Tag: plans

  • NJCU, Kean announce plans to pursue merger

    NJCU, Kean announce plans to pursue merger

    New Jersey City University has agreed to pursue a merger with nearby Kean University, a move encouraged by state officials to help stabilize NJCU after financial struggles in recent years.

    On Wednesday, NJCU’s Board of Trustees voted 7 to 0 to enter merger negotiations with Kean.

    The vote comes two and a half years after NJCU declared a financial emergency, revealing that a surplus gave way to a budget deficit, prompting job cuts and state scrutiny. Then-NJCU president Sue Henderson stepped down in June 2024 amid backlash.

    NJCU’s financial situation was so dire at the time that the state threw it a $10 million lifeline.

    As NJCU has sought to dig out of its financial hole, state officials essentially sent a message to the public, four-year institution that it needed to find a partner—whether it wanted to or not.

    A March 2024 report from an independent state monitor assigned in the aftermath of NJCU’s financial collapse urged the university to sell assets and “explore any type of affiliation or partnership that could help create long-term financial sustainability with improved student outcomes.”

    Last April the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education set a deadline of March 31, 2025, for the university to identify potential partners as part of a transition plan that also called for the board to take actions to increase revenue and lower debt, among other efforts to fix NJCU’s finances.

    Going Forward

    NJCU’s board voted Wednesday “to enter into negotiations with Kean University for a Letter of Intent outlining the terms of a strategic merger,” according to the board resolution.

    Kean’s proposed plan would rename NJCU as Kean Jersey City. The proposal notes that in addition to being near one another, the two universities are both minority- and Hispanic-serving institutions that “share a profound commitment to transformative urban education.”

    Kean’s proposal emphasizes the integration of shared services, “streamlined administrative functions” and the “strategic alignment of academic programs”; it also touts its relative financial strength. Athletic programs would be combined as a “unified entity” under the merger plan.

    Kean’s Board of Trustees would govern the merged institutions, though the proposal notes that membership could expand to include seats for representatives from the NJCU community. Potential board members would be appointed by the governor’s office.

    NJCU interim president Andrés Acebo addressed the potential merger in a statement to campus, writing that there is more due diligence work ahead and promising transparency.

    “I encourage every member of our community—students, faculty, staff, and alumni—to remain engaged as we build a future that honors our past while embracing new opportunities. With unwavering hope and a shared resolve, we will continue to shape NJCU into a beacon of opportunity and excellence for generations to come,” Acebo wrote in Wednesday’s message.

    In a separate message, Kean president Lamont Repollet noted that “this is the beginning of a process that will unfold over the months and years to come and will include our faculty, staff, students and communities.” Repollet even used language that the Trump administration—which has taken aim at DEI efforts—has sought to banish.

    “Both Kean and NJCU share missions dedicated to fostering an inclusive learning environment that empowers students to succeed,” Repollet wrote Wednesday. “By merging our strengths, we can deepen our commitment and resources to diversity, equity and inclusion, ensuring that every student has the support they need to thrive and persist through graduation.”

    State officials issued their own messages applauding the move toward a merger.

    In a joint statement from New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, and state secretary of higher education Brian Bridges, officials said they were encouraged by the progress at NJCU.

    “The NJCU Board’s intent to pursue a strategic merger with Kean University continues this commitment and marks the beginning of a thorough and deliberative process to unify these mission-aligned institutions. We look forward to working with state and institutional leaders on the path to a successful transition that empowers student success and long-term resilience,” they wrote.

    Merger Outlook

    The potential merger between NJCU and Kean—which still requires additional approvals, including by state officials and accreditors—appears to be the first one of the year.

    News that the two institutions are taking steps toward a strategic partnership comes shortly after the collapse of a planned merger between the University of Findlay and Bluffton University. The two private, religiously affiliated institutions in Ohio first announced merger plans in March 2024. But despite a year of planning, Findlay’s board pulled out abruptly last week, surprising Bluffton.

    One sticking point seemed to be athletics, as both intended to maintain separate programs, with Findlay competing at the NCAA Division II level and Bluffton remaining in Division III. But a statement from Findlay officials last week indicated that their efforts were hobbled by regulations that required a separate process for financial aid distribution and that “prohibit the sharing of resources and sports facilities, resulting in fewer synergies in those areas than originally anticipated.”

    Last year brought multiple mergers and other strategic partnerships for both public and private colleges, many driven by financial issues and the search for efficiency.

    Source link

  • UK has “no plans” for EU Youth Mobility Scheme, despite reports

    UK has “no plans” for EU Youth Mobility Scheme, despite reports

    A report in The Times had suggested that the UK is set to table a deal for a reciprocal scheme that will see young EU citizens, aged 18-30, able to live and work in the UK for up to three years.

    However, the government has since insisted it has no plans for such a scheme.

    “We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement,” a spokesperson told The PIE News on February 21.

    “We are committed to resetting the relationship with the EU to improve the British people’s security, safety and prosperity. We will of course listen to sensible proposals. But we have been clear there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market.”

    The Labour government has previously dismissed proposals for such a scheme, but recent reports had suggested new plans could contain a cap on the number of young people allowed into the UK through the scheme and could therefore alleviate concerns from UK government as it seeks to curb migration.

    The UK government has previously made it clear its preference to do deals with individual member states, but subsequently rejected deals proposed by countries such as Spain.

    The UK already has a Youth Mobility Scheme with a number of countries including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada that allow individuals to study and work in the country for up to two years, with the possibility of extensions for some countries.

    The membership body for English language schools in the UK, English UK, has been campaigning for an EU Youth Mobility Scheme since Brexit.

    “We welcome reports that the government plans to negotiate a youth mobility deal with the EU,” Huan Japes, membership director, English UK, told The PIE.

    “For young people in Europe and the UK to have the opportunity to live, work and study in each others’ countries will have immense benefits – not only for the young people themselves but also for language teaching centres and other educational organisations, the hospitality industry and for the UK’s future relations with the EU.”

    “And this kind of time-limited, mutually beneficial immigration has broad support from the British public,” said Japes, who added that he would like to see a scheme with “a generous allocation of places so that this scheme can really make a difference to young people’s lives.”

    According to advocacy group European Movement UK, mobility for young people could be a gateway to much closer ties with neighbouring European countries.

    European Movement UK CEO, Nick Harvey, said the government’s hostility to the idea “could not be justified” when the benefits of such a scheme are so obvious.

    “After all, the UK has youth mobility schemes with 13 other countries – including Australia and Japan – so it makes sense to have one with our nearest neighbours and closest partners,” said Harvey.

    “Dismissing the idea of reciprocal youth mobility simply meant letting down British young people who face all sorts of economic difficulties, and have seen their horizons curtailed by Brexit. Young people want and deserve the chance to study or work in Europe. The government owes it to them to make sure they get that chance.”

    We need to start pulling this country out of the no-growth quagmire of Brexit and start giving people hope for a better, brighter future
    Mike Galsworthy, chair of European Movement UK

    Similarly, Mike Galsworthy, chair of European Movement UK, is calling for a deal to be made.

    “We need to start pulling this country out of the no-growth quagmire of Brexit and start giving people hope for a better, brighter future,” he said.

    “Liberating our youth and small businesses alike to engage is an important start. Hopefully the government will now see that being bold, hopeful and engaged with Europe brings a sigh of relief from the public and a more positive outlook for the UK.”

    Writing in her column for The PIE last week, outgoing London Higher CEO Diana Beech mused on a refreshed relationship for the UK and the EU and what it might mean for the sector.

    “The process of resetting the UK-EU relationship by the spring is one to watch for the UK’s higher education sector,” she wrote.

    “This is because, while the EU has the power to ease restrictions on UK businesses to improve British trade prospects, the UK also has something that many in the EU want in return: namely the power to reinstate a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU.

    “At its most ambitious, such a scheme could allow young people from the UK and Europe the freedom to travel across countries to study and work as was the norm before Brexit.

    “A curtailed version could at least see mobility enacted for shorter, time-limited placements. Either way, UK universities could find themselves becoming an important bargaining chip in any future renegotiations,” wrote Beech.

    Beech considered that previously, the UK higher education sector would have “been first to welcome” the return of a Youth Mobility Scheme such as Erasmus+. But financial woes facing the sector are “likely to dampen university managers’ enthusiasm” for such measures, considering EU students would once again be regarded as ‘home’ students, thereby capping the fees they pay.

    Source link

  • McMahon confirms Trump’s plans to dismantle Department of Ed

    McMahon confirms Trump’s plans to dismantle Department of Ed

    Linda McMahon told senators Thursday that she won’t shut down the Education Department without their approval, quelling any doubt that the majority Republicans may have had about whether she deserved to be appointed to President Donald Trump’s cabinet.

    But that doesn’t mean that McMahon and the Trump administration aren’t still looking to make considerable changes to the agency’s programs and potentially dismantle it from the inside out. She said at her confirmation hearing that the department has to go, or at the very least is in need of a major makeover, because it’s rife with bureaucracy that fails to serve students well.

    The goal, the former wrestling CEO told the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, is to “reorient” the federal agency and ensure it “operate[s] more efficiently”—not defund education, as some critics have suggested.

    “We’d like to do this right,” she said. “We’d like to make sure that we are presenting a plan that I think our senators could get on board with, and our Congress to get on board with.”

    Questions about the department’s future and whether McMahon would stand up to President Trump if he tries to break the law dominated the nearly three-hour hearing. McMahon, a Trump loyalist and veteran of the first administration, weathered the hearing just fine and will likely be confirmed by the Senate. The committee will vote Feb. 20 on her nomination.

    McMahon largely stuck by Trump and defended his actions so far. She also pledged to comply with and uphold the law, respecting Congress’s power over the purse strings by disbursing funds as lawmakers order. “The president will not ask me to do anything that’s against the law,” she later added.

    McMahon’s comments break slightly from the president’s record so far. In the first three weeks alone, Trump and Elon Musk have entirely shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, cut countless contracts and attempted to freeze all federal grants. The president has said he wants to get rid of the Education Department entirely, suggesting he didn’t need congressional action to do so.

    During and after the hearing, the majority of Republicans praised McMahon as the right person for the job.

    “It is clear that our current education system isn’t working. We have the status quo and that’s actually failing our kids,” Senator Katie Britt of Alabama said in her opening remarks. “Linda McMahon is someone who knows how to reform our education system.”

    But for Democrats and Senator Susan Collins, a more centrist Republican from Maine, McMahon’s comments left quite a few questions still lingering and seemed to be, at times, self-contradictory.

    “The whole hearing right now feels kind of surreal to me,” said Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire. “It’s almost like we’re being subjected to a very eloquent gaslighting here.”

    While many of the senators’ questions focused on special education, K-12, the separation of powers and getting rid of the Education Department, colleges and universities did come up a few times, offering some insight into McMahon’s plans as secretary.

    Here are five key higher ed takeaways from the hearing:

    Commitments but Few Specifics

    Prior to the hearing, Trump’s comments suggested his Education Department would prioritize cutting red tape, returning education to the states, cracking down on campus antisemitism and banning what he calls “gender ideology,” among other things. But speculation swirled about what McMahon would put at the top of her agenda.

    On Thursday she made it clear that she’s in lockstep with the president, saying in her opening remarks that “Trump has shared his vision and I’m ready to enact it.” She failed to provide much detail beyond that.

    The business mogul, who has limited experience in education, indicated she’ll have some studying to do if she gets confirmed. When asked about topics like diversity, equity and inclusion programs or accreditation, she said, “I’ll have to learn more” or “I’d like to look into it further and get back to you on that.”

    For example, when it came to addressing civil rights complaints filed by Jewish students, McMahon was quick to assure Republican lawmakers that colleges will “face defunding” if they don’t comply with the law. She also said that international students who participate in protests Trump deems antisemitic should have their visas revoked. But she didn’t provide further detail on how exactly either repercussion would be enforced.

    Additionally, when asked about how she would address a backlog of cases at the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates complaints of discrimination, she said, “I would like to be confirmed and get into the department and understand that backlog.”

    ‘Pretty Chilling’ Approach to DEI

    McMahon declined to say what specific programs or classes might violate Trump’s recent executive order banning diversity, equity and inclusion during a tense exchange with Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut.

    Policy experts said Trump’s executive order should have had little immediate impact on higher ed, as most of its provisions require agency action, but several colleges and universities moved quickly to comply after the order was signed Jan. 21, canceling events and scrubbing websites of DEI mentions.

    Murphy highlighted one of those examples, telling McMahon that the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., had shut down a number of its student affinity groups and clubs like the Society of Black Engineers.

    He then went on to ask her, “Would public schools be in violation of this order, would they risk funding if they had clubs that students could belong to based on their racial or ethnic identity?” To which McMahon responded, “Well, I certainly today don’t want to address hypothetical situations.”

    Murphy said that should be “a pretty easy question,” adding that her lack of response was “pretty chilling.”

    “I think you’re going to have a lot of teachers and administrators scrambling right now,” he said.

    McMahon did note, however, that all schools can and should celebrate Black History Month and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. She suggested that in saying individuals should be judged by “content of their character,” King was supporting a colorblind approach to policy and looking at all populations as the same, rather than addressing systemic inequities.

    Dems Take Issue With DOGE

    Several lawmakers had questions for McMahon about Trump’s efforts to cut spending via the Elon Musk–led Department of Government Efficiency, but she didn’t have many answers.

    Democrats, in particular, took issue with recent reports that DOGE staffers have access to sensitive student data and recently canceled $881 million in contracts at the Institute of Education Sciences. The Education Department is just one of several agencies under DOGE’s microscope. The Trump administration is also laying off employees at the agency or putting them on administrative leave as part of a broader plan to shrink the federal workforce.

    McMahon said she didn’t know “about all the administrative people who have been put on leave,” adding she would look into that. She also didn’t have more information about the IES cuts. But she defended DOGE’s work as an audit.

    “I do think it’s worthwhile to take a look at the programs before money goes out the door,” she said.

    But Democrats countered that Congress, not the executive branch, has the authority to direct where federal funds should go.

    “When Congress appropriates money, it is the administration’s responsibility to put that out as directed by Congress, who has the power of the purse,” said Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat. “If you have input, if you have programs you have looked at that you believe are not effective, then it is your job to come to us, explain why and get the support for that.”

    Brief Mention of Accreditation

    Despite Trump’s promise to fire accreditors, the accreditation system and the federal policies that govern it received little attention during the hearing—aside from one round of questions.

    Senator Ashley Moody, a Florida Republican, said she thinks the current system is unconstitutional, echoing claims that she made as Florida attorney general. The state argued in a 2023 lawsuit that Congress ceded power to private accrediting agencies, violating the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge rejected those claims and threw out the lawsuit in October.

    Currently, federal law requires that colleges and universities be accredited by an Education Department–recognized accreditor in order to receive federal student aid such as Pell Grants. But in recent years, Republican-led states—most notably Florida—have bristled at what they see as undue interference from the accreditors and their power to potentially take away federal aid. State lawmakers in Florida now require public colleges to change accreditors regularly. But that process has been sluggish, and officials blame the Education Department.

    Moody asked McMahon to commit to review regulations and guidance related to colleges changing accreditors.

    “I look forward to working with you on that,” McMahon said. “And there’s been a lot of issues raised about these five to seven accreditors … I think that needs to have a broad overview and review.” (McMahon didn’t specify, but she seemed to refer to the seven institutional accreditors.)

    Support for Short-Term Pell

    Throughout the hearing, McMahon also reiterated her support for expanding the Pell Grant to short-term workforce training programs that run between eight and 15 weeks, and bolstering other nontraditional means of higher education like apprenticeships.

    The nominee noted multiple times that though “college isn’t for everyone,” there should be opportunities for socioeconomic mobility and career development for all. She believes promoting programs like short-term Pell “could stimulate our economy” by providing new routes to pursue skills-based learning and promote trade careers. This mindset could likely lead to less restriction on for-profit technical institutions like cosmetology schools.

    One thing neither McMahon nor the Senate panel spent much time on, however, was the Office of Federal Student Aid, its botched rollout of a new application portal or how she would manage the government’s $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio. One of the few mentions of the student debt crisis came up in committee chair Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana’s opening remarks.

    “Too many students leave college woefully unprepared for the workforce while being saddled with overwhelming debt that they cannot pay off,” he said. “Your previous experience overseeing [Small Business Administration] loans will be a great asset as the department looks to reform its student loan program.”

    Source link

  • A blanket removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships will damage government plans to boost infrastructure

    A blanket removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships will damage government plans to boost infrastructure

    Level 7 apprenticeship growth has been one of the higher education success stories of recent years.

    Our technical education system is weak by international standards, yet high level technical skills will be vital to the urban planning and infrastructure improvement ambitions of our current government, while at the same time boosting social mobility by allowing those who can’t afford to study on a traditional course at university the opportunity to gain a postgraduate qualification.

    It therefore would appear counterintuitive that the government has been hinting that many if not all level 7 apprenticeships could have their eligibility for levy funding removed, couched in language of prioritising spending on growing lower level and new “foundation” apprenticeships.

    This proposed redistribution fails to acknowledge that progression benefits apprentices at all levels, as those moving into senior roles create new vacancies or advancement opportunities via the positions they vacate.

    Build baby build?

    Nowhere is this clearer than in the built environment sector. The UK’s housing crisis is the pivotal issue that this government has promised to tackle. Their promise to build 1.5 million new homes by 2030 is ambitious – it has been labelled unachievable by the CEO of the UK’s largest housebuilding company because of skills shortages, and most councils are reporting that it won’t be possible to achieve.

    If such a goal is to be accomplished, it will demand highly skilled professionals to streamline planning processes, deliver housing projects, and support regional infrastructure development.

    At my institution, London South Bank University (LSBU), 70 per cent of our level 7 apprentices are on the chartered town planner standard. On a day-to-day basis they address planning bottlenecks and ensure that housing and infrastructure projects meet the various regulatory and environmental standards. Only last month the first level 7 chartered town planner apprentices in England graduated successfully from LSBU having joined their employer with no prior experience in the planning sector aged 18 after completing school.

    Over half of the employers we work with at LSBU on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of increased demand and reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful. The legacy of austerity has left one in four councils expecting to apply for an emergency government bailout in the next two years. If the Treasury decides to remove levy funding, employers will not be able to fill the gap.

    If the UK hopes to comply with the Future Homes Standard and the National Retrofit Strategy V2, more highly trained architects are required. The profession is in high demand but short supply – it had been on the Shortage Occupation List until the previous government abolished the list last April.

    Level 7 architect apprentices, of which LSBU currently train 78, design energy-efficient buildings and support urban regeneration. They contribute to both public housing schemes and private sector developments by driving innovation in sustainable construction and are already supporting the government’s ambition to retrofit five million homes by 2029.

    Growth ambitions

    In addition to their clear role in developing infrastructure, level 7 apprenticeships are vital for social mobility. They open doors for individuals from underrepresented groups, in part because apprentices earn whilst they learn and aren’t put off by the prospect of incurring student debt. A true leveller of the playing field, they provide excellent career progression opportunities and higher earnings potential. A greater proportion of our level 7 apprentices are from black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds (55 per cent) and are female (52 per cent) than those studying apprenticeships at lower levels.

    Most of our level 7 apprentices are under the age of 25, so the characterisation that they are simply the reserve of older learners is unfounded. For example, at LSBU, we provide tailored pathways for young learners to embark on higher level apprenticeships in regionally relevant sectors from level 2 to level 7 through our unique group model which includes London South Bank Sixth Form (a new technically focused sixth form academy concept) and London South Bank Technical College (the first technical college for a generation).

    Level 7 apprenticeships are central to this government’s ambitions around growth, sustainability, and equality of opportunity. Despite recent increases in uptake, they have actually accounted for a slightly smaller proportion of the total apprenticeship budget over the last couple of years.

    Every standard addresses unique challenges and supports sector-specific needs. A blanket removal of funding from level 7 apprenticeships will risk planning reforms and housing developments. At the very least, apprenticeships in the ten sectors prioritised by Skills England as growth-driving need to be protected from Treasury cuts.

    Source link

  • Biden scraps debt relief plans, other regs

    Biden scraps debt relief plans, other regs

    President Biden has so far forgiven $180 billion in student loans for 4.9 million borrowers. Much more relief is unlikely now.

    Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

    The Biden administration’s ambitious plans to provide debt relief for millions of Americans is officially dead along with a number of other proposed regulatory changes.

    The administration said Friday it’s withdrawing two debt relief proposals from consideration. The Education Department had been reviewing thousands of comments on the plans and preparing to finalize at least one proposal before Friday’s announcement. The Associated Press first reported on the decision.

    The department is also scraping its proposal to amend Title IX to prohibit blanket bans barring transgender students from participating in the sport consistent with their gender identity. That proposal proved controversial, receiving more than 150,000 comments and prompting legal challenges to the department’s separate overhaul of Title IX. added

    “In light of the comments received and those various pending court cases, the department has determined not to regulate on this issue at this time,” officials wrote in a notice on the Federal Register. added

    The department also said Friday that it’s abandoning the effort to update the rules for accreditation, state authorization and cash management. Regulatory proposals were hashed out in the spring but have stalled since. Proposals to gather more data about distance education and open up college-prep programs to undocumented students appear to be moving forward. added

    The department said terminating the rule-making process or those three areas will “allow for additional evaluation of recent changes in other regulations and industry practices.” added

    The debt relief plans have been in the works since summer 2023 after the Supreme Court struck down President Biden’s first attempt at providing student loan forgiveness. Republicans and other critics said these latest debt relief plans, which would have benefited 36 million Americans, were unconstitutional and amounted to an unfair wealth transfer.

    Education Department officials maintain that they have the authority to forgive student loans for borrowers who meet certain criteria or are facing financial hardship, but they concluded that they don’t have the time to implement the proposals before Biden leaves office Jan. 20.

    “With the time remaining in this administration, the Department is focused on several priorities including court-ordered settlements and helping borrowers manage the final elements of the return to repayment,” officials wrote in a Federal Register notice. “At this time the Department intends to commit its limited operational resources to helping at-risk borrowers return to repayment successfully.”

    Withdrawing the rule “will assure agency flexibility in reexamining the issues,” officials added. The move means that the incoming administration would have to start from scratch on a rulemaking process rather than just rewrite the pending proposal.

    Some Republican attorneys general sued the administration over one of the plans, which would have provided targeted debt relief to borrowers who owe more than they initially borrowed or have been repaying their loans for more than 20 years, among other groups. That plan was blocked by a federal judge before the department could finalize it.

    The department’s decision came on the same day the Biden administration announced another round of loan forgiveness. The Education Department announced Friday morning that it would forgive loans for 55,000 borrowers who reached eligibility through Public Service Loan Forgiveness. A program created in 2007 and retooled under Biden, PSLF relieves an individual’s remaining debt if they properly complete 120 monthly payments while working full-time in a public interest career like law enforcement, health care or education. 

    Including Friday’s batch of relief, which totaled $4.28 billion, the Biden administration has now forgiven $180 billion in student loans for 4.9 million borrowers.

    Borrower advocacy groups like the Student Borrower Protection Center say that while they are deeply disappointed the Biden administration has to withdraw its regulations in response to legal pushback from right-wing attorneys, they appreciate Biden’s efforts and celebrate the regulations he was able to finalize. 

    “President Biden’s fixes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and other student loan relief programs have once again delivered lasting change and will benefit millions of borrowers for years to come,” said Persis Yu, deputy executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, in a statement. But, at the same time, Yu added that “the actions of right-wing attorneys general have blocked tens of millions of borrowers from accessing critical student debt relief.” 

    Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers, including Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, described Biden’s unfinalized attempts at student debt relief as a “scheme to transfer student debt onto American taxpayers.”

    “The Biden-Harris administration’s student loan schemes were always a lie,” the senator said in a statement. “With today’s latest withdrawal, they are admitting these schemes were nothing more than a dishonest attempt to buy votes by transferring debt onto taxpayers who never went to college or worked to pay off their loans.”

    Jessica Blake contributed to this report.

    Source link