The Trump administration and some members of Congress are working to weaken protections for online students by rescinding an array of regulations that protect students and by weakening or eliminating the federal entities that enforce those protections, the U.S. Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
The attacks on student protections have been numerous. For example, members of Congress have advocated eliminating federal rules that provide debt relief to students who were defrauded by their schools or whose schools have closed without warning, as well as rules that protect students and taxpayers from investing in programs that provide little or no benefit to graduates. In addition, the Trump administration has started to implement its plan to dismantle the Department of Education, which enforces these rules: on March 11, the department announced mass layoffs that shrunk its capacity by half. The Trump administration has also gutted the CFPB, which protects borrowers from abuses by student loan lenders, servicers, and for-profit colleges.
Amid these efforts to weaken students’ protections, The Century Foundation (TCF) partnered with Morning Consult to survey voters from across the political spectrum about their views on the federal government’s role in higher education. The polling revealed that a majority of voters support strengthening, rather than weakening, college students’ consumer protections. In fact, a strong majority favor ensuring that students engaged in online education have the same protections as in-person students. Most voters also favor strengthening federal oversight of colleges to protect prospective college students from predatory recruitment and other misconduct.
Today, online college students have limited federal protections. Online students at public and nonprofit institutions are often enrolled in online programs run by for-profit companies known as online program managers (OPMs). OPMs contract with public or nonprofit colleges to develop and manage online degree programs. OPMs are not directly regulated by the federal government, nor are they held to the same reporting requirements or accountability standards as their college partners. As a result, the federal government does not know how many college students are enrolled in programs operated by OPMs, how much federal funding is going to OPMs, or how well OPM-operated programs are serving students.
The lack of federal oversight over online higher education leaves online students vulnerable to investing in low-quality programs and to abuse by predatory companies. For example, OPMs have been reported to engage in predatory recruitment of students of color, low-income students, and student veterans. OPMs have also advertised low-value, high-cost programs to students, and misled students about the quality of these programs.
OPMs are not the only source of risk to college students. Predatory for-profit colleges also prey upon low-income students and students of color by using deceptive marketing tactics to lure students into taking out student loans for high-cost, low-quality programs. These programs may be in person or online. In some cases, predatory schools lure students with false promises of career success or earning boosts, when in fact the programs often leave students with few job options and heavy debt burdens. For-profit college owners and investors pocket billions in federal funds—$2.8 billion in 2023 alone—but frequently offer programs that leave students worse off than if they had never enrolled.
Although hundreds of thousands of students have fallen victim to predatory conduct by for-profit schools, the Trump administration and some members of Congress have indicated an intention to weaken oversight of colleges and eliminate the program that makes sure that defrauded students get relief for the federal loans they took out to attend predatory schools. This program, referred to as the “Borrower Defense” program, has enabled more than 1 million students to receive loan relief in the amount of more than $21 billion. Without this program, defrauded students will be left struggling to pay off debt for worthless degrees.
As seen below, polling results show that 74 percent of voters agree that the federal government should do more to protect students from predatory institutions that lie to prospective applicants to get them to enroll.
FIGURE 1
While the Trump administration has said that it favors state rather than federal oversight of educational institutions, state oversight of online college programs is currently hampered by a multistate agreement, the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA), that provides few very consumer protections for online students and also prohibits states with strong higher-education-specific consumer protection laws from enforcing these laws to protect students enrolled online at SARA schools that are based outside the state. This creates a two-tiered system in states with strong protections—students in those states enrolled at brick-and-mortar schools have stronger consumer protections than students in those states enrolled in online SARA schools based outside the state. So for example, in states with laws to protect students in the event of a sudden school closure, such as student tuition relief funds, students enrolled at out-of-state SARA schools do not have the same protections as brick-and-mortar students.
In addition, SARA is administered by an organization, NC-SARA, whose board has veto power over any changes to SARA policy. The board includes representatives of regulated institutions and other individuals who are not accountable to the SARA member states and may have conflicts of interest. This means that if SARA member states want to strengthen consumer protections for online students at SARA participating schools, they have to get these past a board composed, in part, of the regulated institutions themselves.
While SARA’s policy creates a two-tiered system in which some online students do not have the same consumer protections as in-person students, TCF’s polling found that voters support equal consumer protections for online students. Figure 2 illustrates that 71 percent of voters agree that students in online-only college programs should have the same consumer protections as in-person college students.
FIGURE 2
SARA results in fewer consumer protections for some online students, but there is no reason to think that online students are at less risk of fraud than brick-and-mortar students. Between the risks to online students from unscrupulous for-profit colleges and OPMs, there is a need for stronger federal protections for online students. Voters agree: federal protections should be strengthened to ensure that online students are afforded the same protections as students enrolled in brick and mortar colleges.
Tags: student loans, tuition, Student protections, online college
New Polling Reveals Support for Strengthening, Not Weakening, Protections for Online College Students
The Trump administration and some members of Congress are working to weaken protections for online students by rescinding an array of regulations that protect students and by weakening or eliminating the federal entities that enforce those protections, the U.S. Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
The attacks on student protections have been numerous. For example, members of Congress have advocated eliminating federal rules that provide debt relief to students who were defrauded by their schools or whose schools have closed without warning, as well as rules that protect students and taxpayers from investing in programs that provide little or no benefit to graduates. In addition, the Trump administration has started to implement its plan to dismantle the Department of Education, which enforces these rules: on March 11, the department announced mass layoffs that shrunk its capacity by half. The Trump administration has also gutted the CFPB, which protects borrowers from abuses by student loan lenders, servicers, and for-profit colleges.
Amid these efforts to weaken students’ protections, The Century Foundation (TCF) partnered with Morning Consult to survey voters from across the political spectrum about their views on the federal government’s role in higher education. The polling revealed that a majority of voters support strengthening, rather than weakening, college students’ consumer protections. In fact, a strong majority favor ensuring that students engaged in online education have the same protections as in-person students. Most voters also favor strengthening federal oversight of colleges to protect prospective college students from predatory recruitment and other misconduct.
Today, online college students have limited federal protections. Online students at public and nonprofit institutions are often enrolled in online programs run by for-profit companies known as online program managers (OPMs). OPMs contract with public or nonprofit colleges to develop and manage online degree programs. OPMs are not directly regulated by the federal government, nor are they held to the same reporting requirements or accountability standards as their college partners. As a result, the federal government does not know how many college students are enrolled in programs operated by OPMs, how much federal funding is going to OPMs, or how well OPM-operated programs are serving students.
The lack of federal oversight over online higher education leaves online students vulnerable to investing in low-quality programs and to abuse by predatory companies. For example, OPMs have been reported to engage in predatory recruitment of students of color, low-income students, and student veterans. OPMs have also advertised low-value, high-cost programs to students, and misled students about the quality of these programs.
OPMs are not the only source of risk to college students. Predatory for-profit colleges also prey upon low-income students and students of color by using deceptive marketing tactics to lure students into taking out student loans for high-cost, low-quality programs. These programs may be in person or online. In some cases, predatory schools lure students with false promises of career success or earning boosts, when in fact the programs often leave students with few job options and heavy debt burdens. For-profit college owners and investors pocket billions in federal funds—$2.8 billion in 2023 alone—but frequently offer programs that leave students worse off than if they had never enrolled.
Although hundreds of thousands of students have fallen victim to predatory conduct by for-profit schools, the Trump administration and some members of Congress have indicated an intention to weaken oversight of colleges and eliminate the program that makes sure that defrauded students get relief for the federal loans they took out to attend predatory schools. This program, referred to as the “Borrower Defense” program, has enabled more than 1 million students to receive loan relief in the amount of more than $21 billion.1 Without this program, defrauded students will be left struggling to pay off debt for worthless degrees.
As seen below, polling results show that 74 percent of voters agree that the federal government should do more to protect students from predatory institutions that lie to prospective applicants to get them to enroll.
FIGURE 1
While the Trump administration has said that it favors state rather than federal oversight of educational institutions, state oversight of online college programs is currently hampered by a multistate agreement, the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA), that provides few very consumer protections for online students and also prohibits states with strong higher-education-specific consumer protection laws from enforcing these laws to protect students enrolled online at SARA schools that are based outside the state. This creates a two-tiered system in states with strong protections—students in those states enrolled at brick-and-mortar schools have stronger consumer protections than students in those states enrolled in online SARA schools based outside the state. So for example, in states with laws to protect students in the event of a sudden school closure, such as student tuition relief funds, students enrolled at out-of-state SARA schools do not have the same protections as brick-and-mortar students.
In addition, SARA is administered by an organization, NC-SARA, whose board has veto power over any changes to SARA policy. The board includes representatives of regulated institutions and other individuals who are not accountable to the SARA member states and may have conflicts of interest. This means that if SARA member states want to strengthen consumer protections for online students at SARA participating schools, they have to get these past a board composed, in part, of the regulated institutions themselves.
While SARA’s policy creates a two-tiered system in which some online students do not have the same consumer protections as in-person students, TCF’s polling found that voters support equal consumer protections for online students. Figure 2 illustrates that 71 percent of voters agree that students in online-only college programs should have the same consumer protections as in-person college students.
FIGURE 2
SARA results in fewer consumer protections for some online students, but there is no reason to think that online students are at less risk of fraud than brick-and-mortar students. Between the risks to online students from unscrupulous for-profit colleges and OPMs, there is a need for stronger federal protections for online students. Voters agree: federal protections should be strengthened to ensure that online students are afforded the same protections as students enrolled in brick and mortar colleges.
Notes
Tags: student loans, tuition, Student protections, online college