Latest in Education News

WASHINGTON – In a second, lesser-known case, the Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments from individual borrowers about whether they have the legal standing to challenge the Department of Education’s student-debt relief plan. The court also considered whether the federal plan was properly authorized by statute and adopted in accordance with proper procedures.  

This was the second of two cases brought against the Biden administration on an estimated $400 billion student-loan relief program to come before the court on Tuesday. 

The case, Department of Education v. Brown, was originally filed by two student loan borrowers, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, who claim they were improperly denied the opportunity to provide feedback on the Department of Education’s student-loan forgiveness plan that the Biden administration announced in August 2022. Brown was not able to take advantage of the Department of Education’s student-debt relief plan because she had taken out private student loans not backed by the government, while Alexander Taylor qualified for $10,000 but not the full $20,000 available under the Biden program. 

The judge in the federal court in the Northern District of Texas determined that Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona had exceeded his authority in creating this program and thus nullified the forgiveness program nationwide.

In one aspect of the case, however, he did rule for the government, saying that it was not required to go through a notice-and-comment process under the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solution (HEROES) Act, a law from 2003 that allows the government to waive or modify loan provisions in response to a national emergency. 

During the hearing, the justices were particularly interested in understanding the injury claimed by the respondents. They also asked many questions about the fairness of the student-debt relief plan, given the criteria for eligibility and the extent of aid available. 

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who represents the federal government’s interests, expressed concern that ruling for the original petitioners would set a precedent that could be used to block other agency actions without merit. Prelogar explained that petitioners, who do not stand to benefit from a ruling on Education Department’s action, should not be allowed to assert injury and interfere with the agency’s ability to regulate.

Michael Connolly, who represents the students who sued, argued that the Department of Education used the HEROES Act as an excuse not to adopt the program through negotiated rulemaking and notice-and-comment procedures.

According to Connolly, if the HEROES Act does not apply, then there is “no dispute that the program is procedurally improper.” He also noted that by choosing the HEROES Act route, the Department of Education had prevented stakeholders from having a say in how the program is administered.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts raised a question on fairness during the hearing. He presented a hypothetical scenario involving two high school students who cannot afford college: one takes out a loan, while the other starts a lawn care service and takes out a bank loan. Roberts questioned the government’s decision to cancel the loan of the college student, who is proportionally better off after college than the other student who took out a loan for a lawn care service. Justice Samuel A. Alito echoed Roberts’ fairness concerns and questioned the unequal treatment of individuals who did not receive comparable relief. He acknowledged the possibility that their interests were outweighed by those who benefitted, or that they were considered less deserving of support.

Responding to the justices’ concerns, Prelogar argued that Congress had already determined that during national emergencies that impact borrowers, the secretary of education is authorized to provide relief. She also stated that it was Congress’ responsibility to define the individuals who qualify for any relief program, and in this case, the secretary acted appropriately in granting relief to those who met the criteria. 

In an exchange with Prelogar, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised the issue of social inequality and fairness. She highlighted that while everyone suffered during the pandemic, different people received different benefits based on their eligibility under different relief programs. She argued that inherent unfairness exists in society because resources are limited, and every law has its boundaries. 

“Every law has people who encompass it or people outside it. And that’s not an issue of fairness. It’s an issue of what the law protects or doesn’t,” she explained.

Connolly emphasized that the students’  procedural rights were violated, resulting in financial harm, and argued that the law mandates that the education secretary provides them with a chance to voice their concerns. 

On the other hand, Prelogar maintained that if the Supreme Court decides to consider the merits of the case, it should reject the assertion that the peititioners’ procedural claim is invalid because of the clear statutory exemption by Congress, which specifically waived the secretary from following such procedures when issuing waivers and modifications under the HEROES Act.

 The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the case before its term ends this summer.

WASHINGTON — Representatives in the Education and Workforce committee gathered to discuss leading issues in American education at a Wednesday hearing as debates about determining school curricula continue to dominate several state legislatures. 

A variety of topics were debated, including concerns about communication between schools and parents surrounding LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum. Republicans expressed concerns about activist indoctrination in schools, while Democrats argued efforts to remove this curriculum pose a bigger threat to vulnerable youth in marginalized groups, who already face increased rates of suicide and other mental health challenges. 

Chairwoman Melissa Foxx (R- N.C.) said she would champion the Parents Bill of Rights Act. The bill, which was introduced in the last Congress, would require local schools to share the curriculum with parents and allow parents to review the school curriculum and budget. 

“Parents witnessed educators spreading political ideology instead of teaching fundamental subjects like mathematics and reading,” Foxx said. “It is time for the education complex to understand that children belong to their parents, not the state.” 

Virginia Gentles, who serves as the director of the Education Freedom Center at the Independent Women’s Forum and spoke as a witness in the hearing, said parents should have power over their children’s education. She said most parents did not want their children consuming “radical gender ideology.” 

In order to meet parental needs, Gentles said parents need to be informed of n their rights and consulted on federal funding. She said schools need to re-prioritize academic instruction and stop gender support plans. 

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) said extremist misinformation spreads confusion and distracts from the young transgender youth who “need our protection.” He said these individuals face bullying and harassment and are targets of violent murders later in life. 

“Now more than ever it is critical for us to rise up to support, not scrutinize trans and queer students,” Takano said. “All students deserve to feel safe, comfortable and supported in their schools so they can focus on their education.” 

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said school districts and teacher’s unions have made efforts to exclude parents from conversations in recent years. He asked Gentles about the wedge gender ideology might drive between parents and their children, who responded by saying children are indoctrinated into thinking their parents are bigots when they emphasize biological identity. 

Colorado Governor Jared Polis said that apart from the language barriers some parents face with their children, he was unaware of any programs that excluded parents from staying involved in their children’s education. He said he is working with schools in his state to communicate curriculum content in multiple languages to those families. 

Polis, who served as another witness in the hearing, said he was unaware of any inclusions of gender identity in the elementary school curriculum in his state, countering anecdotal evidence presented by Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.). He said his priority was to promote academic instruction in math, reading and writing, regardless of the student’s identity. 

“Involving parents is absolutely critical in success,” Polis said. “I’ve seen school leaders do inventory skills of parents and find ways parents can supplement and provide additional learning opportunities for kids.” 

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) said she spent more than 15 years as an active parent volunteer in public schools. She said she engaged in many conversations during that time and said parent and family engagement is “instrumental” in creating a safe, supportive school environment.  

She said the greater crisis in American education is the effort to discriminate against LGBTQ+ youth. 

“I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to uplift best practices, evidence-based practices, in family engagement, rather than pit parents against their kid’s educators and schools,” Bonamici said.