Tag: oversight

  • Following Texas, Florida Drops ABA Oversight of Lawyers

    Following Texas, Florida Drops ABA Oversight of Lawyers

    Florida is now the second state to drop its requirement that lawyers in the state hold a degree from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, The Tallahassee Democrat reported Thursday. 

    The Florida Supreme Court, which sets law-licensure requirements, said the decision is designed to open the door for more law school accreditors. 

    “The rule changes create the opportunity for additional entities to carry out an accrediting and gatekeeping function on behalf of the Court,” the Jan. 15 opinion read. “The Court’s goal is to promote access to high-quality, affordable legal education in law schools that are committed to the free exchange of ideas and to the principle of nondiscrimination.”

    The Texas Supreme Court made a similar decision last week, and Ohio and Tennessee’s high courts are also considering minimizing the ABA’s oversight of lawyers in their states. 

    Republicans, including Florida attorney general James Uthmeier, who called the ABA “a captured, far-left organization,” have targeted the ABA, which accredits the vast majority of law schools in the country, as part of a broader crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Last year, the ABA suspended its DEI standards in response to conservative criticism. 

    On Thursday, Gov. Ron DeSantis praised the state Supreme Court’s decision as a “Good move” in a post on X. “The (highly partisan) ABA should not be a gatekeeper for legal education or the legal profession.”

    For now, though, a new law school accreditor has yet to emerge. And experts say it’s unlikely most law schools will abandon their ABA accreditation any time soon, because it’s created reliable professional standards that make it easier for lawyers to practice in multiple states. 

    Justice Jorge Labarga, the only dissenting vote in the Florida opinion and the only justice who wasn’t appointed by DeSantis, cautioned that a new law school accreditor would have a tough time rivaling the ABA. 

    “[The ABA] has cultivated unmatched proficiency in dealing with Florida law-school-specific issues that would require decades for any successor to develop,” he wrote in his dissent. “Refinements can always be made. However, replacing an established entity with an unknown alternative is detrimental in the context of disputes.”  

    Source link

  • Texas Drops ABA Oversight of Lawyers Amid Anti-DEI Crusade

    Texas Drops ABA Oversight of Lawyers Amid Anti-DEI Crusade

    For the first time in 43 years, lawyers who want to practice in Texas will no longer be required to hold a degree from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, the Texas Supreme Court decided last week.

    While the ABA is “continuing to work with the Texas Supreme Court—and all other state supreme courts and bar admitting authorities—to help preserve the portability of law school degrees throughout the country,” the policy “reinforces the authority that the Supreme Court of Texas has always had over the licensure of JD graduates,” Jenn Rosato Perea, managing director of the ABA’s accrediting arm, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    Since 1983, Texas has ceded some of that authority to the ABA, whose Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar accredits the majority of law schools in the United States. Most other states have similar ABA oversight in place; it became a popular move in the 1980s because law was becoming increasingly national business. Widespread adoption of ABA accreditation as a licensure standard offered more uniformity and has made it easier for lawyers to practice in multiple states.

    The new Texas policy comes amid the broader crackdown on higher education accreditors by the Trump administration and its allies, and specifically on the ABA, which has become a target of the Republican-led anti-DEI crusade in recent years. Indeed, the ABA suspended its diversity, equity and inclusion standards last year. Now Texas has become the first state to say it will no longer rely on the accreditor to help to set law licensure standards.

    “[The Court] intends to provide stability, certainty, and flexibility to currently approved law schools by guaranteeing ongoing approval to schools that satisfy a set of simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria (such as bar exam passage rate) using metrics no more onerous than those currently required by the ABA,” read a Jan. 6 order signed by all nine justices of the Texas Supreme Court. “[It] does not intend to impose additional accreditation, compliance, or administrative burdens on currently approved law schools.”

    While the policy likely won’t change much in the short term, critics say it invites the creation of alternative law school accreditors, which could make it harder for lawyers to move their practice across state lines.

    Republican-controlled Florida, Ohio and Tennessee are weighing similar measures.

    “This could be the beginning of the end of the ABA as the accreditor of choice for law schools nationally,” Peter Lake, a law professor at Stetson College of Law’s Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy, told Inside Higher Ed. “It’s a little too early to call the game, but this is a significant step toward a goal the Trump administration and many states want to see happen.”

    Part of that goal involves asserting more control over higher education accreditors.

    In April, Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Education to suspend or terminate the federal recognition of accreditors found “to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives.” It specifically called for an investigation of the ABA and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools. In June, six states—Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas—announced the launch of a new regional accreditor, the Commission for Public Higher Education; at the time, Florida governor Ron DeSantis described it as part of an effort to root out “woke ideology” in higher education and break up the “accreditation cartel.”

    The federal government made adjacent arguments in supporting the Texas Supreme Court’s plan to minimize the ABA’s oversight of legal education, also announced last April. In December, the Federal Trade Commission submitted a public comment letter in support of the policy, accusing the ABA of having a “monopoly on the accreditation of American law schools” and of imposing “rigid and costly requirements” mandating “every law school follow an expensive, elitist model of legal education.”

    Texas Open to ABA Alternative

    While the Texas court stopped short of establishing a new law school accreditor, it acknowledged that it might in the future consider “returning to greater reliance on a multistate accrediting entity other than the ABA should a suitable entity become available,” according to the final version of the policy.

    Lake said that could happen eventually, especially if other states decide to follow Texas and ditch the ABA’s oversight. “This is an open invitation to form a [new law school–accrediting] organization,” he said. “And I suspect that whatever group forms will probably be a little more aligned with the Trump administration’s goals and ideas.”

    Educators and experts believe such a move will only impede the goals of legal education and practice.

    “ABA accreditation provides a nationally recognized framework for quality assurance and transparency; portability of licensure through recognition of ABA accreditation by all 50 states, which is critical for graduates’ career flexibility; consumer protections and public accountability through disclosure standards; and a baseline of educational quality that correlates with higher bar passage rates and better employment outcomes,” the deans of eight of the state’s 10 ABA-accredited law schools wrote in a letter to the Texas Supreme Court in June.

    The dean of South Texas College of Law Houston was among those that objected to minimizing the ABA’s oversight of law licenses in the state.

    JHVEPhoto/iStock/Getty Images

    A degree from an ABA-accredited law school is generally required to pursue a career as a lawyer, said Oren R. Griffin, a law professor at the University of Tulsa College of Law.

    “ABA accreditation is a national stamp of approval,” he said. “Law schools may differ on what they prioritize, such as curriculum or clinics they offer, but the standards have identified some basic requirements that allow all law schools to operate at an efficient, effective level.”

    And even if a state says it will license lawyers who didn’t graduate from an ABA-accredited law school, graduates from such institutions may still face limited opportunities.

    “Law schools have been very well served by these standards,“ Griffin said. “If other states were to follow suit and begin to not require ABA accreditation as a national standard, you could end up with some real disparities or differences among the 50 states, which could increase the complexities for students who are graduating and want to be able to practice in multiple states.”

    Regardless of the Texas Supreme Court’s new policy, law schools won’t likely abandon ABA accreditation anytime soon, said Austen L. Parrish, dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law and president of the Association of American Law Schools.

    “For example, a school like the University of Texas—where about 40 percent of students come from out of state and some 30 percent of graduates are placed out of state—cannot afford to not be ABA accredited. And I suspect that’s true for all of the ABA-accredited schools,” he said, adding that any school that eventually gives up ABA accreditation would be charting “a very dangerous path.”

    Students who are not held to the ABA’s national accreditation standards are less likely to receive a quality legal education, Parrish said—a result long demonstrated by the poor outcomes at California’s handful of non-ABA-accredited law schools, which have high attrition and low bar-passage rates, he added.

    “The unraveling of the national accreditation system would be really harmful to students and law schools,” Parrish said. “We’re in a world where schools need to recruit from all over and students end up practicing all over. To have a school that doesn’t do that makes them less attractive to students and more likely to create some of the problems at some of the unaccredited schools in California.”

    And even if Texas and other states do band together to form their own law school accreditor, rivaling the ABA’s influence would be a challenge.

    First, “it’s very difficult to set up an accrediting body and takes quite a bit of money,” Parrish said. “They could set up a regional accreditor, but it’s not necessarily clear who will see that as sufficient for licensing eligibility, which means the schools in those states will still have to go with ABA accreditation … I’m skeptical that more progressive states are going to buy into something that’s blatantly political.”

    For now, he interprets the Texas order as a placeholder.

    “There probably won’t be many changes right now,” he said, “other than keeping the pressure on the ABA, because [Texas] has signaled a willingness to move to a different approach, though it’s not clear what that is right now.”

    Source link

  • New Watchdog Report Reveals ‘Loopholes,’ Lack of Oversight of Idaho Virtual School Finances – The 74

    New Watchdog Report Reveals ‘Loopholes,’ Lack of Oversight of Idaho Virtual School Finances – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Some families enrolled in the Idaho Home Learning Academy public virtual charter school used state funding to pay for virtual reality headsets, hoverboards, hunting equipment, video games and video game controllers, paddleboards, smart watches, admission tickets to water parks and subscriptions to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, according to a new state watchdog report released Tuesday.

    The nonpartisan Idaho Office of Performance Evaluations, which is commonly referred to as OPE, released the 129-page Idaho Home Learning Academy evaluation report Tuesday at the Idaho State Capitol after the release was authorized by the Idaho Legislature’s Joint Legislative Oversight Committee.

    OPE released the evaluation report after multiple Idaho legislators signed a March 5 letter requesting the office study the Idaho Home Learning Academy’s finances, expenditures, policies, contracts and student achievement results.

    The Idaho Home Learning Academy, or IHLA for short, is a rapidly growing public virtual charter school authorized by the small, rural Oneida School District.

    There were about 7,600 online students enrolled at Idaho Home Learning Academy during the 2024-25 school year, many of which do not live within the traditional geographic boundaries of the Oneida School District.

    New report raises questions about how supplemental learning funds are used by some families

    As part of Idaho Home Learning Academy’s contract, its education service providers administer supplemental learning funds of $1,700 to $1,800 per student to families enrolled in IHLA that were paid for by Idaho taxpayer dollars, the report found. The money is intended to help pay families for education expenses, and the OPE evaluators found that the largest share of the funds were spent on technology expenses, such as computers, printers and internet access. Other significant sources of supplemental learning fund expenses went for physical education activities and performing arts expenses, the OPE report found.

    However, OPE evaluators found that some families used their share of funding for tuition and fees at private schools and programs. Some families also used their funds for noneducational board games, kitchen items like BBQ tongs, cosmetics, a home theater projector screen, video games, Nintendo Switch controllers, a Meta Quest virtual reality headset, movie DVDs, weapons, sights lasers, shooting targets, remote controlled cars, hoverboards, action figures, smartwatches, water park tickets and the cost of registering website domain names, the OPE report found.

    Families with students enrolled at Idaho Home Learning Academy are able to access the funds though both direct ordering programs and reimbursements. The OPE report found that Idaho Home Learning Academy’s three service providers (Braintree, Home Ed and Harmony) spent about $12.5 million providing supplemental learning funds for IHLA families during the 2024-25 school year. Service providers said that some families did not spend any or all of their supplemental learning funds, and the money was retained by the service providers, not returned back to the state or school district, the OPE report found.

    Idaho governor, superintendent of public instruction respond to OPE report’s findings

    Idaho Gov. Brad Little called the report’s findings “troubling” in a letter released with the report Tuesday.

    “We also have an obligation to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars,” Little wrote. “The OPE report on IHLA is troubling, especially as it pertains to supplemental learning fund expenses, academic performance, supplemental curriculum and the funding formula that enables virtual programs to receive more funding than brick-and-mortar public schools. The OPE report reveals that statutory safeguards are insufficient, oversight is inconsistent and accountability measures have not kept pace with the fast expansion of the IHLA program.”

    The OPE evaluation report findings come at a time when every dollar of state funding in Idaho is being stretched further amid a revenue shortfall. All state agencies outside of the K-12 public school system are implementing 3% mid-year budget holdbacks, and the state budget is projected to end fiscal year 2026 and fiscal year 2027 in a budget deficit, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported.

    Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield said the report raised concerns for her as well.

    “(The OPE report) also raises important questions about whether direct and indirect payments to families are a proper and legal use of funds appropriated for public schools,” Critchfield wrote in a Nov. 26 letter to OPE leadership.

    The OPE evaluation report found that limited oversight and accountability create uncertainty about how supplemental learning funds paid for with state taxpayer dollars are used and whether students’ curriculum choices align with state standards and transparency requirements.

    Idaho state laws and administrative rules do not specifically allow or prohibit the use of supplemental learning funds, the OPE report found. That finding was one of several “policy gray areas” that the OPE evaluation report documented.

    Little concluded his letter by saying he is ready to work with the Idaho Legislature, the Idaho State Department of Education and the Idaho State Board of Education to restore meaningful accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars.

    “I have carefully reviewed the recommendations provided in this report and strongly encourage the Legislature to address the loopholes in state statute,” Little wrote.

    Oneida School District superintendent stresses Idaho Home Learning Academy did not break state law

    In response to the OPE report, Oneida School District Superintendent Dallan Rupp, who is also a member of the Idaho Home Learning Academy School board, emphasized that the report did not find that IHLA was guilty of any misconduct.

    “Importantly, the OPE report did not identify any misconduct at IHLA,” Rupp said during a meeting Tuesday at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise. “This outcome underscores the effectiveness of Oneida School District’s oversight and reflects IHLA’s consistent compliance with Idaho’s laws, statutes, rules, regulations and procedures, as well as its cooperative relationship with the Idaho State Department of Education. We remain fully committed to operating within all established guidelines, just as we have in the past.”

    Idaho Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, said it was beside the point that the school didn’t break any laws.

    “I’m extremely concerned,” Ruchti said during Tuesday’s meeting at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise. “This is public money – public taxpayer money – and we have an obligation to make sure that it’s spent appropriately and with oversight. And so, yes, it may not have violated any statutory requirements at this point. But what I’m saying is that what I saw in that presentation caused me serious concerns about how IHLA and other online teaching institutions are able to spend public dollars in a way that was not intended.”

    Idaho watchdog report found most online virtual teachers were part-time employees

    OPE also found that most Idaho Home Learning Academy teachers were part-time, unlike traditional schools, and the Idaho Home Learning Academy spends much less on salaries and benefits than it receives from the state’s salary apportionment formula.

    The report found IHLA was able to use the savings it realized in state funding provided to pay for staff salaries and health benefits to instead use at IHLA’s discretion or to pay its education service providers.

    The OPE report found that most of IHLA’s teachers are part-time employees and do not provide full-time direct instruction to students. Instead, the report found that Idaho Home Learning Academy’s kindergarten through eighth grade instructional model relied heavily on parent-directed learning and that IHLA teachers typically offered feedback and oversight instead of direct instruction.

    According to the report, IHLA reported $46.3 million in total expenditures from state funds during the 2024-25 school year. While traditional brick-and-mortar public schools’ largest expenditures are for staff salaries and benefits, the report found that only 36% of IHLA’s expenditures went to staff. A larger portion – 45% of IHLA’s total expenditures, or $20.6 million – went to paying education service providers.

    The OPE report also found that Idaho Home Learning Academy’s students lagged behind statewide averages for scores on Idaho Standards Achievement Test, or ISAT. The OPE report found 42% of IHLA students were proficient in English language arts during the 2024-25 school year, compared to the statewide average of 52% of Idaho students.

    The report also found just 25% of IHLA students were proficient in math during the 2024-25 school year, compared to the Idaho statewide average of 43%.

    However, the OPE report highlighted that some IHLA families interviewed for the report said they do not believe statewide standardized tests are a good measure of student learning. The report also noted that many Idaho Home Learning Academy families identified themselves as homeschoolers and said they were using IHLA by choice because they were unhappy with the quality of education in traditional brick-and-mortar schools or felt that their child’s educational needs were not being met by more traditional public schools.

    Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: [email protected].


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Education Dept. Subjects Harvard to More Financial Oversight

    Education Dept. Subjects Harvard to More Financial Oversight

    Harvard had a financial responsibility score of 2.8, well over the passing 1.5 required by the Education Department, in fiscal year 2023.

    John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

    The Education Department announced Friday that it placed Harvard University on heightened cash monitoring, a designation that allows greater federal oversight of institutional finances and is typically reserved for colleges in dire financial straits. 

    By all accounts, Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment, is not.

    “It’s harassment,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. “Harvard has the money, yes, but it is adding a headache. It’s adding staff. It’s interfering with students’ ability to access federal financial aid … The government’s making it harder for Harvard to support low-income students, which speaks to exactly what the administration’s goals are here—they’re not to help students, they’re not to improve education, they’re not even to address what they see as concerns at Harvard—they’re just to attack Harvard.”

    Institutions placed on heightened cash monitoring are asked to put up a letter of credit that serves as collateral for the Education Department if the institution closes, or to award federal financial aid from their own coffers before being reimbursed by the department, explained Robert Kelchen, head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Harvard has been asked to do both.

    According to a Friday news release from the Education Department, Harvard must put up a $36 million irrevocable letter of credit or “provide other financial protection that is acceptable to the Department,” department officials wrote. 

    “Students will continue to have access to federal funding, but Harvard will be required to cover the initial disbursements as a guardrail to ensure Harvard is spending taxpayer funds responsibly,” officials wrote. 

    The federal government froze $2.7 billion in federal grants for Harvard after the university rejected its sweeping demands in April. Harvard sued, and a judge ruled earlier this month that the freeze was illegal. The university has reportedly received some of the frozen funds, but the Trump administration says it’s still hoping to cut a deal with Harvard. 

    The release says three events triggered Harvard’s heightened cash monitoring designation: a determination by the Department of Health and Human Services that Harvard violated Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly allowing antisemitism on campus, accusations that the university isn’t complying with an ongoing investigation by the Office for Civil Rights, and the $1 billion in bonds Harvard has issued to make up for pulled federal funding. Harvard did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Friday. 

    “Today’s actions follow Harvard’s own admission that there are material concerns about its financial health. As a result, Harvard must now seek reimbursement after distributing federal student aid and post financial protection so that the Department can ensure taxpayer funds are not at risk,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “While Harvard remains eligible to participate in the federal student aid program for now, these actions are necessary to protect taxpayers.”

    The department also pointed to layoffs at Harvard and a hiring freeze instituted in the spring. Several other wealthy colleges have frozen hiring and shed staff this year, in part because of the administration’s actions related to federal funding. A few other universities have either issued bonds or taken out loans to get immediate cash. But so far, the department has made no public mention about putting those colleges on heightened cash monitoring.

    As of June 1, 538 colleges and universities were on heightened cash monitoring, federal data showed. About one-third of those colleges are private nonprofits, while about 42 percent are for-profit institutions. Most of the institutions—464 of them—are based in the U.S. 

    Many on the list are private institutions that have low financial responsibility composite scores, Kelchen said. This test assigns institutions a score between -1.0 and 3.0 based on the institution’s primary reserve ratio, equity ratio and net income ratio. To be considered financially responsible, an institution must score at least a 1.5, which Harvard does. 

    During fiscal year 2023, the latest for which data is publicly available, Harvard’s financial responsibility composite score was 2.8. Harvard’s estimated primary reserve ratio in fiscal year 2023 was 7.6, meaning that the university could operate for about seven and a half years by spending only its existing assets. By comparison, Hampshire College, another private, nonprofit college placed on heightened cash monitoring with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, had an estimated primary reserve ratio of 0.3, meaning it could continue operations for about four months before running out of expendable assets. Drew University, another institution on heightened cash monitoring and also with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, has a primary reserve ratio of -1.06.

    But beyond the financial responsibility score, there are plenty of reasons an institution can end up on heightened cash monitoring. Some institutions, including Hampshire and Arkansas Baptist College, were put on the list due to a late or missing compliance audit. Others have been put on the list while the department reviews their programs, or because their accreditation was revoked. But, “the department can also just specify that an institution is not financially responsible,” Kelchen said.

    The political motivation behind the move is clear, Fansmith said. 

    “To the extent that there is a problem—and to be clear, there are real problems—it’s not Harvard’s ability to pay their bills or meet their obligations. That’s a problem this administration has created,” he said. “They caused a situation, and then they are blaming Harvard for taking reasonable steps to address that situation. It’s also ironic when they send letters to Harvard using terms like ‘enormous’ and ‘massive’ and ‘colossal’ to describe Harvard’s endowment, and now they’re suddenly determining that they’re worried that Harvard is at financial risk … It is absolutely Orwellian.”

    Source link

  • School air quality bill that aims to strengthen EPA oversight reintroduced

    School air quality bill that aims to strengthen EPA oversight reintroduced

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., on Wednesday reintroduced bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting students, teachers and others from poor indoor air quality by expanding the role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

    The Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Schools Act, first introduced in July 2024, would require a nationwide assessment of indoor air quality in schools and childcare facilities and give schools and childcare centers tools to improve IAQ conditions. 

    “No one should have to suffer the consequences of poor indoor air quality, least of all our kids and students seeking an education at school,” Tonko said a statement. “Our bipartisan Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Schools Act protects the health of our communities by establishing science-based guidelines and delivering effective tools and best practices to minimize indoor health risks.” 

    The bill would update, expand and codify the work of EPA’s Indoor Environments Division and direct the agency to develop and recognize one or more voluntary certifications for buildings designed, operated and maintained to prevent or minimize indoor air health risks. 

    “Ultimately, it tries to establish a nationwide assessment of IAQ in schools and childcare facilities,” Jason Hartke, executive vice president of external affairs and global advocacy at the International WELL Building Institute, told Facilities Dive. “It goes back to the old adage that you can’t manage what you don’t measure. As these technologies get better and cheaper, it’s a huge opportunity for folks to tune the environmental quality to human health and well-being.” 

    The EPA’s Science Advisory Board has consistently ranked poor IAQ as a top five environmental risk to public health, with over 3 million people globally dying prematurely each year from disease exposure caused by poor IAQ, according to a fact sheet on the legislation. 

    Progress has been made to address outdoor air pollution, but studies show that indoor air contaminants can be two to five times, and occasionally 100 times, higher than outdoor contaminants, the fact sheet says. 

    The legislation would also support the development of technical assistance, guidelines and best practices to improve the IAQ conditions of schools and childcare facilities.

    “It’s a big deal because it targets some new tools to better assess indoor air quality in our nation’s schools,” said Hartke. “It’s a really powerful bill supported by dozens of organizations. 

    The legislation is supported by the Allergy and Asthma Network, American Federation of Teachers, ASHRAE, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, IWBI, John Hopkins Center for Health Security and the U.S. Green Building Council, according to the lawmakers’ statements. 

    Source link

  • Ideology, Outcomes, and a Shift in Higher Ed Oversight

    Ideology, Outcomes, and a Shift in Higher Ed Oversight

    In a bold move that could upend the structure of higher education oversight in the United States, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced the creation of the Commission for Public Higher Education (CPHE)—a multi-state effort to challenge what he and his allies call the “activist-controlled accreditation monopoly.” The CPHE includes six Republican-led states: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

    Positioned as a new accrediting entity with a focus on “student outcomes, transparency, and ideological independence,” the CPHE represents a growing backlash against traditional regional accreditors like the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). According to DeSantis and CPHE proponents, these longstanding organizations have prioritized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and other perceived progressive mandates over academic quality, workforce readiness, and measurable outcomes.

    The Political Context

    Governor DeSantis has made higher education a central battleground in his broader cultural agenda, particularly since his administration launched efforts to eliminate DEI offices, weaken tenure protections, and reshape public university boards. The CPHE fits neatly into that larger campaign—what DeSantis calls “reclaiming higher education.”

    “We’re breaking the stranglehold of the accreditation cartel,” DeSantis said in Boca Raton. “Florida is leading the way in building an education system based on results, not ideology.”

    The effort is being coordinated with support from public university systems across the South, including the University of South Carolina and the University Systems of Georgia and Texas. University of South Carolina Board Chair Thad Westbrook praised the new accreditor’s “outcomes-based” framework, stating it will “benefit students while making accreditation more efficient.”

    A Threat to the Federal Gatekeeping System?

    Accreditation in the U.S. plays a crucial gatekeeping role: it determines whether institutions are eligible to receive federal student aid, including Pell Grants and federally backed student loans. For CPHE to have any real impact, it must eventually be recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

    That recognition is far from guaranteed. The process requires years of documentation, reviews, and approvals—and federal education officials may view CPHE’s openly political roots as problematic. Critics argue the consortium is more about ideological conformity than educational quality.

    Risks and Ramifications

    While the CPHE claims to offer a “rigorous” and “transparent” alternative to traditional accreditation, skeptics—including some education policy analysts and faculty advocates—warn that the real motive is political control over higher education institutions. By tying accreditation to a specific ideological framework, opponents fear that academic freedom, faculty governance, and research independence could be undermined.

    There are also practical concerns. Should CPHE institutions lose recognition by federal agencies or face lawsuits over inconsistent standards, students could suffer the consequences—especially those relying on financial aid or seeking degrees with recognized accreditation.

    Moreover, CPHE’s narrow focus on “student outcomes” often means post-graduate earnings or job placement, metrics that oversimplify complex educational goals and ignore broader social and civic benefits of higher education.

    A Test of Federalism in Higher Ed

    This development marks an escalation in the state-federal tug-of-war over higher education. With the U.S. Supreme Court increasingly supportive of state autonomy, and with Congress gridlocked, states like Florida are testing how far they can go in reshaping public education under a conservative vision.

    The CPHE may become a flashpoint in the national debate over what public universities are for—and who gets to decide. Whether this initiative results in meaningful improvement or becomes another chapter in the politicization of higher education remains to be seen.

    Source link

  • How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)

    How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)

    I know this all too well. As a former military police officer who trained as a truck driver in 2016 under a VA-approved program, I was exposed to dangerous, poorly maintained equipment that ultimately caused me to lose the use of my right arm for over a year, a disability I will carry for life. 

    Despite repeated complaints to the program staff and the assigned State Approving Agency (SAA), the official body responsible for oversight, my concerns were dismissed, and no corrective action was taken until years later — and only after significant evidence surfaced.

    Unsafe Equipment Ignored

    During my class, veteran student Mike and I, and non-veteran students Dustin & Richard, discovered that the landing gear on the 1977 Stoughton trailer assigned for training was missing an axle and four wheels. I reported this to the staff, who admitted the equipment was faulty but took no timely corrective action. A veteran student later informed me that the school replaced the landing gear on a similar 1987 Great Dane trailer sometime after our class ended, contradicting official reports submitted to the VA and state approving agencies that claimed no issues existed.

    To confirm these claims, I located the trailer used in program advertising and compared photos taken during and after our training. The landing gear had indeed been replaced—freshly painted and altered, as confirmed by Great Dane Trailers’ manufacturer. 

    The trucks used for training showed similar problems. According to Vehicle Identification Numbers, three trucks had modifications—such as frame cutting between tandem axles—that Daimler Trucks North America (the manufacturer) neither recommended nor approved. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines were not followed, creating additional safety concerns, per conversations with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

    Systemic Oversight Failures

    These issues highlight a broader problem: the State Approving Agencies, under contract with the VA, are failing to provide adequate oversight and ensure program quality. The VA Office of Inspector General’s 2018 report (OIG Report #16-00862-179) found that 86% of SAAs did not sufficiently oversee educational programs to ensure only eligible, high-quality programs were approved. The report estimated that without reforms, the VA could improperly pay out $2.3 billion over five years to subpar or fraudulent institutions.

    Alarmingly, the VA Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is restricted in its ability to question or audit the reports submitted by SAAs. There is no mechanism for veterans to challenge or appeal SAA findings, effectively leaving veterans powerless within a system that is supposed to protect them.

    Veteran Service Organizations’ Silence

    I sought help from veteran service organizations but found little interest in addressing these critical problems. The American Legion initially responded to my outreach in 2017, engaging in conversations and phone calls. However, within months, communication ceased without explanation. Attempts to meet with American Legion leadership and their legislative contacts, including Dr. Joe Wescott—an influential consultant on veterans’ education—were unsuccessful. Dr. Wescott dismissed concerns about the integrity of the SAA’s targeted risk-based reviews, citing that schools typically fix problems before SAAs visit, and failed to investigate conflicts of interest between report authors and SAA officials.

    At the 2024 American Legion convention, a planned meeting between a fellow veteran and Legion leadership was abruptly canceled. Meanwhile, other veteran groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and Veterans Education Success (VES) showed engagement, but the American Legion and Student Veterans of America remained unresponsive.

    The American Legion’s own 2016 Resolution #304 warned of the exact issues I and countless other veterans have endured: deceptive practices by some education providers, poor accreditation standards, and underfunded and understaffed SAAs unable to enforce proper oversight.

    A Cycle of Scandal

    Congressional staff admitted privately that veterans’ education legislation rarely progresses without support from key players like Dr. Wescott and the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA), whose leaders have repeatedly declined to meet with veterans raising concerns. These complex relationships between SAAs, VA officials, veteran groups, and legislators perpetuate a “cycle of scandal” that leaves veterans vulnerable and taxpayers footing the bill.

    In 2023, a combat veteran attending the same program I did reported similar frustrations: only one of three trucks was roadworthy, severely limiting practical training time for a full class of students. Despite numerous documented complaints, the NASAA president refused to meet or discuss these issues.

    The Human Cost

    Beyond financial waste and bureaucratic failures, real human harm occurs. My injury, caused by training on unsafe equipment, robbed me of a year of mobility and continues to affect my life. Thousands of veterans have lost their G.I. Bill benefits, incurred debt for worthless or limited degrees, or been misled about their job prospects after completing programs approved by the very agencies meant to protect them.

    The internet is rife with investigative reports exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in VA-approved programs. Headlines like “School Scammers Are Robbing Veterans and the Government Blind” and “For-Profit Colleges Exploit Veterans’ G.I. Bill Benefits” are far too common.

    A Call for Reform

    Despite these glaring failures, meaningful reform remains elusive. The VA OIG report and numerous investigations call for increased accountability, transparency, and cooperation between the VBA, SAAs, veteran service organizations, and Congress. Veterans deserve a system that genuinely safeguards their education and wellbeing.

    My fellow former veteran students and I have organized online and turned to media outlets to break the silence. It’s time for the public and policymakers to hear our stories—not just slogans and “catchy” legislative titles that fail to restore lost benefits or improve program quality.

    We veterans demand change—because we have earned more than empty promises and a broken system that leaves us behind.

    Michael S. Hainline is a veteran and advocate living in Pensacola, Florida. He served in active duty and reserve military components and now works to expose the failures of oversight in VA-approved education and job training programs. He can be reached at [email protected].

    Source link

  • Trump says special education oversight will move to HHS

    Trump says special education oversight will move to HHS

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Federal special education operations, currently spearheaded by the U.S. Department of Education, will move to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, President Donald Trump said on Friday.

    “It’s going to be a great situation. I guarantee that in a few years from now… I think that you’re going to have tremendous results,” said Trump, while seated in the Oval Office of the White House. Trump also said he would move federal student loan and school nutrition program oversight from the Education Department to the Small Business Administration.

    Trump did not say when or how the transitions would occur. Additional information from the Education Department about logistics concerning the transfer of responsibilities was not available Friday afternoon.

    U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, in a Fox News interview Friday, said funding for the federal special education law — the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — was in place before the creation of the Education Department in 1979. McMahon added that before the Education Department was created, special education programming was housed in what was then the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, “and it managed to work incredibly well.”

    HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote on the social media platform X on Friday that HHS, “is fully prepared to take on the responsibility” of supporting students with disabilities. He added, “We are committed to ensuring every American has access to the resources they need to thrive. We will make the care of our most vulnerable citizens our highest national priority.”

    The Education Department oversees the distribution of about $15.4 billion for supports to about 8.4 million infants, toddlers, school children and young adults with disabilities. The department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilatives Services and Office of Special Education Programs also conducts monitoring, provides technical assistance to states and districts, and holds states and districts accountable for compliance to IDEA.

    The president’s comments come a day after he signed an executive order during a White House event directing McMahon to shutter the department to the “maximum extent appropriate.”

    At the Thursday signing of the executive order and during comments on Friday, Trump said the low academic performance of U.S. students required a shakeup at the federal level.

    He and his administration have also cited the desire to reduce federal bureaucracy in order to give more decision-making power to the state and local levels.

    But public school supporters have vigorously denounced the Trump administration’s moves to dismantle the Education Department, which have already included reducing the workforce by half and canceling research and teacher preparation grants. At least one group — Democracy Forward — says it is planning legal action to stop the department shutdown.

    Chad Rummel, executive director of the Council for Exceptional Children, said in a statement Friday, “IDEA is an education law, not a healthcare law, and belongs at the Department of Education.”

    CEC is a nonprofit for professionals who work in special and gifted education.

    Rummel added, “Moving IDEA programs to HHS would de-emphasize the purpose of IDEA to provide a free and appropriate public education and other critical activities to infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities, and challenge the federal role to provide evidence-based research, personnel preparation, and technical assistance to advance the field of special education.”

    National Parents Union President Keri Rodrigues said in a Friday statement, “This is not a minor bureaucratic reorganization — it is a fundamental redefinition of how our country treats children with disabilities.” The National Parents Union is a 1.7 million membership organization with more than 1,800 affiliated parent organizations in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

    “We must call this what it is: an effort to dismantle protections, disempower families, and turn education into a battleground for profit-driven insurance corporations,” Rodrigues said. “We will not allow it.”



    Source link