To GE, or Not To GE

Was this forwarded to you by a friend? Sign up, and get your own copy of the news that matters sent to your inbox every week. Sign up for the On EdTech newsletter. Interested in additional analysis? Try with our 30-day free trial and Upgrade to the On EdTech+ newsletter.

One of the most consequential regulatory actions of the Biden Administration was the creation of the Financial Value Transparency & Gainful Employment (FVT & GE) rules, which represented the fourth iteration of GE since the Obama-era 2011 regulations that did not survive court challenges. In a nutshell, FVT & GE created a program-level (rather than institution-level) framework of accountability that looked at future earnings gain (i.e., additional earnings potential compared to a student not completing the credential) and compared it to student debt levels. GE threatened access to federal financial aid for “gainful employment” programs, and FVT broadened the framework for most higher ed programs.

In many regards, the Biden Administration’s highest priority in 2021 / 22 was to reverse every Trump 1.0 policy, and second was to install previous rules from 2009-2016. One of the highest priorities of Trump 2.0 this year is to do the reverse - get rid of Biden Administration rules (and something or other about Harvard I keep hearing). Adding fuel to this current fire is the move to reduce regulatory burdens.

Thus, when the House Reconciliation bill included a provision to strike the “gainful employment” language in statute that underpins GE rules, there was no big surprise. But last Friday the Department of Education (ED) filed a motion to continue the fight against the American Association of Cosmetology Schools (AACS) lawsuit challenging FVT & GE.

How should we interpret this move, beyond me having fun with the post title? Is the Trump Administration trying to kill GE or keep it?

Subscribe to Premium to read the rest.