Californians Want to Make Community College Free

College debt

A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California finds that 53 percent of Golden State adults believe that tuition-free community college should be a priority for the next governor. With the state reporting major cash surpluses, the incoming administration might be inclined to act. But zeroing out the cost of junior colleges won’t save California students much money and will only encourage waste and inefficiency in the state’s bloated higher education bureaucracy.

California residents pay only $46 per credit to attend community college. Full-time tuition and fees add up to about $1,200 annually. Students can earn that much by working just a few hours each week, gaining job experience, and honing their time management skills in the process. Furthermore, $1,200 is just the sticker price: lower income students receive financial aid packages that often exceed their tuition.

Peralta Community College District, which operates four campuses in Alameda County, reported revenues of $270 million for the 2016-17 school year to educate 15,768 full time equivalent students. This works out to $17,000 per student. But net tuition and fee revenue amounted to only $19 million and was more than offset by $38 million in financial aid expenses. Most of the district’s income came from state and federal subsidies as well as local property taxes.

And Peralta district voters are willing to give more. Last month, they approved an eight year extension of a parcel tax to provide continued operational funding and an $800 million bond measure to improve district facilities.

So taxpayers are already investing a lot in community colleges, but what are they getting? Only 30 percent of California community students graduate or transfer to four-year schools within six years of enrolling. Low educational attainment rates are, in part, the result of community colleges accepting students who are not ready for higher education: about 80 percent of new enrollees require some form of remedial education. Encouraging more unprepared students to enter the system through the offer of free tuition would likely reduce success rates even further.

While student preparation plays a role in poor educational outcomes, mismanagement at the institutions themselves also contributes to the problem. Although Peralta receives $17,000 to educate each student, much of this money is diverted to administrative staff and potentially misappropriated. Despite lower enrollment, the district added 23 administrators between 2012 and 2017. Meanwhile, both the district’s spokesperson and the chair of its citizen oversight committee stepped down from their positions and issued complaints about waste and corruption at Peralta.

Unfortunately, the problems aren’t limited to just one district. In 2013, City College of San Francisco nearly lost its accreditation largely due to financial management issues. Last year, California’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team found unsustainable fiscal conditions at Santa Barbara City College and Victor Valley Community College District.

Before throwing more money at these districts, state leaders should insist that they be more tightly managed. Meanwhile, legislators could save students money at no taxpayer cost by ordering community colleges to replace expensive textbooks with free online instructional materials. According to an online calculator provided by the state’s community college system, the estimated annual cost of books and supplies is greater than in-state tuition. Although the system has piloted a “zero-textbook-cost degree” program, it could be doing more to save students from having to buy latest edition textbooks and accompanying study guides.

“Tuition free community college” might be a great meme, but as a policy it leaves much to be desired. Current tuition costs are so low that they are not a meaningful barrier to attendance for serious students. Zeroing out tuition risks attracting more unserious students, driving down graduation rates and driving up the amount of tax money being wasted at these institutions.

Marc Joffe is a senior policy analyst at the Reason Foundation.

This article was originally published by Reason.com

UCI reverses restrictions on Republican group’s use of campus spaces pending appeal

As reported by the Orange County Register:

IRVINE – Restrictions on using meeting spaces placed Monday by UCI Student Center and Event Services management on the College Republicans at UCI were lifted Thursday after hundreds of calls and emails were received from concerned members of both political parties.

UCI spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon said under the direction of the vice chancellor for student affairs, the student center lifted the restrictions to give the Republican organization the opportunity to book spaces through the center until an appeal was submitted and reviewed.

But College Republicans at UCI chairman emeritus Robert Petrosyan said the organization had no intention of filing an appeal by the July 1 deadline.

“If we file an appeal, then we end up accepting the charges and the decision that the administration made to ban us in the first place,” he said. “That’s not what we want to do. We want the administration to withdraw the charge entirely, and also declare (the suspension) was wrong and it was an act of bias against our organization for political reasons.”

The club’s use …

Click here to read the full article

Pierce College Foundation inspires with grants, scholarships

graduation cap diploma isolated on a white background

Imagine you’re auditioning for a national commercial and you’re asked to read the line, “What can one person do?”

First, read the line as if you are completely discouraged.

Now try it again, this time believing you really can make a difference and all you’re asking is where to start.

Better.

That’s the way political science professor Denise Robb read the line when she stepped into the role of chair of the Foundation for Pierce College. Robb has volunteered long hours to strengthen the foundation, save the Pierce College farm, and raise money for scholarships to help community college students achieve their dreams.

“People don’t realize how big a difference financial help can make in the life of a community college student,” she said recently. “Out of the 29,000 we serve each year, only 14,000 of them are full-time. Of the full-time students, only 70 percent complete or transfer. Of the part-time students, more than half drop out. The main reason they give? Financial need. Textbook costs, tuition, additional expenses for classes.”

Last month, the foundation awarded $1,000 scholarships to 13 Pierce College students with inspiring stories and tough schedules, like Kelly Sharko, who’s studying to be a nurse while working full-time, and Jason Sturdivant, who grew up in poverty without a father at home and today is a U.S. Army veteran and the first member of his family to pursue an education.

“Forty-one percent of our students are the first in their family to attend college,” Robb said.

Andrea Amara is one of them. When her family endured tough times, she paid for her education by tutoring schoolchildren. The scholarship will help her reach her goal of a degree in computer science.

Another scholarship winner, business management student Barbara Lombrano, is a U.S. Navy veteran who served in the Gulf War and was elected the first female commander of American Legion Post 502 in Moorpark.

Mary Anselmo and Noura Hervani each received scholarships funded by a $50,000 endowment from the Reseda Women’s Club. The checks were presented by longtime club member Evelyn Morris, who recently celebrated her 100th birthday. Ever since her own children were students at Pierce, Morris has been a passionate advocate for agriculture education and for the Pierce College farm.

Robb has been working to build support for permanently protecting the roughly 200-acre farm from the possibility of commercial or residential real estate development. She now has a stack of letters and statements from elected officials, faculty and staff unions, and local civic and business groups. They’re all backing her call for a study of preservation methods that would allow the college to use the farm land for education, but never again to sell or lease pieces of it for commercial purposes.

Unfortunately, most of the members of the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees, the people with the power to authorize that study, have not allowed Professor Robb into their offices to make her case.

“It’s proving far more difficult than I anticipated,” she said.

Don’t expect that to stop her. Recently Robb secured a $25,000 grant from the Annenberg Foundation for the farm and renewed a $660,000 grant from Amgen for students and teachers to learn DNA sequencing. And she has recruited new board members for the Foundation to help raise more money for scholarships. “We read essays from 116 students,” Robb said, “It was almost impossible to whittle it down to 13.”

Scholarships went to chemistry major Linda Nguyen, architecture student Paul Macander, sociology students Brenda Lopez and Liliana Flores, science and engineering student Maria Benavides, business administration major Jasmine Boyle and philosophy major Katie Rogers, who worked from the age of 15 to help support her three siblings when her parents lost their business. Rogers put aside her dream of attending a major university after her father developed health problems and she was needed at home. She hopes one day to become an attorney.

“I know that a student from a low-income family statistically isn’t as successful when it comes to obtaining higher education,” Rogers wrote in her essay. “My goal is to beat the statistics.”

What can one person do?

Make a tax-deductible contribution to the Foundation for Pierce College, 6201 Winnetka Ave., Woodland Hills, Calif., 91371, or online at http://foundation.piercecollege.edu.

And ask the board of trustees why some of them won’t meet with Professor Robb about preserving the farm. Call board president Scott Svonkin at (213) 891-2044 or fax your thoughts to him at (213) 891-2035.

California State University faculty protest, threaten to strike

As reported by the The Sun:

Faculty from throughout the state protested Tuesday at the Cal State University chancellor’s office in Long Beach, threatening to strike after locking horns with administrators over pay.

The California Faculty Association voted in October to authorize a strike should an agreement not be reached. The union is demanding a 5 percent salary increase for 2015-16, while management for the 23-campus system has offered a 2 percent pay raise — the same increase authorized for all other CSU employee groups.

Tuesday’s protest was timed to coincide with the Board of Trustees meeting in Long Beach. …

Click here to read the full article

CA Student Debt “Crisis” Attracting Varying Attention

graduation college debtWhile California students mustered to lead a nationwide movement for college debt relief, policymakers and innovators grappled with the issue in ways of their own.

Students in the UC system — particularly the Berkeley campus — have taken a central role in pushing the co-called Million Student March. Protest organizers have announced a sweeping agenda including “a $15 minimum wage for student employees on college campuses, free tuition at public universities, and the abolition of student debt,” according to Time. “The Million Student March was an idea that started with a remark made by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, stating elected officials wouldn’t care about supporting higher education until a million students were out marching,” as UCSA President Kevin Sabo told the Daily Californian.

An uncertain path

The latest elements of student debt policy emanating from Washington have been a mixed bag. The new revisions to the federal Pay As You Earn program “will let all borrowers with federal direct student loans who are not in default cap their monthly payments at 10 percent of discretionary income, no matter when they borrowed or their debt-to-income ratio,” as the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Meanwhile, a twist in federal robocall law has raised the specter of heightened fraud risks for targeted students. “Under the new provision, robocalls could only be directed at people with student loans backed by the federal government,” noted KOMO Channel 4 News. “For many, that’s just one more opportunity for scammers and deceptive marketers to expand their operations. State and federal regulators already have their hands full with illegal companies that make unsolicited calls claiming they can help consumers consolidate student loan debt or get loan modifications  for a large and illegal up-front free.”

Tuition politics

Californians have actually fared better than others as the debt crisis continues its upward spiral. “Students graduating from California colleges had just $21,382 in loans, fourth-lowest among the states,” the Institute for College Access and Success noted in its tenth annual report on student debt, according to the Chronicle.

“The state’s Cal Grant program pays up to the full cost of systemwide tuition and fees at University of California and California State University campuses, and up to a certain dollar amount ($9,084 in 2014-15) at qualifying private colleges. These grants, available to California residents from low- and moderate-income families, have helped defray soaring tuition.”

ICAS research director Debbie Cochrane told the Chronicle that “tuition at UC and CSU campuses rose 128 percent, but the average debt for public-college graduates rose only 43 percent” over the past 10 years.

But some Golden State politicos have sought to frame state education as a crisis in need of broad new government support. Along with UC Regent Eloy Ortiz, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his support for an initiative called California College Promise, “a bold effort to offer two tuition-free years of community college for responsible students,” as they argued in the San Jose Mercury News. “This promise is true to California’s tradition of advancing our educational system at critical junctures to present future generations with better opportunities to succeed,” they wrote.

Disrupting debt

At the same time, student debt has attracted the attention of California’s startup scene. One new highly selective startup school, Make School, offers a two-year curriculum in tech — “billed as ‘debt-free education,’” as the Mercury News reported. “Ashu Desai, the 23-year-old cofounder of Make School, said widespread concerns about student debt and abuses in the for-profit college sector influenced his decision not to charge tuition up front. Instead, the school charges a percentage of graduates’ wages — or, alternatively, an investment in their startup — instead of a flat fee.”

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Shocker: American College Students Don’t Know Squat About The Constitution

ConstitutionThe American public continues to show a staggering level of ignorance about the basic principles of America’s Constitution and government, according to a new survey put out by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA).

ACTA, which promotes high standards and a core curriculum for college students, commissioned a survey of 383 college graduates nationwide and quizzed them on basic American civics via a series of multiple-choice. The result were, for the most part, appalling.

When asked to choose among a list of four people which was on the U.S. Supreme Court, only 62 percent correctly chose Elena Kagan, while 10 percent chose Judith Sheindlin, better known to most of America as Judge Judy. One third of respondents couldn’t correctly identify the Bill of Rights as a series of amendments to the Constitution, only 54 percent could correctly state the term lengths for U.S. senators and representatives, and 32 percent thought John Boehner was president of the Senate rather than speaker of the House.

On some questions, an incorrect answer even drew more support than the correct one. Fifty-nine percent of respondents labeled Thomas Jefferson the “Father of the Constitution” (he in fact played no role is its creation), while only 28 percent correctly assigned that title to James Madison. Forty-three percent believed that a constitutional amendment requires presidential approval, slightly above the 42 percent who correctly said an amendment requires approval from three-fourths of the states.

There were a handful of bright spots, though. Eighty-four percent correctly said the right to an education is not a part of the First Amendment, and a solid 66 percent knew that habeas corpus protects against unlawful imprisonment.

The survey was released to coincide with Constitution Day, set to be commemorated Sept. 17. ACTA president Anne Neal argued in a statement that low constitutional literacy isn’t just embarrassing, but a threat to genuine democracy.

“The findings are deeply troubling and underscore how our educational institutions are utterly failing to prepare our next leaders for citizenship,” Neal said. “In a republic which depends on an educated citizenry, it’s crucial that all Americans — especially college graduates — are fully familiar with the rights and responsibilities set out in the Constitution.”

ACTA’s goal in releasing the survey is to encourage a strengthening of U.S. civics education at the college level. The organization claims in its press release that only 18 percent of U.S. colleges require students to take a class in U.S. history or government in order to graduate.

Follow Blake on Twitter

Send tips to [email protected].

California Trains Professors To Avoid ‘Microaggressions’

University of CaliforniaUniversity of California president Janet Napolitano’s office has been training faculty members at the University of California to avoid describing America as a “land of opportunity,” along with other phrases the school claims are offensive “microaggressions.”

According to activists, “microaggressions” are subtle actions, usually unintentional, that perpetuate discrimination against disadvantaged groups even in environments where overt discrimination has been abolished. Now, the UC system has fully committed itself to formally training faculty to avoid and root out these perceived microaggressions for the good of all.

The attack on microaggressions is the centerpiece of a series of faculty leadership seminars carried out by Napolitano’s office at several campuses across the UC system. One document used in the seminars is titled Tool: Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send, and lists dozens of menacing microaggressions for faculty to avoid.

One of the largest categories of microaggressions are those that that promote the “myth of meritocracy.” According to the document, this “myth” is spread by statements such as “America is the land of opportunity,” “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” and “Affirmative action is racist.”

Other examples of sinister microaggressions, according to the guide, include:

  • Describing America as a “melting pot” (it orders people to assimilate)
  • Stating that “there is only one race, the human race” (denying the significance of a person’s ethnic or racial history)
  • Asking Asians, Hispanics, or Native Americans to speak up more (“pathologizing” foreign norms and treating white norms as “normal”)
  • Using “he” as a generic pronoun for all people (it makes the male experience universal and the female experience “invisible”)
  • Using forms where individuals must identify as male or female (it excludes the full LGBT experience)

The guide was used in faculty training sessions for UC faculty members throughout the 2014-15 school year, but its contents only recently drew more widespread attention when one professor notified The College Fix about the materials.

A PowerPoint used for seminar in April shows the dramatic tollvUC believes even a single microaggression take on students. Even a simple compliment, such as calling a student “articulate,” can set off a cascade of self-doubt and anxiety for the recipient

A second document instructs faculty on the proper ways to intervene against microaggressions. For example, if a person commits the offense of starting a sentence with “You people”, a suggested reaction is to say “I was so upset by that remark that I shut down and couldn’t hear anything else.”

Microaggressions aren’t the only threat faculty have been taught to mind. Another document, the Tool for Identifying Implicit Bias, instructs faculty how to avoid being biased in evaluations or hiring decisions. The document singles out phrases such as “hard worker” as being “euphemisms” for bias that must be rooted out.

Follow Blake on Twitter

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Teachers Union Determined to Purge Koch Brothers from College Campuses

Koch BrothersThe National Education Association’s mission to drive Charles and David Koch, the two wealthy philanthropist brothers from Kansas, into the sea is showing no signs of slowing down. According to its latest Labor Department filing, the nation’s biggest union gifted $150,000 (up from a mere $100,000 the year before) to the American Bridge, a leftist hit-PAC whose mission is to annihilate every politico whose politics run to the right of the late Joe Stalin. (Nothing new here: Over the years, NEA has lavished gifts on such leftist stalwarts as MALDEF, People for the American Way, Media Matters, ACORN, Al Sharpton’s National Action Network and Occupy Wall Street.)

The American Bridge’s latest gambit is to remove the Koch brothers’ influence from 250 campuses where they support educational initiatives in economics, philosophy, entrepreneurship, criminal justice and other disciplines. A recent case in point: Mississippi State will soon launch the Institute for Market Studies, which was made possible in part by a $365,000 grant from the Charles Koch Foundation. But before its launch, American Bridge filed an open-records request seeking emails between professors, and between the school’s faculty and the Koch foundation. This is nothing more than an intimidation tactic to discourage the faculty from participating in the venture.

Sadly the above is hardly an isolated incident. “UnKoch My Campus,” another group of NEA fellow travelers, is busy all over the country trying rid our schools of the dreaded brothers. From the NEA website,

Between 2005 and 2013, the billionaire Koch brothers spent at least $68 million on college and university campuses — to fund faculty, research and publications, and to spread their anti-worker gospel to generations of students.

Last week, NEA Higher Ed faculty and staff leaders sat down in a windowless room in Orlando, Fla., and pledged to shine a light on those Koch campus investments — as well as the pernicious effects of the broad ‘corporatization’ of public higher education.

This is about corporate interests trying to control higher education. The Koch brothers are just one of those interests,’ said Theresa Montano, president of NEA’s National Council for Higher Education, who called for greater transparency of where that money goes and what exactly it buys.

After reading the above, one would think that the Kochs want to exploit and corporatize the schools they donate to, and run them as right wing monoliths. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Kochs are libertarians which pretty much rules out the dictator angle. But in another post on the NEA website, we learn the real reason for the NEA’s enmity toward the brothers – the Kochs want to “… limit the rights of teachers, firefighters, police and other public workers through ‘right to work’ legislation and the elimination of fair share.”

There it is! The union dreads the Kochs, not because they want to rule the world but because they have the audacity to want to free workers from being forced to join a union if they don’t choose to. And freedom to the unions is like a crucifix to Dracula. Lindsey Berger, the co-founder of UnKoch My Campus, pretty much admits this. Quoted on the NEA website, she says, “Every dollar spent by Koch in academics is there for a reason.” And then, quoting Charles Koch, “There are basically four ways in which we can fight for free enterprise. Through education, through the media, by legal challenge, and by political action…I do maintain however that the educational route is the most vital and most neglected.”

So in addition to worker freedom, we can add “fighting for free enterprise” as a reason why the union loathes the brothers.

Are the NEA and friends’ attempts at capitalism-bashing effective? It has worked on college campuses where many students are taught that capitalism is the root of all evil (while they enjoy their  many toys and comfy lifestyle that were created by it.) They are also not taught that a competitive market and freedom of speech are inexorably tied, or that the most successful countries in the world employ free markets, or that global poverty has been cut in half in the last 20 years primarily due to capitalism.

As the battles rage on our college campuses, the anti-Koch strategy may not be working so well in the political realm, however. In fact, several Democratic officials have blamed their party’spoor showing in the 2014 election on its obsession with the brothers. “[Attacking the Koch brothers] raises money for sure. But is it good to motivate a voter? No,” said one anonymous state party executive director. Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party chairman Ken Martin said, “Americans are focused on bread and butter issues and could care less about who is funding the campaigns.”

No matter. The NEA won’t stop its assault on the Kochs. The union’s leaders are obsessed to the point of derangement, as worker freedom and free markets are anathema to their existence. The Kochs scare them to death. As well they should.

Originally published by UnionWatch.org

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

TAX REBELLION: Obama Abandons Plan To Tax Americans’ College Savings

President Barack Obama is abandoning his proposal to eliminate Section 529 – the popular tax break used by millions of Americans to save for college — following a big backlash, not only from Republicans and parents, but also from his own Democratic allies.

“Given it has become such a distraction, we’re not going to ask Congress to pass the 529 provision so that they can instead focus on delivering a larger package of education tax relief that has bipartisan support, as well as the president’s broader package of tax relief for child care and working families,” a White House official said Tuesday.

According to The New York Times, Obama and his advisers were lobbied directly by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi while she flew with the president on a flight from India to Saudi Arabia. Other Democrats, including House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen, were also big critics of the proposal.

So-called 529 plans (named for a part of the tax code) are a popular way for many Americans to save for higher education, as any withdrawals made from the plans are not subject to taxation as long as they are used to pay for college. The plans were a part of the 2001 Bush tax cuts, and Obama himself voted to make them permanent in 2006, using them to save $240,000 for his daughter’s educations. According to the College Savings Plans Network, about 12 million children are estimated to be the beneficiaries of such accounts, spread across 7 million households. (RELATED: Obama Pushing Taxes He Fought Against In The Senate And In His Book)

Obama had argued that 529 plans primarily benefit high earners, but critics argued that it was also a popular option for millions of middle-class households as well. Just hours before the White House caved on Tuesday, Speaker of the House John Boehner slammed the proposal, saying that the plans ”help middle-class families save for college, but now the president wants to tax those plans.”

Some state treasurers spoke out as well, since their states have tried to encourage college savings by offering to match contributions to the plans up to a certain dollar amount.

While the White House countered that any loss for the middle class from 529 reform would be offset by other college affordability proposals the president was making, the backlash ultimately proved too great and forced the president into a hasty retreat.

“This was a textbook case of the broad middle class of the country rising up in a true brushfire rebellion,” Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. ”Oh, and if this was a dress rehearsal for increasing taxes on IRAs and 401(k)s, consider the experiment a failure.”

While the 529 tax hike is gone, Obama is still pushing for an increase in the capital gains tax rate, and for the closure of a loophole that reduces the amount of capital gains tax paid on inherited assets. These increases, it is hoped, will in turn provide the money to fund several proposals Obama has made to try reducing the cost of college, such as expanding tuition tax credits and providing two free years of community college.

Follow Blake on Twitter

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Obama’s attempt to regulate private colleges rejected

The Obama administration has suffered a rebuke in its effort to regulate private-sector colleges, after a federal judge ruled that a proposed rule restricting bonuses for college recruiters was enacted without any proper evidence or justification for its existence.

The ruling is the second setback of its type for Obama’s Department of Education in three years.

Federal law has for decades banned educational recruiters from receiving compensation based on the number of students they enroll, in order to discourage aggressive sales tactics, fraud and other harmful behaviors. However, during the Obama administration a major push has been made to tighten this rule in order to prevent what the administration says are evasive practices.

In 2011, the Department of Education eliminated 12 “safe harbors” that allowed bonus compensation for recruiters in certain circumstances, including one that allowed for recruiters to receive bonuses based on how many students they recruited who graduated, rather than merely enrolled. The Association of Private Sector Colleges (APSCU) and Universities promptly sued, arguing the restrictions were illegal and offered without justification. In 2012 a federal court ruled on their behalf concerning the graduation bonus and ordered the Department of Education to provide better reasoning for its rules.

In its second attempt, the Obama administration argued that the graduation bonus was an effort to evade the ban on enrollment bonuses, since all students must enroll to graduate.

That reasoning doesn’t fly, wrote Judge Rosemary Collyer of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“If accepted, this rationale would allow the Department to ban all incentive-based compensation in higher education, as enrollment is always a necessary predicate to any assessment of program,” wrote Collyer in her ruling.

The Department of Education also attempted to justify the rule by claiming that recruiters were driving students towards shorter, less rigorous programs that they were more likely to graduate from, but which would help the students less than other programs. That might be true, Collyer said, but if it is, the federal government has provided no evidence that is the case.

“The Department does not identify factual grounds in the record for its concerns,” Collyer says. Even though it would have been “a simple matter” for the Department of Education to back up its claims more substantively, Collyer said, it failed entirely to do so, dooming its case.

Collyer also pointed out that federal laws concerning higher education are written with the explicitly stated goal of boosting graduation from postsecondary institutions. Incentivizing graduation would appear to help that goal, not hinder it, said Collyer, and the government had totally failed to explain how that was not the case. Nor had the government responded to an argument made by for-profit colleges that its rules would hinder the college graduation rates of minority students by prohibiting certain incentives to recruit them.

APSCU released a statement after the ruling saying it was “pleased” and requesting that the Department of Education to start its proposed for-profit college regulations from scratch.  The Department of Education has not said what is planned response is.

This article was originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation