In the mid-2010s, the U.S. Department of Education introduced the Gainful Employment (GE) regulations—a landmark attempt to hold career-focused educational programs accountable for their graduates' ability to earn a living wage. These regulations aimed to protect students from for-profit colleges and vocational programs that left them burdened with crippling debt and poor job prospects. However, over the past several years, political forces have consistently worked to weaken or outright undo these regulations, often in ways that raise concerns about the future of higher education and student protections.
The story of Gainful Employment begins in earnest during the Obama administration, when the Department of Education sought to curb the rapid growth of for-profit colleges that had been criticized for enrolling vulnerable students with promises of high-paying jobs, only to see them graduate into financial struggles. The GE rules were designed to measure whether students at these institutions were able to repay their loans based on their post-graduation earnings. If a program failed to meet certain thresholds, it would lose access to federal student aid, a lifeline for many struggling institutions.
Initially, the regulations were celebrated by consumer advocates and organizations that had long criticized the for-profit education sector for exploiting students. The Department of Education estimated that the GE rules could save taxpayers billions of dollars while protecting students from enrolling in programs that didn't deliver a return on their investment. In theory, if schools couldn't demonstrate that their graduates earned enough to repay their student loans, they would be incentivized to either improve their offerings or face the consequences of losing federal funding.
However, soon after the GE regulations were finalized, they came under fierce political attack.
The Political Pushback
In 2017, with the change in presidential administrations, the Trump administration began rolling back a number of regulations designed to protect students, including the GE rules. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a long-time critic of what she saw as excessive government regulation in education, spearheaded efforts to delay and ultimately repeal the regulations. Her argument was that the rules were overly burdensome for schools, especially those providing vocational training, and that they unfairly penalized schools whose graduates may not have had high earnings but were nonetheless gaining valuable skills.
But DeVos wasn’t alone in her opposition. The for-profit college industry, which had faced heightened scrutiny under the Obama-era regulations, mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign to dismantle the GE rules. Aided by influential trade groups like the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), the industry argued that the GE regulations undermined their ability to serve students, particularly those in underserved communities who might not have access to traditional four-year colleges or universities.
The political power of the for-profit sector, combined with the new administration’s deregulatory agenda, resulted in an effort to sideline the GE regulations. DeVos delayed the effective date of the rules and pushed back the enforcement deadlines, making it clear that the regulations were no longer a priority for the Department of Education. In 2019, the Department even went as far as to propose a new version of the rules that was far less stringent, ultimately rolling back the original GE provisions.
The Legal and Political Maneuvering
The political attacks on the GE rules weren’t just limited to administrative delays. Conservative lawmakers played a central role in undermining the regulations as well. In 2017, Congress included provisions in the budget bills that prevented the Department of Education from enforcing or implementing the GE rules. These provisions were not just about defunding enforcement—they were about making the regulations essentially toothless, rendering them ineffective in holding schools accountable for their graduates' financial success.
This legal maneuvering was supported by arguments from Republican lawmakers that the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of telling students and schools what a "good" or "bad" educational program looks like. They framed the issue as a matter of personal choice and freedom, with education viewed primarily as a private market rather than a public good that needs oversight. The rhetoric around personal choice was particularly potent when paired with claims of excessive governmental overreach and bureaucratic red tape, which found a receptive audience in a Congress eager to reduce the size and scope of federal regulation.
Reversals, Delays, and Legal Back-and-Forth
By 2020, the Trump administration had all but dismantled the original Gainful Employment rules, but their story was far from over. As soon as President Biden took office in 2021, there were hopes that the GE regulations might be resurrected and enforced more strictly. However, the political hurdles to reinstating the rules were significant. Biden’s administration, despite its promises to reform higher education, faced intense lobbying from powerful for-profit college associations and other stakeholders who feared the financial consequences of stricter regulations.
By the end of 2022, the Biden administration had made a step toward strengthening the GE regulations, proposing new rules to bring back accountability measures—but they faced obstacles as well. The continuing political and legal challenges surrounding the GE regulations are a testament to the deep entrenchment of vested interests within the higher education landscape. Critics argue that, while the Biden administration’s changes represented progress, they still fell short of the original intent and fail to fully restore the protections for students that had been so dramatically weakened under the Trump era.
The Impact on Students and the Future of Higher Education
For students, the reversal of the GE regulations has had profound consequences. According to research, when educational programs fail to provide students with the skills necessary to secure well-paying jobs, the result is often long-term financial instability, and this issue disproportionately affects low-income students, first-generation college-goers, and students of color.
Without robust regulations to hold programs accountable, the for-profit sector can continue to expand unchecked, marketing programs that may leave students with massive debt but few prospects for a secure future. The constant legal and political battles around the GE rules show just how difficult it can be to enact lasting change in an industry as influential as higher education. As long as lobbying power and political maneuvering continue to shape policy, the promise of education as a tool for social mobility and economic security will remain out of reach for many Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment