inside sources print logo
Get up-to-date news in your inbox

Obama Era Regulations Still Threaten Private Colleges

President Donald Trump has started to roll back education reforms pursued during the last administration as critics contest that the rules imposed unnecessary burdens on private colleges.

Keiser University is a private nonprofit university that serves approximately 20,000 students. It has several locations with the main campus based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The school also provides online courses that serve students in states across the country.

Dr. Arthur Keiser has served as the chancellor of the school since it was founded in 1977. He argues that regulations that were drafted when former President Barack Obama was in office have remained a concern. Dr. Keiser is optimistic that the new administration will be able to rollback the changes.

“Certainly for higher education administrators it’s been challenging,” Keiser told InsideSources. “We’ve been dancing among just a number of regulations that affect both nonprofit institutions like Keiser University, and for profit institutions even more so.”

The Obama administration pursued several significant education reforms during his time in office. Some of the policy changes have already gone into effect, while others have yet to be implemented. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is in the process of delaying or rewriting some of the reforms.

“Under the Obama administration you heard one set, at least in my mind, one viewpoint, and that was from the progressives,” Keiser said. “Those folks who were not very positive towards private education. There were other rules that were even more challenging. Especially the gainful employment rule.”

The Obama era education reforms were aimed at addressing a couple key concerns. They were designed to protect students from predatory tuition schemes, and ensure degrees actually help students find a career. Keiser counters that the reforms put significant burdens on colleges that more adversely impacted private schools.

“I believe it’s a protectionist agenda,” Keiser said. “It’s protectionist towards public education which is highly unionized. The unions have been strong supporters of many of these issues, and have been out front with them.”

Those in support of the education reforms see the rollback as a huge setback. The reforms were designed to address real problems, and now students could be left without support. Public Citizen Litigation Group is among the organizations that have filed lawsuits in response to the shift in direction from the new administration.

“We think the Department of Education’s delay of these rules was illegal,” Public Citizen attorney Adam Pulver told InsideSources. “The department, with just a swipe of its pen, said we’re going to delay these indefinitely, and that’s not something that’s allowed.”

Keiser University was originally a for-profit institution before it switched to a nonprofit status in 2011. Dr. Keiser noted at the time that the switch was to ensure the institution survives after he’s gone. He also cited how tough the regulatory environment had become.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported at the time that the school was under investigation by the state attorney general. For-profit colleges have faced increased scrutiny from lawmakers and federal officials over high costs and low graduation rates. Keiser University was one of several institutions being investigated by the state.

The gainful employment rule was one of the more significant education reforms that were drafted during the last administration. Colleges would be at risk of losing taxpayer-funded federal student aid if the estimated annual loan payment of a typical graduate did not exceed 20 percent of their discretionary income or eight percent of total earnings.

“The gainful employment regulation, to me, it was more of trying to cull the herd rather the solve the particular problem,” Keiser said. “Now granted, obviously, programs should be there for gainful employment, and should lead to success however they determine it.”

Keiser argues that the approach imposed unfair burdens on colleges. He notes that how a former student does depends on many things outside of where they went to college. Someone who then goes onto culinary school or some apprenticeship program might not get paid well immediately as they are still developing their skills.

“It was, we think, a very intrusive, inappropriate, program,” Keiser said. “All these regulations just drive up the cost. When you drive up the cost you have to increase student loan debt. It’s very expensive to go to school today, and most students have to borrow to get into school.”

Some argue that the regulations unfairly targeted for-profit institutions. Hundreds of for-profit schools have already gone out of business since the gainful employment rule was announced. The closures include some high-profile institutions like ITT Technical Institute and Corinthian Colleges.

The gainful employment rule is just one of several recent regulations that have had an impact on colleges. Keiser adds the requirements posed a real threat to colleges. New regulations mean additional costs and time that take resources away from educating students.

“Another regulation is what was called state authorization,” Keiser said. “That would have required institutions to have a license in every state a student is taking an online learning course.”

Keiser adds the rule imposed an unfair burden on colleges with online degree programs. Those colleges would have to seek certification in every state they have a student taking courses online. He notes that getting regional college licensing is an expensive and time-consuming process.

The Borrower Defense to Repayment program is also among the more significant education reforms drafted during the last administration. Secretary DeVos has delayed the rule while noting that the last administration missed an opportunity to address a real problem.

“First, it would have given students rights to complain, but not the school’s ability to defend itself,” Keiser said. “The department would be the mediator, and there would be no due process given to the institutions. That would force the institution to refund those loans back to the student. It created a very one-sided argument.”

Keiser adds that the rule was more beneficial to the trial attorneys than it was students. The rule implements a process in which students who were allegedly defrauded or misled by their college can apply for loan forgiveness. It also set up avenues for students to seek loan forgiveness in unforeseen events like their colleges closing down.

“What has happened over the past several decades is that federal students loans have become a money making enterprise for a lot of institutions that were not really interested in educating students or preparing them for the future,” Pulver said.

Pulver adds that the education reforms were developed to protect students. He notes the issue of predatory tuition schemes and dishonest colleges was getting worse over the years. Others argue that the last administration was more concerned with ideology than addressing the problems.

“My take on this is that the Obama administration was more than willing to extend regulations without regard to the cost,” Mark Schneider, the vice president of American Institutes for Research, told InsideSources. “So many people would argue that many of the regulations that were propagated under the Obama administration–gainful employment, borrower defense, and Title IX–were all overreaches, many of them driven by ideology.”

Jorge Klor de Alva, president of the NEXUS Research and Policy Center, argues that there is a middle ground in which both sides could have their concerns addressed. He notes that the last administration was correct in trying to address the problems, but their solutions weren’t perfect.

“I would say the Obama administration made a very important and useful effort in trying to bring the greatest amount of control over institutions receiving significant amounts of financial aid,” Klor de Alva told InsideSources. “But in doing so I think it ran roughshod over a lot of institutions and policies that needed to be looked at more carefully. I think that’s what the Trump administration is doing now.”

Klor de Alva adds that the reforms were a step in the right direction even if they weren’t perfect. He notes that the best approach would be to keep the regulations instead of scrapping them outright. The new administration could then work to tweak the reforms and fix any problems.

“A lot of effort was put into making regulations that were helpful,” Klor de Alva said. “A lot of work has gone into it. I think that rather than scrapping them altogether, because they are meant to do something that is significantly positive, I think they should be tweaked.”

Follow Connor on Twitter

Public School Advocates Concerned About GOP Amendment Seeking to Shift Power to Education Commissioner

A proposed draft amendment for an education bill would dramatically shake up the state Department of Education and shift some power and authority to the state education commissioner. Yet, the senator who introduced it said it simply “allows managers to manage their department.”

Frank Edelblut, the new commissioner who previously lost the Republican gubernatorial bid to Chris Sununu in the 2016 election, is already a controversial figure within Sununu’s administration for his pro-school choice views, and this amendment isn’t sitting well with public school advocates.

Sen. John Reagan, R-Deerfield (Photo Credit: NH Senate website)

Sen. John Reagan, R-Deerfield (Photo Credit: NH Senate website)

The amendment, drafted by Sen. John Reagan, R-Deerfield, was first posted Wednesday by Reaching Higher NH, an organization supporting high standards in public schools.

Reagan said the bill came at the request of Edelblut and it “permits the commissioner to make some managerial changes.” He said he doesn’t understand where the backlash on the amendment is coming from.

“He should be able to do what he wants to do,” Reagan told NH Journal. “They [public school advocates] don’t like anything that disturbs their monopoly of state dollars. They see something and try to discredit Republican management of government. You should be able to let your managers manage your business.”

Among the proposed changes, Reagan is proposing to eliminate four existing divisions in the state Department of Education (DOE) and replacing them with four new divisions under the direction of the commissioner, and giving the commissioner authority over several programs, funds, and personnel.

The proposal is poised to be an amendment to House Bill 356. Reagan said he talked to Rep. Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, who is the author of HB356 and Ladd gave him the go-ahead to attach the amendment to his bill.

Public school advocates are concerned that the amendment “introduces greater volatility and uncertainty around how we hold N.H. schools and districts accountable for delivering an adequate education to our children.”

Reaching Higher NH says the amendment would make it easier for public funds to go towards schools or education offerings that are not subject to the same rigorous public oversight as public schools.

“The amendment would grant the Commissioner of Education expansive authority that exceeds the discretion provided to most other state departments,” the organization wrote in a blog post about the amendment.

In New Hampshire, the state education commissioner is largely seen as the face of the DOE, simply carrying out policy that the state Board of Education introduces.

“The Department of Education, consistent with New Hampshire’s local control ethos, has historically served primarily as the provider of state education funding and as the intermediary between local school districts and the federal Department of Education,” the post stated. “In these roles, the Department provides much needed expertise and serves as an important guardian of students’ rights to a public education.”

The amendment calls for eliminating four divisions, including the Division of Educational Improvement, Division of Program Support, Division of Career Technology and Adult Learning, and Division of Higher Education within the DOE and replacing them with four new divisions, which have not yet been determined, all under the direction of the education commissioner.

Yet, Reagan said he believes the bill means the divisions will just be retitled, “making it easier for the head manager to move managers around. It’s what any organization should be allowed to do.”

Advocates say the amendment would remove an institutional check that exists to prevent the DOE and New Hampshire public education from becoming overly-politicized.

For example, the Division of Educational Improvement currently has the responsibility to “determine if a district is making diligent efforts to resolve personnel shortages that result in children with disabilities being placed out of district.” The amendment would transfer that power to Edelblut.

Reaching Higher NH also said the elimination of the divisions and allowing the commissioner to create new ones allows for a standard of appointing division directors that could lead to nominees who do not have the education or experience to lead those offices.

That was a significant criticism for Edelblut as education commissioner since he does not come from an education background (his children have also been homeschooled), yet he was tapped to lead the department anyway.

“By eliminating the specific responsibilities of the directors, the amendment lowers the standard for appointing directors — the governor and Executive Council will no longer be able to assess whether the Commissioner’s nominees have the education and experience necessary to serve New Hampshire’s kids and families,” the organization wrote.

Advocates are also concerned with the new amendment in terms of financial accountability and how public funds are used within the DOE. The amendment allows the education commissioner to move funds within the department at any time without approval if it’s under $75,000. That means Edelblut can transfer funds allocated for a specific purpose and reallocate them for something else.

“Transfer funds…as the commissioner deems necessary and appropriate to address present or projected budget deficits, or to respond to changes in federal laws, regulations, or programs, and otherwise as necessary for the efficient management of the department…,” the amendment states.

Reagan said the measure was intended to ensure the education commissioner could move funds where there is a need in the department.

“It’s for small amounts, like allowing office managers to use the funds for pencils to instead be used for toners,” he said.

The Legislature’s finance committees, the governor, and Executive Council still must approve transfers of $75,000 or more, but Reagan said they shouldn’t be “controlling” the department at “that level of detail.”

HB 356 has already gone through some changes before it was introduced to the Senate Education Committee on March 23. When it was first introduced in January by Ladd, it would simply tweak the base adequacy funding amount — the amount the state gives to a district per pupil — from $3,561.27 to $3,591.27, only a $30 increase.

He told the House Education Committee that he wanted to use the legislation as a starting point to eventually form a joint committee with the House and Senate to work on a new formula for the next year in time for the next biennium. The committee voted in favor of his amendment, essentially changing the bill establishing a committee to study education funding and the cost of an opportunity for an adequate education, and the House eventually passed the bill at the end of March.

The Senate Education Committee is expected to act on the legislation this month. Reagan’s amendment has not been formally introduced to the committee yet, but a public hearing on the bill has already happened before this amendment was known to members of the public. Advocates are calling to have another public hearing to discuss the amendment.

NH Journal reached out to Edelblut for comment and will update the story with a response.

 

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Confusion Surrounds School Science Standards in Concord, Local Communities

For one of Frank Edelblut’s first acts as education commissioner, he wanted the state Board of Education (BOE) to reconsider the state’s science standards, but they unanimously voted to reject his proposal. It’s expected to be the first of many issues that Edelblut and the BOE clash on throughout his term, highlighting the differences between pro-school choice Edelblut and public school advocates.

Last year, the board adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as the state’s standards after a lengthy two-year review process. The NGSS standards were developed by a consortium of 26 states and by the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council, and the nonprofit organization Achieve.

Several New Hampshire school districts had already adopted the NGSS, even though they aren’t bound by the state’s standards. Nearly 20 states have also implemented the NGSS across the country.

Reviewing the science standards was not an issue several board members were ready for at a BOE meeting on April 6.

“Why on Earth are we doing science?,” asked board member Cindy Chagnon. “What are we trying to give our schools and teachers whiplash or something?”

Edelblut said the review was his idea.

“So we in this state are aiming for high standards. And that’s really what we want. And I don’t know if the review was done prior to the adoption of this board or subsequently shortly thereafter, but those [science standards] have been evaluated by a third-party reviewer and rated as a ‘C’ standard,” he said.

The third-party reviewer Edelblut is referring to is the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a think tank that released a 2013 report giving the standards a “C” grade and told states to look elsewhere if they want to overhaul their standards.

“I don’t want to be the guy who’s responsible for a ‘C’ standard,” Edelblut said. “We want to have ‘A’ standards.”

Board members weren’t convinced though, since the state spent two years reviewing the standards and they had just been adopted in November. Reviewing them again would confuse schools and teachers who are starting to implement the standards.

“This would create chaos. This would create extra money spent. This would be ridiculous,” Chagnon said.

One board member suggested voting on a motion to make the board’s intentions clear that they wouldn’t touch the standards.

“I would hope that this board would support a commissioner who was interested in making sure that we have standards that represent the most contemporary, the most cutting-edge opportunities for our students,” Edelblut said.

Democrats were quick to point out that during Edelblut’s confirmation hearing in January, he assured Executive Council members and the public that his personal beliefs wouldn’t get in the way of his position, and he was largely “the implementation guy” for executing policy that the board, not him, largely decides.

The board ultimately voted unanimously not to review science standards until 2022.

The Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston, also weighed in on the controversy of New Hampshire of possibly looking at reviewing NGSS, calling the standards “disgracefully low” and “mediocre.”

“Our general take is that high performing states like Massachusetts and New Hampshire shouldn’t be adopting low quality standards,” said Jamie Gass, education policy director for the Pioneer Institute. “Unfortunately, that’s what we’re seeing more and more. Compliance with the D.C.-based outlook of K-12 is not in the educational best interest of the states.”

NGSS is not the same as the Common Core State Standards, which focus on math and English standards. Also, unlike the earlier roll out of Common Core, states have no federal financial incentives from grants to adopts the NGSS, so it’s completely voluntary. (The Every Student Succeeds Act, passed by Congress last year, removed those earlier financial incentives, though most states have chosen to keep the higher Common Core standards rather than revert). Specifically in New Hampshire, local school districts also aren’t forced to implement BOE policy.

“States should be developing their own standards,” Gass told NH Journal. “There’s no reason why New Hampshire couldn’t develop standards better than NGSS standards.”

However, even the discussion of reviewing the science standards is leading to ambiguity in cities and towns about the BOE’s commitment to the standards, said board member Helen Honorow at the meeting.

The Department of Education circulated a draft document about the status of the science standards, which was not approved by the BOE, leading to confusion in her city of Nashua, she said.

The Nashua Board of Education voted Tuesday to greenlight a pilot of the science standards in their schools, instead of delaying implementation while the state debates the issue.

Board President George Farrington called the delay a form of “political maneuvering.”

“For the last 18 months, I’ve heard, ‘Concord can’t tell us what to do,’ and now we have a change in leadership in Concord and we have to wait for the ‘white smoke’ up there to see what we can do,” he said. “The teachers are here tonight, and they’re saying, ‘This is what we want to do,’ and we’re saying, ‘We need to check it out because we’re better informed about it.’ “

The Nashua board passed a motion to allow a pilot program for the 2017-2018 academic year and the school would not formally adopt the standards until the conclusion and evaluation of the pilot.

Over 90 percent of New Hampshire school districts reported in November that they were already on the path to implementing NGSS.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Andru Volinsky Becomes Strong Critic of Gov. Sununu’s Agenda

A Democratic member of the state’s highest council is quickly becoming one of the fiercest critics of Gov. Chris Sununu’s agenda. Andru Volinsky, one of the two Democrats sitting on the five-member Executive Council, has been the most vocal about the differences in ideology between him and the governor, especially when it comes to education.

Volinsky, D-Concord, did not support Frank Edelblut’s nomination to be the next state education commissioner. During Edelblut’s nomination hearing in January, Volinsky pushed back on his background in public education and religious views.

The most tense exchange between the two men was over the fact that Edelblut sat on the board of Patrick Henry College, a private Christian liberal arts school in Virginia, and the the school had an “oath of faith” that all of its “agents” needed to sign, which included a belief in creationism over evolution.

“You will be the chief educator to whom all of the science teachers in our state will report. Do you subscribe to this such that the science teachers need to worry about whether you will require creationism to be taught alongside evolution?” Volinsky asked.

He treated his questioning of Edelblut like a court-room cross-examination, using poster board and an easel to showcase his points.

His long questioning at one point drew a rebuke from two of his Republican colleagues on the council, David Wheeler and Russell Prescott, who chastised him for taking too long and accused him of grandstanding. Edelblut, who previously made an unsuccessful bid to be the Republican gubernatorial nominee in 2016, was ultimately confirmed on a 3-2 vote that fell on party lines.

Volinsky also recently criticized Edelblut for not disclosing a $1,000 donation he made to the Croydon School Board’s legal defense fund in a school choice lawsuit brought on by the N.H. Department of Education, which he now has influence over as state education commissioner.

The state education department sued to block the town of Croydon’s practice of using public funds to pay private school tuition for some of its children. The dispute helped spur legislation, known as the “Croydon bill,” that would make the tuition practice explicitly legal.

Edelblut’s disclosure came after the Valley News reported that Croydon rejected a request to reveal the names of the donors to the $23,000 fund and Edelblut, for two weeks, declined to answer questions about his role.

Volinsky emailed Edelblut earlier this month to ask that he make public whether he had contributed to Croydon and to explain why he had not disclosed the donation previously.

“I contributed $1,000 to the Croydon legal defense fund,” Edelblut said in a reply email. “The contribution was made anonymously. I prefer the focus to stay on the cause and not draw attention to myself.”

Volinsky said he doesn’t think Edelblut’s contribution was a crime, but he should be more transparent about any potential conflict of interests.

“I was troubled by the fact that Mr. Edelblut did not respond to this request for disclosure and then reading his response, I’m equally concerned because he said the reason for anonymity was that he did not want to interfere with the cause,” Volinsky told NH1 News. “Think about it. He was running for governor. And the private schools [were] part of his platform. So he was already in the middle of this, number one. And number two, he’s describing the diversion of public funds to private schools as a cause for him. That is contrary to his testimony that he was merely an implementer, and it doesn’t speak well for him being candid during his confirmation process.”

He also said that he was concerned the new commissioner was seeking to further his own “agenda” rather than implement policy created by others. He tweeted, “Ed [Commissioner] secretly helped fund Croydon to support his ’cause’ — diverting public funds to pay for private schools. #edelblutagenda #nhpolitics”

It’s not surprising to see Volinsky come strongly out against Sununu’s education agenda. Volinsky is a lawyer who litigated landmark state education cases before the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and he ran for his seat on the Executive Council with the campaign promise to protect public school funding. Sununu has long been an advocate for school choice.

Volinsky’s comments about the “Edelblut agenda” have made waves in the conservative Twitter community, that sought to take his own words and discuss how the “Volinsky agenda” is bad for New Hampshire.

Volinsky then responded, reclaiming the term as his own and saying what he supports in his own education agenda.

Liberals and Democrats online rallied behind Volinsky’s agenda, posting why they agree and support him.

Volinsky even gave a speech about his agenda at to the New Hampshire State Teachers Association on March 17.

“Every morning with coffee I read my emails and my twitter feeds come through. This morning, some troll tweeted that Edelblut did nothing wrong and my complaints were only part of the #VolinskyAgenda,” he said. “I don’t respond to these things, but thought, the #VolinskyAgenda, huh? So, yea, I have an agenda. The #VolinskyAgenda is good schools, climate change, universal access to healthcare and reducing income inequality. That’s my damned agenda.”

Although it’s only been nearly four months since Sununu’s inauguration, many people are behind Volinsky’s agenda, which could possibly set him up for support for a gubernatorial bid in 2018 if he wanted to run.

It’s not often that Executive Councilors run for the corner office. The five-member regulatory board is charged with overseeing the administrative functions of the state government. The Executive Council advises the governor and provides the check for state contracts. The council also has veto power over pardons and state agency nominations by the governor.

For the first time in recent memory, the 2016 gubernatorial nominees were both Executive Councilors. Sununu was from Newfields in District 3 and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Colin Van Ostern of Concord sat in the District 2 seat.

With the council getting more public attention, it’s possible that Granite Staters could see more Executive Councilors running for higher office, and Volinsky could potentially be the next candidate.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.