. Is the inaccurate reporting across many federal higher education databases and used to assault and defame proprietary schools actually a deflection from the DOE’s own poor performance of higher education?
15. Why wouldn’t ED’s reports match its databases?

Shock-ED #16 Americans need freedom to choose their educational institution. Many proprietary schools provide valuable training that is critical to the American economy through trades like welders, electricians, the medical industry, auto mechanics, cosmetology careers and more. If proprietary schools are eliminated, many students will be on the street or have limited options for educational training.
16. What will happen if proprietary schools are eliminated?

Shock-ED #17 Free education is a fairy tale. Teachers and the administrative staff can’t be expected to work for free. Someone has to pay for the facility and overhead costs. Free education could be yet ANOTHER albatross of an entitlement program that American taxpayers financially support. History proves that people in general are more invested and have a higher success rate for hitting their goals when they have “skin in the game.”
17. What will happen if students are given free education only at community colleges?

Shock-ED #18 These facts and more are documented within Injustice for All—backed by Mary Lyn Hammer’s expert analysis of publicly available data and reports and verified for accuracy in “Independent Accountants’ Reports” conducted by Kaiser & Carolin, P.C.
18. In Injustice for All, who has verified Mary Lyn Hammer’s analysis?