Education Department lifts restrictions on colleges seeking to change accreditors
The Education Department published a Dear Colleague Letter that informs colleges they won't have to go through "a lengthy process before changing an accreditor" by revoking guidance previously issued by the Biden administration.
"We must foster a competitive marketplace both amongst accreditors and colleges and universities in order to lower college costs and refocus postsecondary education on improving academic and workforce outcomes for students and families," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement.
The Education Department's actions revoked policies issued in a pair of Dear Colleague Letters by the previous administration that created a process that analyzed universites' decisions to switch accreditors.
The new guidance stated that colleges and universities can switch to a new accreditor that "better aligns with a religious mission," if there is a shift in the type of economic programs offered, if a change is required by state law, or if it wants to leave an accreditor for standards it imposes on the institution such as adopting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion practices.
"It is not the department's prerogative to infer any other meanings from the basic requirements or contrive a multi-step investigation," the Education Department's letter stated. "This guidance re-establishes a simple process that will remove unneccessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation."
Colleges and universities must undergo accreditation to receive federal student aid, with an accreditor that takes everything a school does under consideration to make an accreditation determination.
McMahon said the change came in response to an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in April which said that a group of higher education accreditors "are the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year," and that the accreditors are to govern which institutions offer a worthy education "and therefore merit accreditation."
"President Trump's executive order and our actions today will ensure this department no longer stands as a gatekeeper to block aspiring innovators from becoming new accreditors nor will this department unnecessarily micromanage an institution's choice of accreditor," she said.
The order alleged that "accreditors have remained improperly focused on compelling adoption of discriminatory ideology," and utilize "unlawfully discriminatory practices" related to DEI-based standards of accreditation.
The Education Department's Tuesday letter also moratorium set during the Biden administration on the acceptance and review of applications for the establishment of potential new accreditors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Woman Is Going Viral For Hilariously Explaining The Brutal Truth About The US's Student Loan Crisis
I doubt it'll come as a surprise to anyone under 45, but according to nearly "one in six adult Americans" has federal student loan debt, and the New York Times reports that millennials hold the bulk of that debt. Back in May, President Trump resumed collections on previously defaulted student loans, which had been paused since 2020. Combined with the government allowing loan servicers to report late payments to credit bureaus again (which had also been on pause), the New York Times said that millions of people have seen their credit scores drop, and "a record number of borrowers are [now] at risk of defaulting by the end of the year." Student loans have continued to be a point of contention politically as well, with many conservatives arguing against student loan forgiveness, saying it's akin to getting something for free. However, younger people contend that the loans are predatory, unaffordable, and feel impossible to pay off, sometimes even after they've been making regular payments for years. Zoë Tyler, aka thezolyspirit, recently went viral in a video where she jokingly laid out exactly what the student loan crisis looks like in reality. Zoë started out the video satirically, in a perfect mid-Atlantic accent, with a text overlay that says, "What boomers think the student loan crisis is...": "Oh, yes," she said, "Well, I, I know I said I would pay back those student loans, but I... I've decided I don't want to," she said with a smile. "I don't ever want to grow up. I want to stay a child forever." @thezolyspirit / Via Then, she switched immediately back to her normal speaking voice with a text overlay that says "What it actually is..." as she began imitating a one-sided phone call. "Hi, yes, um — so, I have my student loan pulled up here — I've been making the minimum payment on time for 10 years, and I now owe more than I took out. So I just… I was wondering what's that about?" she asked. @thezolyspirit / Via "The interest accrues faster than you can pay it off? Oh, that's…that's you guys are able to do that." "What is the interest, by the way? I can't… It's 13%? Okay. That makes sense, that…that it would be that." Then, Zoë begins a new conversation. "Hi! I just graduated, and I noticed that my student loans are way more than I originally took out. It was accruing interest while I was at school? Uh. Hmm. But it says the principle is more than I took [out]..." @thezolyspirit / Via "When I graduated, you combined the accruing interest into the principle, so now… I took out $55,000, and it's saying that it accrued $20,000 while I was at school. So now, instead of taking the 10% interest off of $55,000, you're taking 10% interest off of $75,000? Wow!" @thezolyspirit / Via The video ended with Zoë signing off the call. "All right, well, uh, thank you. What was your name, sir? One more time? Beelzebub? Okay, thank you." People in the comments were quick to back Zoë up, pointing out that they'd had similar experiences with their own loans. "I borrowed $17k and they want $60k back. They need to be fr lmao," said one person. "My husband, after paying for 13 years, checked his student loan breakdown. Turns out, of the 350$ a month he has been paying on time for 13+ years, only .16 CENTS a month goes toward the principle balance." "atp my student loans are an issue between the government and god." Others pointed out how much costs have changed since the baby boomers were in school. "Tuitions and Fees have gone up 133% since the 80s." U.S. News & World Report confirms this statistic, with the qualifier that it is in regard to in-state tuition and fees at public national universities, and is not adjusted for inflation. "My FIL [father-in-law] paid for his college and his living expenses for the entire year by working an entry level construction job in the summer. No way anyone could do that now-a-days. A summer job wouldn't even cover books and fees." The conversation made its way over to Twitter (X) as well, when the video was shared with the comment, "A TikTok that explains the student-loan crisis better than any politician or journalist can, in 93 seconds." Quoting a response to the original tweet, they also said, "This is not 'basic finance,' these are exploitative non-negotiable terms which makes this a form of predatory lending." "If you get a 7-year car loan and make the minimum payment every month, the loan will be paid off in 7 years... It's literally only student loans that are like this." Unsurprisingly, there were commenters who felt that borrowers were the ones responsible for their debt. "Crying about being responsible for your choices just shows how out of touch that generation is," said one person. "What this tik tok explains really well is that people didn't learn the right things in college." "Do not sign don't understand. Especially don't do that and then try to make it other people's problem." But others pushed back, pointing out that people took these loans out when they were still teenagers, usually with a promise that going to college would help them earn more money later. "Worst part is people will see this and say 'well you as a 17/18 y/o should have realized how predatory it was.'" "Telling 18 year olds that they have to go to college to be successful and not fully explaining to them what loans are like is diabolical." "a lot of us were just shuffled through a line and told to sign a sheet of paper so we could go to school, all with minimal explanation of any of it." And finally, this commenter summed it up best: "But make sure you pay them off whilst also buying a house, paying for a wedding, and having children all whilst earning proportionally less than they ever did because wages are stagnant, ok? You can do it if you just cancel your Netflix." You can see Zoë's full video below: @thezolyspirit / Via And now I have to know: What do you think? Are you still paying off student loans? Do you feel they should be forgiven, or at least reduced after a decade of payments? Let us know in the comments. And if you'd like to remain anonymous, you can use the form below.
Buzz Feed
24 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
This Senator Made A Very, Very Good Point About Trump's Weird Comment About Gold
A bunch of Donald Trump's new tariffs went into effect on August 7. But there's one thing that won't be hit with a tariff, and that's gold. Yep, gold is off the table! Some people pointed how that this could be because of all of the gold in the Oval Office. Other people compared him to an Austin Powers villain. And this person said, "I miss when the federal government wasn't a meme." But one reply to Trump's post is going more viral than the rest, and it's from Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. Here's what he said: "Trump could have cancelled tariffs on groceries, clothing, back-to-school supplies – any one of a number of things that would have reduced costs for American families. Instead, he chose gold." NextGen America responded to that comment, "Trumponomics, simplified: More golden ballrooms for him, more tariffs for the rest of us." Thoughts?
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration invalidates California's emissions reduction agreement with truck manufacturers
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has declared that an emissions agreement between California and four major truck makers is 'unenforceable' — paving the way for noncompliance with the Golden State's pollution rules, which are stricter than federal standards. The FTC made this determination as the agency closed an investigation into whether several truck and engine manufacturers violated antitrust laws by engaging in a voluntary ' Clean Truck Partnership ' with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Truck manufacturers, in the July 2023 partnership, agreed to abide by California's emissions standards in exchange for certain concessions. Among those standards is the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which requires 7.5 percent of heavy-duty vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035. The Omnibus Regulation, meanwhile, has sought to slash nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent and update engine testing protocols. The FTC said on Monday that it was closing the antitrust investigation after receiving commitments from four truck manufacturers — Daimler Truck, International Motors, PACCAR and Volvo Group — that they would abandon the Clean Truck Partnership. Specifically, the commitments agreed that 'the Clean Truck Partnership is unenforceable and that none of the manufacturers has ever or will ever attempt to enforce the Clean Truck Partnership's terms against another manufacturer,' according to the FTC. 'CARB's regulatory overreach posed a major threat to American trucking and, in our view, presented serious antitrust concerns,' Taylor Hoogendoorn, deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. 'The Bureau is pleased that the leading heavy-duty truck manufacturers agreed to a course correction,' Hoogendoorn continued, adding that the reversal would put the partnership 'squarely in the rearview mirror and prevent repeats of CARB's troubling regulatory gambit.' The FTC's announcement came a day after the same four truck makers filed a lawsuit against California regulators, arguing that the Golden State lacks the authority to enforce its heavy-duty vehicle emissions rules. The complaint alleges that the federal government had rendered the standards 'unlawful' in June. At the time, President Trump signed off on three congressional resolutions that upended the rules, which previously received the approval of the Biden administration. In closing the antitrust investigation, an FTC statement referred to past concerns causing the agency to launch the case. Criticizing the structure of the Clean Truck Partnership, the FTC expressed concern that the agreement 'forced manufacturers to produce 'zero emissions' engines' even if CARB rules were later overturned. The agency also expressed concern that 'the agreement did not foreclose one truck manufacturer from enforcing its restrictions against a competing truck manufacturer.'
