Forbes’
education writer Wesley Whistle writes about the lawsuit filed by AFT against Betsy DeVos for
her failure to protect the students who were defrauded by colleges and
universities, mostly for-profit.
DeVos
rolled back an Obama-era regulation intended to prevent colleges from loading
students with high debts and worthless degrees.
Secretary
of Education Betsy DeVos has one more lawsuit to deal with this week.
Yesterday, one of the largest teachers unions in the country filed suit against DeVos and the
Department of Education (Department).
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is suing DeVos for repealing the “gainful employment” regulation that is meant to protect student borrowers from programs that load them up with debt that doesn’t yield a job with an income sufficient to repay their student loans.
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is suing DeVos for repealing the “gainful employment” regulation that is meant to protect student borrowers from programs that load them up with debt that doesn’t yield a job with an income sufficient to repay their student loans.
The complaint from AFT—filed by the National Student Legal Defense Network (NSLDN)—says the repeal of the rule was illegal and didn’t provide the proper justification required in federal rulemaking. The lawsuit asks the court to reinstate the rule to protect students from low-quality degrees and unmanageable debt.
“With
this lawsuit we are going to strike down DeVos’ illegal repeal of the gainful
employment rule and protect students from schools that leave borrowers with
worthless degrees and debt they can never repay,” said Aaron Ament, president
of NSLDN, in a press release.
In
her continued effort to repeal or rewrite higher education regulations,
Secretary DeVos first delayed, then delayed some more, and finally
repealed the 2014 gainful employment regulation in
July 2019. The Secretary claimed the rule unfairly targeted for-profit
colleges—an industry rife with predatory practices, fraud, and abysmal outcomes
for students—even though it was not a regulation solely for for-profit schools.
Under
the Higher Education Act, career-oriented programs (think welding or nursing)
and all programs at for-profit colleges must show that they lead to “gainful
employment” for their graduates. This provision has appeared in some form since
the Higher Education Act was first passed in 1965. After years without
specificity of what this actually meant, the Obama Administration issued a
regulation to finally put some teeth on one of the few accountability tools in
higher education.
For-profit colleges opposed the rule and went to great lengths to stop the regulation. The for-profit higher education industry filed suit against the rule and asked the courts to throw it out. Ultimately, the Obama Administration prevailed in court, but the sanctions weren’t due to take effect until after his term ended, making it easier for DeVos to repeal.
The
rule basically created a debt-to-income measurement so that if these programs
left their graduates with sky-high debt and too little income to repay it they
would lose access to federal student aid—grants and loans.
Issuing this regulation was meant to protect students from programs that would saddle them with debt they’d either never repay or struggle to do so. And it would protect taxpayers from having to foot the bill for loans that won’t be repaid because low-quality programs didn’t get their graduates in jobs with salaries sufficient to repay their debt.
Issuing this regulation was meant to protect students from programs that would saddle them with debt they’d either never repay or struggle to do so. And it would protect taxpayers from having to foot the bill for loans that won’t be repaid because low-quality programs didn’t get their graduates in jobs with salaries sufficient to repay their debt.
All
kinds of programs failed the gainful employment rule. For example, a dental
laboratory technology certificate program left graduates with median earnings
under $7,000, well under the federal poverty level.
And it impacted all degree levels and types of schools. A graduate certificate at Harvard even failed the test. It was far from perfect as it didn’t address the schools that failed to graduate their students but left them with debt they cannot afford, but it was a one of the few protections students had.
And it impacted all degree levels and types of schools. A graduate certificate at Harvard even failed the test. It was far from perfect as it didn’t address the schools that failed to graduate their students but left them with debt they cannot afford, but it was a one of the few protections students had.
When
DeVos repealed the regulation she said that transparency was enough and
released new data on the College Scorecard that showed debt and earnings for
each program. While that is a great step in the right direction, it
is far from enough. Research has shown that transparency
cannot replace accountability and isn’t sufficient to protect students and
taxpayers. Reinstating this rule would go a long way to ensure students aren’t
left with worthless degrees and unaffordable debt.