Obama's Department of Education won't say which colleges it has banned receiving federal money

From Inside Higher ED:

The U.S. Department of Education is so concerned about the risk that dozens of colleges pose to students and taxpayers that it has curtailed access to federal money at those institutions -- but it won’t say which ones.  

Even as it pushes to make far more information about colleges available to consumers, the department is keeping hidden from public view its decisions to punish certain colleges with funding restrictions known as heightened cash monitoring. 

At the end of last October, 76 colleges or universities were subject to the most stringent form of those restrictions, according to the department. Another 455 institutions, as of last August, faced a lower level of scrutiny.  

But the department has refused to provide the names of those colleges because of the “competitive injury” it may cause them.  . . . 

Such reasoning hasn’t stopped the department from publishing other information about colleges that might harm their reputation in the interest of protecting students. It annually publishes colleges’ financial responsibility scores and an array of other financial and price data. And last year the Obama administration began releasing the names of colleges under investigation for mishandling sexual assault cases. . . .

Here is my concern.  In the past the Obama administration has banned students at some private schools from obtaining federal student loans.  I wouldn't be surprised if all 76 schools here are private schools.

The subsidy for students going to state colleges keeps going up and up

Click on figure to enlarge it.

A lot is being made about the fact that students at public universities are covering a greater percentage of the costs of their education.  But students still only cover 25% of costs. The Washington Post makes a big deal about the fact that the share of state funded university expenditures that the students cover is more than that covered by states? 

The problem is that people are only covering a tiny fraction of the cost of their education. Going from 17% to 25% of costs is an improvement, but the absolute size of the subsidy has increased. Why should we be increasing the absolute size of the subsidy for the future wealthy (those who graduate from college will earn above average incomes)? All state college expenditures would have to go up by only 11 percent from 2003 to 2012 for the absolute subsidy to have gone up. In fact, inflation went up by 25% over that time. If that was how much state college costs went up (we can dream that they only went up that much), the total subsidy increased 13% faster than what students paid.

I haven't taken the time to look it up, but clearly university expenditures have gone up by much more than inflation over that period of time.

Public schools ban sunscreen, willing to let students get serious sunburn rather than risk "allergic reactions," worried kids will eat it

Are these public school teachers parents?  Are they really more worried about allergic reactions to sunscreen than they are to kids getting serious sunburn?  From Fox News:

A Texas mom is angry over a school ban on sunscreen that she says led to her daughter getting a severe sunburn during a field trip.
The North East Independent School District has the restriction because it considers sunscreen toxic, and fears kids will eat it, parent Christy Riggs, of San Antonio, told Fox News.
“The reality is: Children don’t eat sunscreen and they’re not going to,” Riggs said.
School district spokeswoman Aubrey Chancellor told ABC News that allergic reactions to sunscreen are one of the numerous reasons the district does not allow sunblock in its 72 schools. . . . .