|
Welcome
Welcome to our January 2026 issue of The Academic Advisor -- our education law insights e-newsletter. We hope you are off to a great start to the spring semester, even though spring is certainly eluding us at present per Punxsutawney Phil and brutal winter weather across much of the country.
In this edition, we dive into:
- The impact of the Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act on public colleges and their constituents,
- DEI under fire by a parents’ education rights group,
- How Pennsylvania lawmakers plan to address school safety,
- More outsourcing by the U.S. Department of Education,
- Warnings against selling off student loans to the private sector,
- States’ responses to the dismantling of the Office for Civil Rights,
- How West Virginia is prioritizing education this legislative session, and
- Significant changes to student loans now in effect.
As we continue into the new year, we also want to remind you of a highly valuable area of the law – workplace investigations. Spilman lawyers are skilled in conducting independent, confidential internal investigations involving highly sensitive workplace matters. Our attorneys advise employers across a broad range of industries, including the education sector. In this edition, we include a Featured Attorney Q&A on point. If you have any questions about workplace investigations, please reach out to us. You may also click here to learn more about our practice.
As always, thank you for reading.
Erin Jones Adams, Member, Co-Chair of the Education Practice Group, and Co-Editor of The Academic Advisor
and
Kevin L. Carr, Member, Co-Chair of the Education Practice Group, Co-Chair of the Labor and Employment Practice Group, and Co-Editor of The Academic Advisor
| | Ohio’s New Education Law - Is It Strengthening or Weakening Higher Education in the State? | | |
By Lisa M. Hawrot
Senate Bill 1, the Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act (HEEA), was signed into law on March 28, 2025 and went into effect June 26, 2025, impacting public universities and colleges throughout the state. Ohio schools have just completed their first semester under the new law.
Click here to read the entire article.
| | |
“Princeton students have pushed back on the school's bathroom policy.”
Why this is important: A parents’ education rights group, Defending Education, recently filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) against Princeton University. The complaint states that the university bathroom policy at two of its colleges allegedly forces hundreds of students to share gender-neutral bathrooms, which include showers and stalls. The complaint adds that first-year students cannot “opt out” of the communal bathroom arrangement because the university randomly assigns first-year students to one of seven residential colleges. This, according to the complaint, results in female students using communal bathroom stalls that have gaps.
Defending Education grounds its complaint on recent treatment of Title IX as excluding protections for gender identity. After the 2024 Title IX regulations that expressly afforded gender-based protections were vacated, President Donald Trump also signed an Executive Order titled “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.” These changes have caused numerous universities to reevaluate policies relating to housing, buildings, and athletics. As one example, late last year, Michigan State University reversed renovations to one dormitory that included unisex bathrooms and showers. However, after pushback from students and a complaint filed against the university, it reverted most of the bathrooms and showers to single-sex facilities per this article.
The complaint against Princeton includes examples of parents and students complaining about the unisex facilities, citing privacy and safety concerns. Rachel Morrison, director of the Administrative State Accountability Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said universities accepting federal education funds “are required to comply with Title IX and its sex-based protections for females.” She continued by foreshadowing, “[i]f universities [do not] comply with their obligations under Title IX, they open themselves up to complaints and enforcement actions by the Department of Education[.]” --- Isaiah C. Robinson
| |
“Nearly a dozen parents from around the state urged lawmakers to support a ‘bell-to-bell’ cellphone prohibition.”
Why this is important: Parents are encouraging their Pennsylvania lawmakers to support a bell-to-bell cellphone prohibition in schools and other phone-free policies statewide. Those who support the prohibition say that this will decrease cyberbullying incidents and give students the ability to practice social skills and independence. Supporters also argue that fewer phones will allow first responders to be contacted quickly and efficiently in emergency situations. Detractors of the ban on cellphones discuss the peace of mind that comes with kids having access to their phones in these emergency situations. Along with the cellphone prohibition, lawmakers also discussed investing in silent alarm systems that can be implemented in schools to notify first responders faster in emergency circumstances, as many states and school districts have already implemented.
If the schools were to adopt these measures, they may reduce the risks of lawsuits in the event of an emergency. The schools would be protected from a liability perspective since there would be documented safety measures in place. However, if the safety measures are not adopted and an incident occurs, schools and school systems could face legal scrutiny for failing to implement recognized preventive technology. The article shows a shift in what is considered “reasonable” school safety as schools implement more protective measures, therefore influencing future litigation or liability. There are also privacy and parental rights concerns with banning cellphone use during the school day. Schools would have to adopt new policies or update their existing policies to comply with a broader statewide requirement.
The decisions made now will not only influence student mental health and classroom culture but also set precedent that could affect future liability, parental rights debates, and the balance between safety and personal privacy. In this way, the article emphasizes the growing legal significance of proactive school safety measures and the complex considerations that accompany them. --- Nicholas A. Muto
| |
“The interagency agreements will shift management of six of the department’s programs, including elementary and secondary education, to other agencies.”
Why this is important: In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to reduce the size and scope of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Because the Executive Order was broad, speculation arose as to how much ED would shrink. President Trump has repeatedly stated that a goal of his administration is to close ED. However, it remains unclear whether this could be completed unilaterally through the executive branch. In November 2025, ED took affirmative steps to render the Department de facto closed.
ED announced that multiple offices and programs would be transferred to other agencies. The affected ED offices and programs include:
- The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to be controlled by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL),
- Institution-based grant programs administered by the Office of Postsecondary Education to be controlled by the DOL,
- Indian Education programs to be managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior,
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to manage on-campus child care for parents enrolled in college,
- DHHS to manage foreign medical accreditation, and
- International education and foreign language studies programs to be controlled by the U.S. Department of State.
These transfers constitute a continuation of prior program movement by ED. By way of example, the DOL has been managing career and technical education since May 2025. In speaking about these moves, President Trump stated that “[b]y dismantling the Department of Education, my administration has returned control of education where it belongs – with States, local communities, and parents who are best equipped to meet the needs of their students.” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon argued that the recent government shutdown demonstrated how ED is no longer necessary. In an opinion piece in USA Today, Secretary McMahon wrote, “The shutdown proved an argument that conservatives have been making for 45 years: The U.S. Department of Education is mostly a pass-through for funds that are best managed by the states[.]”
Critics argue that these changes have already backfired and could create more issues. Speaking with Politico about grant allocations, Richard Kincaid, an assistant state superintendent for college and career pathways at the Maryland State Department of Education, likened the move to “asking states to fly with no air traffic control[.]” Mr. Kincaid explained that “[w]hen you put these sort of programs into agencies that are not well-equipped with the subject matter expertise to take on a number of these large educational programs, the result is going to be a lot of confusion[.]” According to PBS, some opponents of the move question the legality of these delegations because the legislation giving ED power requires the Department itself to oversee some of its operations in-house. Kevin Carey, Vice President of Education and Work at New America, speaking with The Hill, stated that “[w]hether there will be a lawsuit always depends on someone being able to establish legal standing, and that might be tricky, because they’re not actually planning to stop doing anything[.]” Mr. Carey explained that it could be an uphill battle because of the lack of taxpayer standing.
These moves from the Trump administration also include sending employees to work in other departments. This further decreases the number of employees at ED after the Department already laid off half its workforce earlier in 2025. --- Isaiah C. Robinson
| |
“'Yet, we also have a policy violation within our school’s community standards, and we have obligations, as a matter of civil rights law, to make sure that we’re stopping any sexual harassment, preventing it from occurring, and remedying the effects of it.’”
Why this is important: As this article highlights, student loan receivables represent a significant asset on the nation’s balance sheet. With valuations of the total, current student loan debt balance reaching over a trillion dollars, student loans and the anticipated payment of those loans are big business for U.S. taxpayers. However, the Trump administration has renewed discussions related to selling off some high-performing student loans to the private equity sector.
On one hand, student loans are issued from taxpayer contributions, so discharging them to private equity for anything less than their full value would be a loss to the taxpayers, which could lead to litigation against the government. On the other hand, many borrowers accepted loans for certain educational programs based on protections (e.g., repayment forbearance, loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans) that the government offered. Removing those guarantees could be viewed similarly to the government taking property away from an individual for public use, triggering the 5th Amendment “Takings Clause”, which could lead to litigation against the government.
It is nearly a lose-lose situation for taxpayers and student borrowers, so why does the topic keep coming up? Student loan financing is a major function of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), so eliminating that function would support the Trump administration’s stated desire to eliminate ED. The call to restrict access to higher education was initially made and answered during the 1980s Reagan era. Who will answer it in modern times depends on the effective reallocation of the student loan debt package in a way that neither eliminates the value to the taxpayers nor breaches the underlying promissory note provisions that borrowers agreed to, leading to an inadvertent discharge of the trillion-dollar obligation. --- Sophia L. Hines
| |
“If lawmakers pass the measure—which Williams plans to introduce early next year—Pennsylvania could be the second to roll out a state-level office to investigate discrimination in schools, after California last month passed legislation to establish one and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it into law.”
Why this is important: The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has drastically reduced staffing in its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), closing seven regional offices, including Philadelphia, and laying off nearly half its investigators. Complaints from Pennsylvania and four neighboring states now flow to a handful of remaining offices, overwhelming staff and leaving many investigations stalled. Families, advocates, and school districts report they can no longer get updates on active cases, while former investigators say caseload may now reach into the hundreds per person. Despite the downsizing, the Trump administration has increased its use of OCR to advance political priorities, threatening to pull federal funds from Democratic-led states over transgender policies and diversity initiatives. Ongoing lawsuits challenging the cuts may take years to resolve, and courts have already reversed lower-court orders to restore staff.
The staffing collapse has prompted some states to try to rebuild enforcement themselves. Pennsylvania State Senator Lindsey Williams is drafting legislation to establish a state-level civil rights office within the education department to investigate school discrimination and provide remedies when the federal system is unable or unwilling to act. California recently created a similar office, staffed by coordinators focused on race, gender, LGBTQ+ issues, and antisemitism, though its new law is already facing legal challenges over definitions of antisemitism and potential impacts on teacher speech.
Experts note that while states have long had commissions addressing discrimination, they traditionally lacked meaningful enforcement power because they cannot withhold federal dollars, which is the federal government’s primary enforcement tool. California’s new law goes further by enabling financial penalties for districts that fail to correct violations, a significant shift given that states supply about 45 percent of school funding. Still, scholars warn that the rise of state-level enforcement could lead to fragmented interpretations of civil rights laws, such as Title IX, resulting in widely varying protections for students depending on their state. Pennsylvania and California are currently the only states pursuing such offices, but if more follow, the movement could fundamentally reshape the balance of federal and state authority in civil rights enforcement at a time when the Trump administration is explicitly pushing to shift education policy back to the states. --- Shane P. Riley
| | |
“Pack said he will defend the Hope Scholarship program and encouraged lawmakers to not make changes to the state program as it gets ready to open to all K-12 students in West Virginia next year.”
Why this is important: The West Virginia legislative session began in January 2026. In advance, West Virginia State Treasurer Larry Pack set forth his goals and priorities for this session, specifically prioritizing the Hope Scholarship and increasing teacher wages. Treasurer Pack, in defense of the Hope Scholarship, stated, “I know that many debate the cost/benefit of the program, but the reality is Hope is truly changing lives in the Mountain State,” Pack said. “We will continue to fight for those who utilize the program and advocate for education as a whole moving forward.” In September 2025, the West Virginia Treasurer’s Office stated that funding for the Hope Scholarship would need approximately $245 million for the 2026-27 school year, a $144 million increase from its current funding. This increased budget stems from expanded universal eligibility for the 2026-27 school year. “The reality is that hope is truly changing lives in the Mountain State. We will continue to fight for those who utilize that program and advocate for education as a whole,” Pack said.
Pack stated that legislators must focus on public schools to become competitive with neighboring states. “Most of our students in the state of West Virginia will go through public schools. We have to be pro-public schools. We have to invest in teachers. We have to invest in classrooms,” Pack said. The proposed pay increase would raise teachers’ salaries to a minimum of $50,000, a $2,000 raise. Based on 2024 data from the National Education Association, this pay increase would put West Virginia in line with the national average for teachers’ starting salary and make it more competitive with surrounding states.
Meanwhile, Senate Bill 600, which was introduced last week, would add an income requirement to the Hope Scholarship program for the first time. The Bill would also require that funds be used exclusively for education services and providers located in West Virginia, with excess funds rolling over to the county school system at the end of a fiscal year. Based on the priorities expressed by Pack, the Bill is likely to face opposition from school choice advocates and government officials. --- Isaiah C. Robinson
| Significant Changes to Student Loans Now in Effect | |
By Lisa M. Hawrot
Last year’s enactment of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) included significant changes to the federal student loan system. New borrowers will be impacted starting July 1, 2026, while current borrowers will see shifts into new plans by July 1, 2028. There are four areas where these changes will be implemented.
The federal GRAD Plus program will be eliminated for new students. Historically, this program enabled students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance with federal loans. While private lenders could step in, their repayment terms, including forgiveness provisions, will likely be less favorable to borrowers. It is anticipated that interest rates will also be higher.
In an attempt to offset this change, Stafford Loan limits will increase. Caps for professional graduate students, such as lawyers, will increase from $20,500 to $50,000 annually. The lifetime cap is $200,000, which does not include any undergraduate loans. However, since there is no language for these limits and the cap to adjust for inflation, as higher education costs continue to increase, the limits will remain stagnant, causing additional burdens for those who do not have other means to pay for professional graduate school costs.
OBBBA also sets new caps on the federal loans that parents can borrow to pay for their child’s undergraduate education, known as Parent PLUS loans. Effective July 1, 2026, new parent borrowers will be prohibited from borrowing more than $20,000 per year and $65,000 total per child. Previously, Parent PLUS loan borrowers could borrow up to the total cost of attendance of their child’s education, less any other financial aid received.
OBBBA also created the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP). The RAP serves to consolidate several income-driven repayment plans (SAVE, PAYE and income-contingent repayment). One positive aspect of RAP is that borrowers will see their balances decrease each month. If borrowers’ monthly payments do not cover the accruing interest, the unpaid portion will be waived. Borrowers in this program will also remain eligible for the Public Student Loan Forgiveness program (PSLF), which was intended to benefit students working in public service. A negative aspect of RAP is that payments will now be based on borrowers’ adjusted gross income, as opposed to discretionary income. For borrowers who previously qualified under SAVE, borrowers were eligible for loan cancellation after 10 years. RAP now requires 30 years of payments before one is eligible for loan cancellation.
In addition, OBBBA includes provisions for a revised standard repayment plan. It allows for more flexibility through the use of tiered schedules and choosing payments based on how much is borrowed or how much is earned. This is a departure from the fixed-payment 10-year plan. However, it is anticipated that most, if not all, borrowers would no longer be eligible for PSLF.
The general intent of OBBBA was to reduce overall debt burdens and reform lending practices for education. However, there are growing concerns that the practical effect will be to limit students from accessing educational opportunities unless costs can also somehow be independently financed. Increasing educational costs, coupled with limits in lending, will impact both middle- and lower-income families. Ramping up debt collection with wage garnishment will put more pressure on household finances that are already impacted by increased housing and grocery prices. Borrowers (and their families) who are hit with large federal tax bills as a result of qualifying for cancellations will face additional financial burdens. Ultimately, will OBBBA actually accomplish its general intent, or will it instead serve to prevent or discourage lower- and middle-income individuals from accessing affordable higher education?
Click here to read the entire article.
| Featured Attorney Question & Answer | |
Erin Jones Adams
Member, Co-Chair of the Workplace Investigations Practice Group
Office 336.727.7652
eadams@spilmanlaw.com
Q: Workplace investigations can be a common occurrence in the education sector. As someone who is well-versed in this process, what is your best practice advice?
A: Workplace investigations serve a critical purpose for any organization. The aim is to uncover the facts surrounding allegations of misconduct, to determine if the reported behavior occurred and violated institutional policies, and to ensure accountability. To facilitate this truth-seeking process and the remediation of harm, it is essential that workplace investigations are prompt, thorough, and impartial.
When an institution receives a report of misconduct, the workplace investigation should begin immediately. Promptness serves multiple functions. It demonstrates that the organization takes employees’ concerns seriously. Employees who observe an institution act swiftly to address noncompliance with its policies are more likely to follow those policies, to bring those concerns directly to the institution for resolution rather than a third-party enforcement agency, and to trust the review process and outcome. Promptness also avoids the loss of key evidence and supports witnesses’ recollections of the events. For example, if data such as video footage that either corroborates or disproves the misconduct is regularly overwritten under normal retention guidelines, immediately suspending those procedures to preserve that data is imperative.
Acting immediately, however, does not mean carelessly. Workplace investigations should be sufficiently thorough to collect the relevant facts and determine whether the misconduct occurred, and this requires planning. The investigator should review the complaint to assess the nature and details of the concerns, to identify institutional policies that may be implicated by the reported misconduct, and to determine the individuals whom the investigator should interview (e.g., complainant, accused, and witnesses) and any documentary or other evidence that should be collected during the investigation. The investigator should carefully follow their investigation plan while also recognizing that it is a living document that may require updates during the review process as additional evidence is presented.
Lastly, the person assigned to investigate the complaint must be able to serve as an impartial adjudicator. An individual who is implicated by the allegations of misconduct, has a personal stake in the outcome, or is a witness in the investigation should not be the investigator. The investigator must be someone who can fairly assess the complaint without bias. It is also critical that the investigator is trained to conduct workplace investigations. When an organization lacks an internal resource to serve in this role or the stakes are high, such as when the complaint involves allegations of unlawful behavior (e.g., discrimination, harassment, or retaliation), conduct in violation of education guidelines, or breach of safety standards, the institution should consider engaging an external attorney-investigator to conduct the investigation. An attorney-investigator can provide legal insight, ensure impartiality, and maintain attorney-client privilege, which protects confidentiality and mitigates legal risk.
In the education sector, institutions must also carefully navigate the interplay between laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which apply differing standards and obligations for resolving certain types of harassment complaints involving employees, including the manner in which investigations are conducted.
When it comes to conducting effective and legally compliant workplace investigations, there is a lot to consider. If you have any questions about workplace investigations or need to engage an attorney-investigator, please reach out to any member of our Workplace Investigations Practice Group. Spilman’s experienced attorney-investigators are available to help you navigate this complex process.
| | |
If you would like to subscribe to this newsletter or know someone who would, please email us with contact information and THE ACADEMIC ADVISOR in the subject line. We will be glad to add you or your acquaintance to the email list.
If you have any education law questions or would like to learn more about topics covered in this newsletter, please feel free to contact us.
| | |
This is an attorney advertisement. Your receipt and/or use of this material does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between you and Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC or any attorney associated with the firm. This e-mail publication is distributed with the understanding that the author, publisher and distributor are not rendering legal or other professional advice on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use.
Responsible Attorney: Michael J. Basile, 800-967-8251
| | | | |
