Tag: protection

  • Students in Wales deserve better protection from Medr

    Students in Wales deserve better protection from Medr

    Medr, the new higher education regulator in Wales, carried out an initial consultation around a year ago on its regulatory system.

    It has now produced more detailed proposals in this area and is inviting consultation responses. In the proposed regulatory approach, most requirements will apply from August 2026, with some coming into force a year later.

    Medr aims to “establish minimum expectations for compliance” and to ensure ‘that non-compliance is addressed with proportionate intervention’. Despite this, on the basis of what is in the consultation documents, Medr’s proposed regulatory approach does not outline minimum expectations for compliance in relation to gender-based violence in HE.

    The regulatory condition on “staff and learner welfare” within Medr’s proposed regulatory system covers “policies, procedures and services that promote and support staff and learner wellbeing and safety”, the latter term encompassing “freedom from harms” including harassment, misconduct, violence (including sexual violence) and hate crime (all defined in Medr’s Glossary of Terms).

    But mandatory regulatory action on addressing sexual harassment, or gender-based violence more widely, is not mentioned in the proposals and any requirements for data collection are left unclear.

    Nor does it appear that Medr are planning to publish a stand-alone regulatory condition on gender-based violence or carry out independent data collection in this area. This is particularly surprising as Medr has previously requested data reporting from HEIs on policies, training, prevention activities, and definitions used in this area (in November 2024).

    The data reported to them was, they stated, going to be used (among other things) to “inform our policy and registration developments”. In the documents shared as part of the consultation, it is not clear whether or how this data has been drawn on to develop the draft regulatory strategy.

    Nor has there been any mention of a forthcoming regulatory condition on gender-based violence, and indeed it would be counter-intuitive to introduce a regulatory system now only to amend it in a year or two’s time. We have to assume, therefore, that this is the totality of Medr’s proposed regulation in this area.

    By contrast, the Office for Students in England – Medr’s regulatory sibling – has introduced a specific regulatory condition (E6) for addressing ‘harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education, in force since 1st August 2025. It has also gathered and published data to inform this approach (which both Jim and I have written about on Wonkhe).

    But from what has been published so far on Medr’s proposed regulatory approach, there will be nothing comparable to what is in place in England, let alone to stronger frameworks such as in Australia.

    This is an urgent public health issue. There are around 149,000 students in Wales. Extrapolating from these numbers using Steele et al.’s study of Oxford University – the most robust we have methodologically in the UK at present – we would expect that around 29,800 students would experience attempted or forced sexual touching or rape every year.

    This figure does not include students who may experience stalking, sexual harassment (online or offline) or non-sexual forms of intimate partner abuse – so the total number of students who experience gender-based violence would be higher than this.

    Indeed, the Crime Survey of England and Wales consistently finds that students are roughly twice as likely as other occupational group most likely to experience stalking, sexual violence and domestic abuse.

    If Medr’s proposals are implemented in a similar form to the consultation version, a two-tier system will come into force between England and Wales. Requirements will be in place for English universities to train all staff and students, prohibit staff-student intimate relationships, and implement ‘fair’ processes for handling complaints, among other provisions. In Wales, none of these provisions will be required.

    Linking up with Wales’ national strategy

    These gaps are especially surprising in the context of a strong Welsh national strategy on Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (VAWDASV), which has a lot of material that is relevant to higher education institutions.

    For example, Objective 2 is to “increase awareness in children, young people and adults of the importance of safe, equal and healthy relationships and empowering them to positive personal choices” and objective 4 is to “make early intervention and prevention a priority”.

    Overall, the strategy takes a public health approach to VAWDASV, prioritising data-driven efforts in this area.

    Unfortunately this approach is not clearly linked up with Medr’s regulatory approach. Medr’s consultation document does state that:

    To comply with this condition, providers must […] take account of other expectations such as those of Welsh Government (Annex B, p.71-2)

    However, the objectives of the national VAWDASV strategy do not appear to have informed the development of the proposed regulatory system. There is no discussion, for example, of early intervention and prevention, nor any clear route through which Medr could require HEIs to take action in this area.

    Staff and learner welfare

    As noted above, staff and learner welfare is the regulatory category that covers “harassment, misconduct, violence (including sexual violence) and hate crime”. The regulatory conditions Medr proposes are that:

    • All tertiary providers must conduct an annual staff and learner welfare self-evaluation
    • The annual staff and learner welfare self-evaluation must be approved by the providers’ governing body or equivalent

    These provisions demonstrate the reliance on self-evaluation in Medr’s approach. But Medr will not scrutinise or even see the self-assessments that are carried out by HEIs, only asking for the action plans produced as a result of these self-evaluations to be submitted to them. Medr “will only call in self-evaluations if concerns and risks are raised or identified.”

    This creates a catch-22 situation. It allows gender-based violence to remain invisible within HEIs if they choose not to collect data or self-evaluate in relation to it. The only consistent data collection in this area is the Crime Survey of England and Wales, which does not disaggregate data by institution, or allow for urgent risks to be identified, so this is not helpful for assessing an institution-level approach.

    Other than that, there is currently no mandatory data collection within or across higher education institutions in Wales relating to gender-based violence experienced by students or by staff.

    As a result, within the existing data landscape, there is no way in which concerns or risks can be raised or identified by Medr. Under the proposed regulatory system, HEIs will have discretion as to whether or not they choose to include issues relating to gender-based violence in their self-evaluation.

    If they choose not to include gender-based violence, they will be able to self-evaluate and create an action plan that does not mention this issue – and still remain compliant with Medr’s regulatory approach.

    Perhaps people can report “issues and concerns” directly to Medr? Unfortunately not. Medr states on their website that:

    We might become involved in issues with regulated institutions: which charge excess full-time undergraduate fees; which fail to comply with fee and access plan requirements; whose quality of education is inadequate; which don’t comply with the Financial Management Code; or which don’t comply with their Prevent duty.

    Gender-based violence is not included in areas in which Medr will “become involved”. Complaints made directly to Medr will not, therefore, provide any basis on which Medr will assess HEIs’ compliance on staff and learner welfare relating to gender-based violence.

    To sum up, the approach outlined in the consultation document means that cases of gender-based violence may not be visible in institutional or sector-level data. They will only emerge via survivors and activists raising issues via mainstream media or social media after failures have already occurred, as is currently being exemplified in mainstream media reporting.

    Complaints

    Often, the only way in which gender-based violence becomes visible to an institution is through complaints. The regulatory approach to complaints policies and data reporting is therefore important to scrutinise.

    Medr’s proposed condition of regulation on complaints procedures states that:

    …All providers registered with or funded by Medr must have in place a procedure for investigating complaints made by learners and former learners about an act or omission of the provider, and take reasonable steps to make the procedure known to learners.

    That’s all. There is no provision in the regulatory approach that requires such complaint processes to be demonstrated to be effective. Furthermore, the “primary source of monitoring for this condition” will be providers’ self-declaration they have met the compliance requirements.

    There is no requirement for regular review of complaints processes on the basis of feedback or information-gathering to assess their effectiveness. This is inadequate.

    There is a brief mention of the Office for the Independent Adjudicator for HE (OIAHE):

    Medr will consider data relating to complaints numbers, patterns and trends. For providers within the complaints scheme of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, data will be sourced via the scheme.

    This is to be welcomed, especially as the OIAHE is currently consulting on its guidance for handling harassment and sexual misconduct complaints. But it is insufficient as the sole mechanisms for gathering data on complaints, and it is important to note its limitations.

    My research has demonstrated that in relation to complaints of staff-student sexual misconduct – a serious risk to student welfare and to equality of opportunity – students have been unable to access the services of the OIAHE to escalate their complaint because they are unable to complete the complaints process at their own institution.

    This leads to risk to student welfare (both those reporting and others who might be targeted by the same staff member); and reputational risks for the sector as well as individual higher education institutions, as students who are unable to gain safety or remedy by using existing complaints and regulatory structures are obliged to remain in unsafe, harmful situations (or drop out), and may turn to the media to raise awareness of their situation and protect others.

    This is a particularly urgent issue in Wales due to a recent High Court case from the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama (RWCMD) taken out by two students, Sydney Feder and Alyse McCamish, where the RWCMD was found to have failed in its duties to follow its own policies or to investigate issues with a reasonable duty of care. This case was unusual in that the two students who took forward this case had the resources and knowledge to do so and were willing and able to fight a six-year battle to get their case through the courts.

    Based on my research with students and staff who have reported gender-based violence to their institutions, there are many other failures from higher education institutions across the UK that could lead to similar legal challenges, but with very short time limits, insufficient legal aid, and the absence of a culture of taking legal action in the UK in this area, these cases have tended not to be taken forward.

    Student complainants should not have to go through multiple rounds of complaints process at their HEI and then the OIAHE, taking months or – more often – years, in order to access safety and remedy during their studies.

    A further issue is the need for a mechanism for students, staff, and their advocates to be able to alert the regulator to issues of serious concern with safety, where they have not been able to raise issues within complaints processes.

    For example, where a staff member is targeting students with sexualised or harassing messages, but the university are failing to stop the behaviour, leading to students being unable to safely access teaching and learning, with serious risks to student welfare. There are also potential situations where safety concerns could lead to student or staff suicide, where urgent action may be needed to prevent very serious outcomes, in line with the crucial campaign for a duty of care in UK HE by #ForThe100.

    If sufficient action is not being taken by the institution to address student/staff safety, there needs to be a mechanism via which these concerns can be escalated. There is no provision for this in current regulations.

    Reportable events

    More familiar concerns from across UK HE are also evident in the proposed regulatory system. Universities in Wales, as “exempt charities” are regulated by Medr instead of the Charity Commission.

    However – as we have previously raised as an issue in England, and as Mary Synge has outlined in detail in relation to broader legal arguments – this has led to HEIs being much more lightly regulated than the rest of the charity sector.

    In relation to in relation to safeguarding and sexual harassment/abuse, this is a particularly urgent issue. Unfortunately, the regulatory proposals embed these different standards of regulation for HEIs compared to other charities in relation to “reportable events”, i.e. incidents that the regulator needs to be informed about.

    Charity Commission guidance states that “you should report an incident if it results in, or risks, significant harm to people who come into contact with your charity through its work […or] harm to your charity’s work or reputation”.

    A related document gives examples of what to report including an allegation that a staff member has physically or sexually assaulted or neglected a beneficiary whilst under the charity’s care; or an allegation that a trustee, staff member or volunteer has been sexually assaulted by another trustee, staff member or volunteer.

    Medr’s proposed regulatory approach retains the language of “significant harm” without defining what this means, without giving examples of what to report, and without naming sexual assault or safeguarding issues. It does, however, outline a separate category of “notifiable events” that include “a matter relating to the provider’s compliance with the Prevent duty”.

    This approach – as with the Office for Students’ approach in England – is unjustifiable given the high levels of gender-based violence occurring in higher education. The regulatory approach should be amended to align with the Charity Commission guidance.

    The issues outlined in the Charity Commission guidance would constitute a serious risk to the operation of an HEI in its charitable function, and as such must be overseen by the regulator. At the very least, Medr’s regulatory approach needs to clarify what constitutes ‘significant harm’. This should include incidents that could constitute serious sexual harm.

    Furthermore, it is unclear why “notifiable events” include breaches of compliance relating to the Prevent duty, but not other legal duties such as breaches of equalities, health and safety, or safeguarding legal duties.

    Moving beyond self-regulation of HEIs

    The proposed regulatory approach states that “monitoring activity” will allow Medr to ascertain “whether providers are meeting their Conditions of Registration and/or Funding, and whether any regulatory concern or risk is emerging”.

    As the regulatory approach stands, this claim is inaccurate in relation to gender-based violence – without any data being reported to Medr in this area, or even gathered by HEIs in many cases, there is no way in which Medr will be able to assess any risks in this area.

    There can be no charitable institutions in the UK where the risks of sexual violence, exploitation and abuse are higher than in universities. Gender-based violence in higher education is a major public health concern and should also be a high priority when considering equal access to education. As such, HEIs should be subject to the most stringent regulation.

    If Medr considers that the regulatory strategy more broadly is not the right place to set out these more detailed requirements, a further regulatory condition from Medr in this area on HEIs’ responsibilities in relation to gender-based violence should be published.

    However, the Office for Students already have an explicit regulatory condition in this area and I can’t see a good reason why Medr should wait any longer before taking such a step. Either way, within this consultation document, the foundations need to be laid to enable this work to be done. The regulatory strategy proposed, as it stands, will leave the higher education sector to continue to self-regulate around issues of gender-based violence, despite evidence of high prevalence.

    A further point that should be considered in a regulatory approach is transparency. This is crucial because transparency and openness are a primary concern for students who report gender-based violence to their HEI. But HEIs are unlikely to take these steps towards transparency without the regulator requiring them to do so.

    In recognition of this need for regulators to require transparency, in a recent review for the Higher Education Authority of the Irish Government’s national framework for Ending Sexual Violence and Harassment (ESVH), the Expert Group (which I chaired) have recommended that

    Institutions publish information on ESVH work as part of their public EDI reporting, including anonymised data on formal reports and outcomes, good practice case studies, an evaluation of education and training initiatives, and other relevant data.

    This recommendation looks likely to be adopted nationally in Ireland, requiring all HEIs to take this step in the coming years. However, in the Medr regulatory strategy, “transparency, accountability and public trust” is only discussed in relation to “governance and management”.

    While Medr states more generally that they “encourage a culture of openness and transparency” this appears to only relate to reporting from HEIs to Medr – not to relationships between HEIs and their staff and student body. A fundamental shift is therefore needed in order to move towards greater transparency around institutional data reporting and actions on gender-based violence.

    Overall, Medr appear to be relying on data on gender-based violence to emerge via existing, inadequate, data sources, or to allow HEIs to choose whether and how they gather this data. Such an approach will not be effective – if you do not directly and explicitly gather data about gender-based violence, it will remain invisible, not least because those who experience even the most severe forms of gender-based violence often do not label their experiences as such.

    More generally, this approach goes against the direction of travel internationally in higher education policy in relation to gender-based violence, leaving Welsh students and staff underserved compared to their peers in England, Ireland, France, Australia, and elsewhere.

    This means that future generations of students and staff will continue to be at risk. Medr must be much bolder in order to fulfil its stated approach to regulation of “clear, enforceable rules that establish minimum expectations for compliance” in relation to gender-based violence in HE.

    Source link

  • As Justice Department priorities shift, concerns about protection of students’ civil rights escalate

    As Justice Department priorities shift, concerns about protection of students’ civil rights escalate

    by Sarah Butrymowicz, The Hechinger Report
    December 14, 2025

    The 10-year-old was dragged down a school hallway by two school staffers. A camera captured him being forced into a small, empty room with a single paper-covered window. 

    The staffers shut the door in his face. Alone, the boy curled into a ball on the floor. When school employees returned more than 10 minutes later, blood from his face smeared the floor.

    Maryland state lawmakers were shown this video in 2017 by Leslie Seid Margolis, a lawyer with the advocacy group Disability Rights Maryland. She’d spent 15 years advocating for a ban on the practice known as seclusion, in which children, typically those with disabilities, are involuntarily isolated and confined, often after emotional outbursts. 

    Even after seeing the video, no legislators were willing to go as far as a ban. Nor were they when Margolis tried again a few years later.

    In 2021, however, the federal Justice Department concluded an investigation into a Maryland school district and found more than 7,000 cases of unnecessary restraint and seclusion in a two-and-a-half-year period. 

    Four months later, Maryland lawmakers passed a bill prohibiting seclusion in the state’s public schools, with nearly unanimous support.

    “I can’t really overstate the impact that Justice can have,” said Margolis. “They have this authority that is really helpful to those of us who are on the ground doing this work.”

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    Within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is a small office devoted to educational issues, including seclusion, as well as desegregation and racial harassment. The division intentionally chooses cases with potential for high impact and actively monitors places it has investigated to ensure they’re following through with changes. When the Educational Opportunities Section acts, educators and policymakers take notice.

    Now, however, the Trump administration is wielding the power of the Justice Department in new and, some say, extreme ways. Hundreds of career staffers, including most of those who worked on education cases, have resigned. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights also has been decimated, largely through layoffs. The two offices traditionally have worked closely together to enforce civil rights protections for students. The result is a potentially lasting shift in how the nation’s top law enforcement agency handles issues that affect public school students, including millions who have disabilities. 

    “There are those who would say that this is an aberration, and that when it’s over, things will go back to the way they were,” said Frederick Lawrence, a lecturer at Georgetown Law and former assistant U.S. attorney under President Ronald Reagan. “My experience is that the river only flows in one direction, and things never go back to the way they were.”

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    The Justice Department’s lawyers historically have worked on a few dozen education cases at once, concentrating on combating sexual harassment, racial discrimination against Black and Latino students, restraint and seclusion, and failure to provide adequate services to English learners. 

    In the last 11 months, however, the agency has sued over and opened investigations into concerns about antisemitism, transgender policies and bias against white people at schools. It sued at least six states for offering discounted tuition to undocumented immigrants and pressured the president of the University of Virginia to resign as part of an investigation into the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies. And it joined other federal departments to form a special Title IX investigations team to protect students from what the administration called the “pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities.”  

    As the Educational Opportunity Section’s mission shifted, it shrunk in size. In January, before President Donald Trump took office, about 40 lawyers tackled education issues. In the spring, the U.S. Senate confirmed Harmeet Dhillon as leader of the Civil Rights Division. Dhillon founded the conservative Center for American Liberty, which describes itself as “defending civil liberties of Americans left behind by civil rights legacy organizations.”

    After her confirmation, staff who weren’t political appointees began resigning en masse, concerned Dhillon would promote only the administration’s agenda. 

    By June, no more than five of the 40 lawyers were left, according to former employees. Some new staff have been hired or reassigned to the section, but the head count remains well below usual. It’s far from enough to sustain the typical workload, said Shaheena Simons, who was chief of the Educational Opportunities Section until she resigned in April. “There’s just no way the division can function with that level of staffing. It’s just impossible,” said Simons, who took over the section in 2016. “The investigations aren’t going to happen. Remedies aren’t going to be sought.” 

    Department officials responded to a list of questions from The Hechinger Report about changes to their handling of student civil rights protection with “no comment.” 

    The Department of Justice, including its educational work, has always been somewhat subject to White House interests, said Neal McCluskey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. During President Joe Biden’s term, for example, the agency pursued allegations of discrimination against transgender students, reflecting administration priorities. 

    McCluskey added, though, that the Trump administration is more aggressive in how it is pursuing its goals and is bypassing typical protocols, noting that in many cases “it’s like they’ve already decided the outcome.”  

    Related: Which schools and colleges are being investigated by the Trump administration?

    An investigation into allegations of antisemitism at the University of California, Los Angeles, for instance, took just 81 days before the department concluded the school had violated federal law. DOJ investigations typically have taken years, not months, to complete. 

    Lawrence, who also serves as president of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society, said he could not speak to specific investigations, but the UCLA timeline “does suggest a rather accelerated process.”

    A federal judge recently ruled that the administration could not use the findings from its UCLA investigation as a reason to fine the university $1.2 billion, which if paid would have unlocked frozen federal research funding. She wrote that the administration was using a playbook “of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding.” 

    As new investigations are opened, older ones remain unresolved, including one of practices in Colorado’s Douglas County Public Schools.

    In 2022, Disability Law Colorado submitted a complaint to the Justice Department about the district’s use of seclusion, as well as restraint, where school employees physically restrict a student’s movement.

    The following year, three other families sued the school system, alleging racial discrimination against their children. The students were repeatedly called monkeys and the N-word, threatened with lynchings and “made by teachers to argue the benefits of Jim Crow laws,” according to the complaint.

    Related: Red school boards in a blue state asked Trump for help — and got it

    The Department of Justice decided to investigate both issues. Four staffers were assigned to the restraint and seclusion investigation, said Emily Harvey, co-legal director at Disability Law Colorado.  

    As part of the inquiry, Justice officials visited the district twice. The second time was during the final week of Biden’s presidency. 

    After that visit, Douglas County didn’t hear anything about the investigation from the Trump administration until a mid-May email. “Good morning,” it read. “We are having some staffing changes.”

    The email, which The Hechinger Report obtained through a public records request, said that going forward, the district could contact two staffers on the restraint and seclusion case. The racial harassment case would be reduced to only one employee until another Justice staffer returned from leave in the fall. 

    One Douglas County parent, who asked her name be withheld because she is afraid of retaliation from the district, said that although she knew the investigation could take a couple of years, the longer it goes without a resolution, the more children could be harmed. 

    “The justice system is just moving so incredibly slow,” she said. 

    The parent said she knows of dozens of families who have dealt with restraint and seclusion issues in the district. Her own son, she said, was secluded in kindergarten. “He was scared of the person who put him in there. He kept saying, ‘I can’t go back,’” she said. “I never envisioned, until my son was secluded, a world where the school would not care about my child.” 

    When Harvey, of Disability Law Colorado, first contacted the Department of Justice, she hoped for statewide reform. She wanted to see a ban on seclusion, like Margolis had helped secure in Maryland, and for the state to commit to more accurate tracking of use of restraints. The way Colorado law is written, restraints must be recorded only if they last more than a minute. Douglas County, the second largest in the state with 62,000 students, reported 582 restraints to the Colorado Department of Education in the 2023-24 school year. The number of shorter-term restraints, however, is unknown. 

    “We believe this is an arbitrary distinction,” Harvey said. “My hope was that the Department of Justice would potentially weigh in on that as a violation” of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Related: How Trump 2.0 upended education research and statistics in one year

    Douglas County school administrators said in a statement to The Hechinger Report that their “focus is on taking care of each and every one of our students” and that they take all concerns seriously. 

    They have worked with the federal government to set up school visits and interviews during their visits, according to emails from January. 

    Subsequent emails between district and federal officials describe a phone call over the summer and requests for additional documents. Another DOJ employee was included in the messages.

    There are signs that the Justice Department is not abandoning restraint and seclusion work, said Guy Stephens, founder of the national advocacy group Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint. A webpage about previous cases that was removed after Trump took office has been restored, and in July, the DOJ announced a settlement with a Michigan district over these issues.

    Yet Stephens has concerns. “There are still people very, very dedicated to this work and the mission of this work, but it’s very hard to work in a system that is shifting and reprioritizing,” he said.

    Former DOJ employees worry that it might not only be future investigations that are markedly different. The department has historically monitored places where it has reached agreements that demand corrective action, rewriting them if districts or colleges fail to live up to their promises. It also provides support to achieve the new goals. Now, provisions written into past resolutions might be at odds with Trump administration actions, and oversight of some settlements is ending early.

    Take, for instance, a DOJ investigation into Vermont’s Elmore-Morristown Unified Union School District over allegations of race-based harassment against Black students. Investigators found that the district didn’t have a way to handle harassment or discrimination not targeted at a specific person, according to David Bickford, the school board chairman. 

    As part of a settlement agreement signed two weeks before Trump was inaugurated, the district agreed to provide staff training on implicit bias. A Trump executive order, however, calls for eliminating federal funding for anyone that discusses such a concept in schools. 

    Bickford said that the district has complied with everything the settlement called for, including professional development. 

    The investigation itself, he said, was extremely thorough, and required handing over nearly a thousand pages of documentation. Since then, the district has sent regular reports to the department but has not received any lengthy response or input, Bickford said. He also noted there had been staffing changes in who the district reports to. 

    Related: Federal policies risk worsening an already dire rural teacher shortage

    Justice officials decided to end supervision of a 2023 settlement early following a racial harassment investigation in another Vermont district, Twin Valley. The original plan was to monitor the district for three years. In October 2024, investigators visited the district to check in. In a letter two months later, officials noted that while Twin Valley had made significant progress, they still had several areas of concern, including how the district investigated complaints, as well as “persistent biased language and behavior on the basis of multiple protected classifications; a pervasive culture of sexism; and lack of consistent and effective adult response to biased language and behavior.” 

    Even so, the department was pleased overall with its visit, said Bill Bazyk, superintendent of Windham Southwest Supervisory Union, which includes Twin Valley. “But things certainly sped up after the election,” said Bazyk, who started his job after the case had been settled.

    Throughout the spring, Bayzk and his staff checked in with the department, and in May the district was told oversight of the settlement would end a year early, as Twin Valley had fully complied with the terms. 

    “We were doing all the right things,” Bayzk said, noting that the district’s work on diversity and equity is ongoing. “We took the settlement very seriously.”

    The investigation began in 2021 after the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont filed a complaint. Legal Director Lia Ernst said it is possible that Twin Valley resolved those lingering problems between December and May, stressing that it’s impossible to know from the outside. But still, she said, there is a larger pattern of ambivalence to the Justice Department’s approach to civil rights complaints.  

    “It is disappointing to see that one ending early,” she said. “It is my hope that it is ending early because Twin Valley has made so much progress, but it is my fear that it is ending early because DOJ just doesn’t care.” 

    Contact investigations editor Sarah Butrymowicz at [email protected] or on Signal: @sbutry.04.

    This story about the Justice Department was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/under-trump-protecting-students-civil-rights-looks-very-different/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113866&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/under-trump-protecting-students-civil-rights-looks-very-different/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Student protection is needed in all higher-level learning

    Student protection is needed in all higher-level learning

    With the government’s white paper having a clear policy ambition and focus on higher technical (level 4 and 5) courses, and a pledge to simplify the regulatory framework for higher-level study, gaps in regulatory oversight are still exposing an increasing number of students to risk.

    The Office of the Independent Adjudicator has today published public interest case summaries, where we have named the two providers concerned, in order to highlight the impact of differing regulatory systems leaving gaps for individual students.

    The recent closure of Applied Business Academy (ABA), as detailed in my previous Wonkhe article, shows an ongoing vulnerability where students cannot seek an independent review of their awarding organisation’s actions. This is the case if they are studying for HE qualifications awarded by an Ofqual-regulated awarding organisations as these, unlike universities, are not required to be OIA members.

    While Ofqual regulates the quality and standards of qualifications, it does not oversee student protection, welfare or institutional accountability in the same way the OfS does for registered providers, even where the provider is only validating courses.

    In our experience this regulatory fragmentation leaves students vulnerable. All HE students should be afforded the same protection and recourse as well as the ability to complain about both their delivery and awarding organisation whoever their awarding body is.

    Highlighting the consequences

    In the case of ABA, when the Department for Education instructed the Student Loans Company to suspend tuition fee payments to ABA there were over 2,000 students enrolled on the Diploma in Education and Training (DET) awarded by City and Guilds or the Organisation for Tourism and Hospitality Management.  ABA also ran courses through partnerships with two universities which were not subject to any regulatory concern.

    Since ABA was registered with the OfS, all eligible students could access public student loan funding including those on the DET course. However, when ABA collapsed their route for complaint and level of redress and support was unclear and very different. The DET students lacked the institutional safety net of an OfS-regulated validator. Despite receiving positive feedback and assurance from ABA during their studies, students were told at the time of the closure that there was insufficient evidence to meet qualification requirements, leaving them with no qualification and a debt they would have to repay.

    By contrast, those on courses validated by or franchised from the University of Buckingham or Leeds Trinity University were offered a range of protections and mitigations including, various supported transfer options to localised provision with matched timetabling, transferring to the universities or identified alternative providers. They also benefitted from reimbursements for travel costs to alternative premises or were provided with free transport. Students could also access a record of achievement to support other transfer or exit, webinars and dedicated phone lines with individualised welfare support and guidance sessions. The OIA, to date, has received no complaints from students on these courses.

    Equal funding, unequal accountability?

    We have also today published a case summary about Brit College which was OfS-registered and only ran courses which were awarded by Ofqual-regulated awarding organisations, prior to its existing higher education courses being de-designated.

    Although it has not closed, it has stated on its website that where the OIA has awarded compensation or refunds, “Brit College is currently unable to meet these awards due to financial constraints” and has yet to pay our recommended compensation to any impacted student.

    The students we have received complaints from had completed all the work that had been set, and they had not been given any indication by the college during their studies that the work was not sufficient or was not at the required standard. Nine months after completing the course the college told students that they would need to undertake substantial further work. As Brit College remains open but has refused to pay compensation, it has been formally found in non-compliance with our recommendations.

    In both cases, since the awarding organisations are not within OIA membership we are unable to review any complaints from students about their acts and/or omissions in the time prior to de-designation, as we would if their courses were awarded by universities.

    When the system fails

    The fall out is not just administrative; it is deeply personal. Students are often shocked and distressed to be denied compensation, especially when we have found in their favour. They often feel confused about the lack of protection available to them and, having chosen to study at an OfS-registered provider, feel they have been misled.

    This is compounded when they hear about students at the same provider studying for different qualifications where expectations of the validators are student focused. The qualifications studied via Ofqual-regulated awarding organisations are often gateways to teaching or a technical profession. When a provider fails and there is no one to turn to, they not only lose their tuition fees and time spent studying, but also their career trajectory, and often they cannot afford to take out further loans to start again.

    In the words of one student impacted:

    I completed the DET course as required, maintaining 100% attendance, submitting all coursework and observations on time, and consistently communicating with ABA. In addition to the course fees, I spent money on travel to attend the course, further increasing the financial burden. Despite fulfilling all my responsibilities, I’ve been left without a qualification and have been unable to get a resolution for nearly two years…

    What makes this even more distressing is that I have already started repaying the loan to Student Finance from my personal income – for a course that did not result in a qualification. This feels incredibly unfair and adds to the emotional and financial pressure I am under. I am paying for something I did not receive through no fault of my own.

    Fixing the fault lines

    This is not an isolated incident – it’s a symptom of a sector under strain. With the government’s targets directly referring to higher technical qualifications, backed by the development of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to give “equal access to student finance for higher level study,” it should now take action to ensure equal access to student protection.

    Without this, students on higher technical and other level 4/5 courses will continue to have less access to individual remedies and redress than their counterparts studying for an award from a university.

    We note that back in 2020 the DfE expected “all awarding bodies and providers which own an approved Higher Technical Qualification to join the [OIA] scheme” – yet five years on this expectation remains unmet. We have since worked with Ofqual who have confirmed that awarding organisations being in membership of the OIA Scheme is compatible with Ofqual regulation (this was also a recommendation in our recent joint report with SUMS on managing the impact of higher education provider closure).

    Without OIA membership, students unable to complain to the OIA about their awarding organisations will not have access to independent remedies and redress, unlike those studying for university-awarded qualifications.

    Most importantly, in our experience, this is not made clear to, or understood by, students when they embark on their higher education journey.

    We reiterate that this is a student protection gap that urgently needs resolving for students who deserve that same protection. All students – regardless of their awarding organisation – should have access to the same safeguards and redress. That means all awarding organisations in receipt of public money joining the OIA scheme and making student protection, and the obligation to put things right for students, a non-negotiable part of higher education policy.

    Source link

  • Partnership? Students in Scotland need protection

    Partnership? Students in Scotland need protection

    It’s easy to trace differences in culture back much further – arguably right back to Bologna in 1088, and the Rectors of the Ancients in the 15th Century.

    But at the very least since 2003, students’ unions in England have looked North of the border jealously at a country so committed to student partnership that it created a statutory agency to drive it.

    Partnership at all levels thrives when there’s will, time, and frankly, money. It’s tougher to reflect the principles of students having power when times are tight – when the excel sheets no longer add up, when restructures have to be planned, and when cuts have to be crafted to the facilities and services that students have been inputting on for years.

    Beyond the potentially apocryphal stories of truly student-led institutions in ancient times, students in any system are bound to be treated as, and regard themselves as, at best junior partners – with, both at individual and collective levels, a significant power asymmetry.

    In such scenarios, when leaders spend their days choosing between any number of awful options, it’s often going to be the least institutionally risky path that’s taken. And the danger is that students – who previously might have relied on partnership to secure their interests – now really need protection instead.

    I spend quite a bit of time here lamenting the implementation of protection measures for students in England. But in conversations with students and their leaders in Scotland, I’m now finding myself repeatedly reflecting on the fact that at least, in England, there are some.

    3 months to open your email

    Take complaints. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) doesn’t always generate the answer that student complainants would like – it often feels too distant, and at least temporally, hard to access.

    It also has a tendency to seek resolution when it’s sometimes justice that should prevail – and increasingly feels like providers are paying students off (often with NDAs for non-harassment complaints) before they get there.

    But in Scotland, students have to use the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO). As I type, “due to an increase in the volume of cases” it is currently receiving, there is a delay of 12 weeks in allocating complaints to a reviewer.

    Some comfort that will be to the international PGT who has cause to complain in month 10 of their studies, only to have to encounter a complaint, an appeal, and then a further 12 weeks just to get the SPSO to open their letter. UKVI will have ensured they’re long gone.

    It’s clear that few get as far as the SPSO. When it investigates a complaint, it usually reports its findings and conclusions in what it calls a decision letter – and these findings are published as decision reports. Since May 2021, just ten have been published.

    Either students in Scotland have much less to complain about than their counterparts in England and Wales, or universities in Scotland are much better at resolving complaints, or this is a system that obviously isn’t working.

    Never OK

    Then there’s harassment and sexual misconduct. Just under a year ago Universities Scotland’s update on anti-harassment work suggested a system of protection that’s patchy at best.

    37 per cent of institutions weren’t working with survivors to inform their approach, 21 per cent didn’t have policies allowing for preventative suspension where necessary, and only 71 per cent of institutions had “updated their policies” following guidance from UUK on staff-student relationships – which could still mean all 19 universities are permitting staff to pursue students.

    Universities Scotland acknowledges that most identify funding as a barrier, but England’s regulator makes clear that providers “must” deploy necessary resources, with higher-risk institutions expected to invest more. If you can’t fund student safety properly, perhaps you shouldn’t be operating is the message in England.

    And there’s no sign that Scotland will be taking part in the prevalence research that’s been piloted in England.

    Cabinet Secretary Jenny Gilruth’s praise for Scotland’s “partnership approach” suggested either complacency or a failure to grasp that Scotland is sliding toward being significantly less robust than England in protecting students. When partnership fails to deliver safety, protection becomes essential – and on harassment, it feels like Scotland is failing to provide either adequately.

    Best practice should not be voluntary

    Or take mental health. While Wales has responded to parliamentary concerns about consistency by accepting recommendations for a “common framework for mental health support” backed by registration and funding conditions, Scotland continues to rely on voluntary approaches that deliver patchy outcomes.

    The Welsh government’s response to its Children, Young People and Education Committee shows what serious commitment looks like. New MEDR registration conditions will require clear expectations for student wellbeing, supported by data collection requirements, evaluation frameworks, and crucially, funding considerations built into budget allocations.

    There’s partnership rhetoric – but it’s partnership backed by regulatory teeth. Wales has grasped what Scotland appears to miss – that “best practice should not be voluntary” when student lives are at stake, as one bereaved parent told Westminster’s Petitions Committee.

    The Welsh approach is set to recognise that students need “parity of approach” and “consistency between departments, institutions, and academic teams” – something that purely voluntary frameworks cannot deliver.

    Scotland’s reliance on institutional goodwill for mental health provision increasingly looks naive. Maintaining flexibility for institutions to design services suited to their contexts, is one thing – but Wales will ensure baseline standards that students can depend on regardless of which university they attend.

    The contrast is stark – Wales will treat student mental health as a regulatory priority requiring systematic oversight, while Scotland appears content to hope that partnership alone in a context of dwindling funding will somehow deliver consistency. When partnership fails to protect the most vulnerable students, Wales will have built backup systems – Scotland has built excuses about funding pressures that Welsh universities face too.

    Promises promises

    Then there’s consumer protection – or, as I like to rebrand it, delivering on the promises made to students. It’s easy to assume that students in Scotland aren’t covered – but plenty do pay fees, and those that don’t are supposed to be protected too.

    But over two and a half years since the Competition and Markets Authority revised its guidance to universities on compliance, there seems to be a nationwide problem. Of the 16 universities I’ve looked at in Scotland, 15 still include contractual terms limiting liability in the event of a strike involving their own staff – something CMA has advised is unlawful, and which OfS is effectively enforcing in cases like Newcastle.

    In a year when strikes are more likely, why should students in Scotland not be afforded the same rights to the education they’ve signed up for than their English counterparts?

    The CMA also bans clauses that limit compensation for breach of contract to the total paid in fees – something that would be very attractive in Scotland for obvious reasons. Yet 14 of the country’s universities continue to publish contractual terms that apparently allow them to with impunity. Several have highly problematic clauses on in-contract fee increases too.

    And CMA’s guidance on “variation clauses” – that should not result in too wide an ability to vary the course or services that were offered when students signed up – looks like it’s been flouted too.

    I’m no lawyer, but most universities in Scotland seem to be affording themselves the right to pretty much change anything and everything – and when finances are as tight as they are, that means students and their complaints about cuts can be bottom of the risk register, if they feature at all.

    You’re the voice

    Or take student voice itself. The mandatory Learner Engagement Code required by the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 could be transformative – moving from “should” to “must” with genuine comply-or-explain mechanisms, protected status for student representatives, and mandatory training on rights and responsibilities for all students. Or it could emerge as something weak and vague, disappointing everyone who fought to get student engagement into primary legislation.

    But at least there is one. At minimum, Wales recognises that student partnership requires legal backing, not just goodwill that evaporates when finances get tight. Scotland’s partnership model, for all its historical reputation, increasingly looks like an expensive way of avoiding the hard work of building systems that actually protect students when partnership fails.

    However flawed, students in England now have new rights over freedom of speech – including a right to not be stopped from speaking on the basis of “reputational impact” on the provider. Several Scottish universities seem to have extraordinarily wide exemptions for “disrepute” and “reputation” that are almost certainly in breach of the Human Rights Act.

    You could even, at a stretch, look at cuts and closures. For all the poor implementation and enforcement of a system designed to protect students when their campus, course, university or pathway is closed in England, at least the principle is in place. Student Protection Plans are required in Scotland by SAAS for private providers – but not of universities. Why?

    We voted against Brexit

    I could go on. Scotland regularly positions itself as more European than England, particularly in higher education where the “partnership approach” is often presented as evidence of continental-style governance. Scottish politicians invoke European models when defending their policies, suggesting Scotland’s collaborative approach mirrors sophisticated systems across the continent.

    Yet European student rights frameworks put Scotland to shame. In Serbia, students have the legal right to nutrition, rest and cultural activities. In Sweden, students enjoy the same workplace protections as employees under the Work Environment Act. In Lithuania, there’s a minimum amount of campus space allocated per student by law, and student representatives hold veto power over university senate decisions – if they use it, a special committee reviews the issue and a two-thirds majority is required to override.

    In Latvia, students’ unions receive at least 0.05% of the annual university budget by law, with legal rights to request information from any department on matters affecting students. In Poland, students have guaranteed rights to study programmes where at least 30 per cent of credits are elective, and universities must consult student governments when appointing managers with student affairs responsibilities. Student protests and strikes are specifically protected, with mediation rights.

    In the Netherlands, universities must inform the national confidential inspector whenever staff may have engaged in harassment involving students – and any staff hearing about allegations must report them to management. Spain mandates every university has an independent ombudsperson with statutory reporting duties. In Croatia, universities are legally obliged to provide students’ unions workspace, co-finance their activities, and offer administrative support. And Austrian students make up significant proportions of curriculum committees by statute, ensuring programmes remain flexible and career-relevant.

    Can I get the Bill

    It’s not as if there isn’t a legal vehicle that could improve things. The Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill is weaving its way through the Scottish Parliament as we speak – but it couldn’t be weaker in protections for students if it tried.

    • Section 8 allows the new Council, when conducting efficiency studies, to consider “the extent to which the needs and interests of students are being met” and then issue recommendations to universities and colleges. But recommendations are not binding.
    • Section 11 amends the 2005 Act to require the Council, in exercising its functions, to “have regard to the desirability of protecting and promoting the interests of current and prospective learners.” Again, this is a duty on the Council, not directly on universities, and is about regard rather than enforceable standards.
    • Section 18 allows Scottish Ministers to designate private providers so that their students can access public student support. That’s a consumer-style protection, but it’s about access to funding rather than quality or rights.
    • Section 19–20 updates the rules around how student support is administered and delegated — but again, that’s more about machinery than protections.

    There’s no new regulatory framework for how universities behave towards students (on contracts, teaching quality, complaints handling, etc.). There are no rights conferred directly on students — no duty of fair treatment, no consumer protection-style obligations, no statutory complaints rights.

    Universities themselves are not made subject to enforceable duties in the Bill, beyond existing general oversight via the Funding Council. And while the Council can give guidance (section 10) and issue recommendations (section 8), institutions are only required to “have regard” rather than comply.

    Cakeism in Scotland

    Models of student partnership have served Scotland well over the decades – and should continue to. After all, learning outcomes take two to tango – and that’s true from the classroom right up the boardroom.

    But right now here in 2025, partnership often feels like a luxury for when rivers of money start flowing back in – and even the most well meaning and moral SMT or Court has a duty to protect the institution before it protects its students.

    Ultimately, partnership and protection should not feel like mutual exclusives, or something a country should choose. It’s perfectly possible, and in the current funding climate, deeply desirable, for students to have both.

    Scottish ministers – through a new section of the Funding and Governance Bill – should legislate to make it so.

    Source link

  • Interest charges will restart for borrowers in SAVE forbearance (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Interest charges will restart for borrowers in SAVE forbearance (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Dahn,

    The Biden Administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) repayment plan promised to lower monthly student loan payments for millions of Americans. But legal attacks by the same conservative state attorneys general who exploited the courts to block President Biden’s original student debt relief plan resulted in a court injunction that has blocked borrowers from enrolling. Thus, borrowers have been trapped in a year-long, interest-free forbearance while their unprocessed Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) applications wait in limbo.

    But now, Trump and Education Secretary McMahon are saddling these borrowers with interest. Last week, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced that it will begin restarting student loan interest charges on August 1, 2025, for the nearly 8 MILLION borrowers stuck in this forbearance.

    McMahon voluntarily chose to do this—there was no state or federal court order forcing her hand. Read our Executive Director Mike Pierce’s statement on this below:

    Source link

  • Student protection through market exit is not a compliance exercise

    Student protection through market exit is not a compliance exercise

    As financial and regulatory pressures on higher education intensify, the once-hypothetical risk of a large-scale provider exiting the market is becoming increasingly likely.

    For government, regulators, providers, and students alike, the implications are far-reaching – and the sector needs to be better prepared.

    The risk is growing

    Following our previous reflections on this issue we received many messages of interest and support for doing some further work in this area. We also felt there was an opportunity to bring together the experiences of colleagues we have worked with on closures and mergers, and to capture the perspectives of receiving providers and learn from their experiences.

    SUMS Consulting reached out to us, offering to support a new project on a pro bono basis. Their expertise in supporting student services and change management, combined with the OIA’s experience of student complaints during provider exits, created a unique opportunity to look at the problem from both a practical and student-centred perspective. We also asked the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) to join the project’s steering group, ensuring governance perspectives were built into the work from the outset.

    The risks we highlighted last year have only intensified for students. At the OIA we have seen further complaints from students at smaller providers which have closed in recent months. In these scenarios we see staff working quickly to try to support students at both closing and receiving providers, but there is little legal scaffolding to protect students caught in these situations often leaving them with limited redress.

    Lessons from experience

    Whilst we recognise that there has been significant positive engagement, discussion and reports in this space, the SUMS and OIA report – Putting Students First – Managing the impact of higher education provider closure – focuses on mitigating the impact on students and specifically learning from the closures and cases the OIA has been involved in. If we don’t take these examples seriously, we risk missing a crucial opportunity to improve outcomes for students.

    Over the course of the project, there has been increasing discussion about these policy issues and a ‘playbook’ for market exit is frequently suggested. Whilst neither the SUMS nor the OIA has the expertise or role to produce something quite this detailed and comprehensive, SUMS have gathered insights from university leaders, students’ unions, experts, and those who have dealt directly with closures.

    Part one of our report provides the context for the study and collates findings on lessons and effective practice for the sector derived from all the research and information gathering for this study. SUMS also provide some conclusions on the gaps identified by the research and make a series of recommendations for Government, regulators and sector bodies and providers to consider to better support providers navigate exit and help mitigate the impact of future closures on students.

    Part two is a separately appended framework (in MS Excel format), which is a summary of the key lessons learnt from the study. The framework is not intended as a comprehensive guide for good institutional governance or achieving financial sustainability. Rather it is intended to provide a checklist of key actions that might be taken by providers to mitigate the risk of exit and, if exit is unavoidable, to help prepare for a managed exit.

    Several consistent themes emerged across our discussions – notably the practical disconnects between the current legal, regulatory, financial, and student protection processes. What’s clear is the value of early engagement – acting early and being transparent can reduce the impact on students – but we recognise this is difficult when reputational and commercial pressures are in play. Also it is apparent that receiving providers and students’ unions often play a vital role but aren’t always given the resources or support they need.

    We found that student protection is too often treated as a compliance task. If the sector is to avoid repeating past mistakes, this mindset must change.

    Moving the conversation forward

    This report is not the final word. We see it as a starting point — a resource that will grow over time, as more providers engage with it and share their own experiences. We hope that going forward the framework will continue to evolve – helping shape a more student-centred response. We also hope it will support other initiatives in this space, such as the forthcoming updates to the CUC Governance Code.

    Above all, we want to encourage providers, governors, and policymakers to engage in open and honest conversations about the risk of market exit — before it becomes an emergency. Used early, the framework can help institutions strengthen their preparedness, build resilience, and ultimately safeguard the student experience.

    What happens next?

    We encourage providers and others to review the framework and checklist with leadership and governance teams, integrate its guidance into risk and student protection planning, share feedback to help develop the next iteration of the work.

    We hope that this work will help enable honest and open conversations about exit, both within and between providers. We all need to understand that student protection isn’t just a compliance issue – it has a very direct impact on the experiences of students in the system, and we must all be ready.

    Ultimately, we need a more collaborative whole sector approach – because when a large-scale provider exits the market suddenly, the impact isn’t isolated – it becomes a sector-wide challenge. Ensuring students are protected must be a shared sector priority.

    Source link

  • Still Turning Borrowers into Political Pawns (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Still Turning Borrowers into Political Pawns (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Day 2 of the U.S. Department of Education (ED)’s Neg Reg aimed at weaponizing Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) was… just as damning as Day 1. Here’s the recap:

    Session Summary:

    The session got SPICY right off the bat. ED began the day by presenting their newly revised language. Here are some key moments:

    • Abby Shafroth, legal aid negotiator, stated CLEARLY for the record that this Neg Reg is not about protecting PSLF; it’s about the Department of Education (ED) using it as a tool to coerce nonprofits and universities to further the Trump Administration’s own goals. The government’s response was not convincing. Watch her remarks here.
    • Betsy Mayotte, the negotiator representing consumers, brought more fire: “When reading the statute of PSLF, I don’t see where the Education Secretary has the authority to remove employer eligibility definition from a 501(c)(3) or government organization…but my understanding of the regulations and executive order is that they cannot be contrary to the statute. There are no ifs, ands, or buts under government or 501(c)(3).” Watch the exchange here.
    • In a heated discussion on ED’s proposal to exclude public service workers who provide gender-affirming care to transgender minors, Abby further flagged that no one in the room had any medical expertise, so no one had qualifications to weigh in on medical definitions like “chemical and surgical castration.”
    • The non-federal negotiators held a caucus to talk about large employers that fall under a single federal Employer Identification Number. They are CONCERNED that the extreme breadth of this rule could potentially cut out thousands of workers only because a subset of people work on issues disfavored by this Administration—all without any right to appeal. Negotiators plan to submit language that would allow employers to appeal a decision to revoke PSLF eligibility by ED.
    • Borrowers and other experts and advocates came in HOT with public comment today—calling out ED for using this rulemaking to unlawfully engage in viewpoint discrimination and leave borrowers drowning in debt, unable to keep food on their tables, or provide for their families.

    Missing From the Table:

    Today, our legal director, Winston Berkman-Breen, who was excluded from the committee (but still gave powerful public comment yesterday!) has some thoughts on what was missing from the conversation:

    For two days now, negotiators have raised legitimate questions and important concerns about the Secretary of Education’s authority to disqualify certain government and 501(c)(3) employers from PSLF. And for two days now, ED’s neg reg staff—inlcuding the moderator!—have engaged in bad faith negotiations.

    Jacob, ED’s attorney, asserted that the Secretary has broad authority in its administration of the PSLF program—true, but only to an extent. The Secretary cannot narrow the program beyond the basic requirements set by Congress. When pushed for specific authority, Tamy—the federal negotiator—simply declined.

    It doesn’t stop there—ED representatives sidestepped, dismissed, or outright ignored negotiators’ questions and concerns. That’s because this isn’t a negotiation—it’s an exercise in gaslighting. ED is proposing action that exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority and likely violates the U.S. Constitution—all the while telling negotiators to fall in line.

    The kicker? By pushing this proposal, ED itself is engaged in an activity with “substantial illegal purpose.” Let that sink in.

    Public Comment Mic  Drops:

    And Satra D. Taylor, a student loan borrower, Black woman, and SBPC fellow, who was also not selected by ED to negotiate, shared more thoughts during public comment:

    “I am disheartened and frustrated by what I have witnessed over the last few days… It has become clear that this Administration is intent on… making college once again exclusive to white, male, and wealthy individuals. These political attacks, disguised as rulemaking, are inequitable and target communities from historically marginalized backgrounds. The PSLF program has provided a vital incentive for Americans interested in serving our country and local communities, regardless of their political affiliation. The Department’s efforts to engage in rulemaking and to change PSLF eligibility are directly related to the goal of Trump’s Executive Order and exceed the Administration’s authority…”

    Source link

  • TOMORROW 7 PM ET—join our emergency organizing call! (Brandon Herrera, Student Borrower Protection Center)

    TOMORROW 7 PM ET—join our emergency organizing call! (Brandon Herrera, Student Borrower Protection Center)

    This bill threatens to gut $350 BILLION in critical education programs to deliver $4.5 TRILLION in tax cuts to billionaires. House Republicans’ plan to slash the Pell Grant and other financial aid programs and eliminate basic protections for students—this will only make college more expensive and force millions of working families with student debt further into the red.

    So far, we have nearly 1,000 (!) RSVPs from all over the country planning to take part in this call. We will hear from policymakers, movement leaders, and affected students and borrowers on how this bill will harm our communities and how you can get more involved to protect students and working families—NOT billionaires.

    You won’t want to miss this—make sure to RSVP below and clear your calendar for TOMORROW at 7PM ET.

    Source link

  • Having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Are you having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? Don’t worry; we got you. There’s a lot going on right now and we’re here to break it all down. Here are some of the most pressing things that happened this week.

    On Tuesday, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee and senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee chaired an education forum to spotlight the Trump Administration’s radical effort to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Tasha Berkhalter, a U.S. Army veteran and student loan borrower who had her debt discharged by the Biden Administration after being defrauded by a predatory for-profit college, gave powerful testimony at the hearing.

    Source link

  • AFT sues Dept. of Education for denying borrowers’ rights (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    AFT sues Dept. of Education for denying borrowers’ rights (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order ordering the shutdown of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The order claims to ensure the “uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” yet Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon have gutted the arms of ED that make those functions possible. Read our statement on yesterday’s executive order here. Last week, Trump announced a 50 percent reduction in the workforce at the Department. Now he plans to move student loans to the Small Business Administration?!?!

    The Trump Administration is intentionally breaking the student loan system and attacking borrowers and working families with student debt. But we’ve been fighting back.

    On Tuesday night, the 1.8 million-member AFT sued ED for denying borrowers’ access to affordable loan payments and blocking progress towards Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)—in violation of federal law.

    Three weeks ago, federal education officials eliminated access to Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans by removing the application from ED’s website and secretly ordering student loan servicers to halt processing all applications. These IDR plans provide millions of borrowers the right to tie their monthly payment to their income and family size, giving them the option to make loan payments they can afford.

    IDR plans are also the only way for public service workers to benefit from PSLF—a critical lifeline for teachers, nurses, first responders, and millions of other public service workers across the country.

    SBPC Executive Director Mike Pierce’s statement:

    Source link