|
Welcome
Welcome to our April 2026 issue of The Academic Advisor -- our education law insights e-newsletter. While spring semester/term is winding down and summer planning is already underway, the pace of legal change for the education sector remains steady.
In this edition, we address a variety of topics that may impact your institution, including:
- A status update on compliance with the Stop Campus Hazing Act;
- The push for the Department of Education to redefine “professional” students;
- How to address unsanctioned data before it becomes a FERPA issue;
- How the federal government is addressing online AI safety for children;
- Construction details that impact campus security;
- How private Ohio colleges are jointly addressing federal education changes; and
- What Pennsylvania is trying to do to boost enrollment.
We also want to invite you to join us for our upcoming SuperVision Labor & Employment Symposium in Charleston, West Virginia on June 18, 2026:
2026 Workplace Masterclass: L&E Compliance, AI, & the Brave New Employment Landscape: A fast-moving, high-impact seminar for employers navigating the modern workplace. Join Spilman attorneys for our full-day SuperVision Symposium, designed to inspire confidence in navigating complex employment decisions. This complimentary symposium is tailored for business owners, C-suite executives, HR professionals, and anyone who manages employees. Dive into a day of valuable insights on employment topics such as AI, investigations, litigation, immigration, labor law, accommodations, and much more. Spend the day with us and leave armed with strategies and solutions to tackle the ever-changing world of labor and employment law. Please click here to learn more and register.
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
| | |
“Colleges and universities had until Dec. 23, 2025, to publish a Campus Hazing Transparency Report as part of the Stop Campus Hazing Act.”
Why this is important: The Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA), a bipartisan effort to enhance student safety on college and university campuses, went into effect on January 1, 2025. The SCHA, which amended the Higher Education Act, introduced two new reporting obligations for institutions of higher education, including a requirement that institutions add hazing incidents to their Clery Act annual security reports (ASR) published by October 1 each year and a requirement that institutions publish and biannually update a Campus Hazing Transparency Report. While the law allows institutions through October 1, 2026, to begin reporting hazing incidents in their ASR, the first Campus Hazing Transparency Report publication deadline was December 23, 2025.
Unlike the ASR, which requires only statistical data of reported hazing incidents within schools’ “Clery geography,” the Campus Hazing Transparency Report (CHTR) mandates a higher level of transparency with respect to institutions’ established and recognized student organizations. In the CHTR, institutions must disclose each incident involving a student organization for which a finding of responsibility was issued relating to a hazing violation, including the name of the student organization, a description of the violation that resulted in a finding of responsibility, and other details specified by the SCHA. The SCHA further requires that institutions publish their CHTR in a prominent location on their public website.
As reported by Campus Safety Magazine, the majority of colleges and universities did not meet the SCHA deadline for publication of their first CHTR. While this may be due, in part, to certain campuses having no substantiated violations of hazing policies since the reporting period commenced on July 1, 2025, in order to demonstrate compliance with the SCHA, even institutions in that position should publish a CHTR that reports their zero-violation status. Other deficiencies highlighted by this article include many campus websites providing no information whatsoever about hazing, approximately one-third of campuses lacking a formal hazing policy, and less than half of campuses providing an online form to report hazing.
Institutions that have yet to address these expectations should act swiftly to do so. Compliance with the SCHA requires not only adherence to the new reporting requirements, but also ensuring that campus hazing policies meet the criteria specified under the SCHA. Whether an institution wants to vet its conformity with the SCHA or needs to come into compliance with the law, the Clery Center provides helpful guidance. As the Clery Center states, complying with SCHA is key to the “larger, shared effort to eradicate hazing and ensure that all students are treated with dignity and respect.” --- Erin Jones Adams
| | |
“Professional students will be able to borrow $100,000 more than other graduate students, but a proposed rule would exclude certain fields from the higher cap.”
Why this is important: Under the new federal lending caps established by the OBBBA, students classified as "professional" are eligible to borrow up to $200,000, double the $100,000 cap applicable to other graduate students. The Department of Education's (ED) proposed rule, published in late January 2026, limits the "professional" designation to only 11 enumerated fields, explicitly excluding programs such as nurse practitioner and physician associate training. Stakeholders, including the American Council on Education, have challenged this interpretation as inconsistent with the statute's text, arguing that ED’s definition is far too narrow and does not align with the much broader definition of professional degrees reflected in the OBBBA itself.
ED acknowledged the controversy in its proposal, clarifying that the designation only interprets the term for purposes of applying the new loan limits. Critics argue this position understates the material legal consequences, given that the classification determines access to $100,000 in additional federal borrowing capacity. The public comment period closed with approximately 65,000 submissions, and the Department is required to review all comments before issuing final regulations. Commenters broadly argued that the narrow definition could expose the final rule to legal challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act, particularly given the significant workforce and economic consequences for excluded healthcare and other professional fields. --- Shane P. Riley
| | |
“As colleges and universities expand their use of analytics, cloud services and AI, this hidden data layer introduces new risks around student privacy and compliance.”
Why this is important: Though challenges with “shadow IT”– i.e., use of unsanctioned applications and systems to perform tasks without IT knowledge or approval – persist, the creation of “shadow data” is a growing concern. As EdTech explains, “shadow data” is generated when students, faculty, and staff develop their own tools or mechanisms for analyzing, interpreting, or preserving information. Whether users are generating a spreadsheet from downloaded student records, storing research data on personal drives, or engaging in other tasks that create new layers of legally protected data, shadow data emerges with heightened risks for educational institutions. While some institutions have unified data models and integrated data systems that mitigate the proliferation of shadow data, the 2025 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: Data and Analytics Edition indicates that many do not have the governance framework or data knowledge to address the issue. Without adequate controls to monitor where sensitive data is stored, how it is protected, and who has access, educational institutions significantly increase their risk of security incidents and noncompliance with data protection laws.
For educational institutions covered by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), shadow data is a serious compliance challenge. FERPA protects the confidentiality of student education records. Among other protections, the law requires institutions to maintain records of who has access to student information, and FERPA limits the disclosure of personally identifiable information from student education records without consent except in limited circumstances. Shadow data that moves outside authorized systems risks exposing student information to third parties and violating FERPA. Any institution that has faced the case-of-the-missing-laptop, where a user stored data locally rather than through encrypted, university-sanctioned systems, understands this headache, including the associated reporting obligations and legal spend, all too well.
Data discovery and classification tools, cloud access security brokers, and endpoint data detection and response platforms are some of the resources that institutions employ to find and track data. While this technology is useful, it does not absolve the need for governance structures that define data ownership and management requirements, prioritize centralized data leadership with cross-functional analytics team support, address legal requirements and ethical considerations, and establish policies for data (and AI) use; and as with many policies, implementation may only be as successful as the training users receive to apply them.
Institutions that prioritize campus member training on what constitutes sensitive data, why they must avoid unsanctioned storage and sharing practices, and how to use integrated tools and systems (that are also user-friendly and meet work-related needs) are more likely to accomplish their aim – protect confidential, sensitive, and proprietary data from unauthorized use and disclosure, and comply with state and federal data privacy and security laws like FERPA. If your institution needs legal assistance with data policies and procedures, security incident prevention initiatives, and breach response protocols, please contact any member of Spilman’s Education and Technology Practice Groups for support. --- Erin Jones Adams
| | |
“The Trump administration released a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence as lawmakers consider bills to improve online safety for youth.”
Why this is important: In a new National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (Framework), the White House is urging Congress to require that artificial intelligence (AI) companies implement child-specific safeguards, including age-verification systems and parental control tools such as the ability to monitor privacy settings, screen time, and content accessible to children. Though multiple bills addressing these issues are advancing through Congress, they are not without detractors. In particular, House Democrats have expressed concerns about the federal Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, arguing that it could restrict states’ ability to implement and enforce stronger regulations aimed at protecting children and teenagers online. The Framework similarly advises against policies that would preempt states’ rights to legislate and regulate on this subject.
Although protecting young people is a bipartisan concern, and many lawmakers are encouraged that the issue is receiving attention, others argue it is not happening quickly enough. AI is becoming increasingly integrated into our society every day, making it more accessible to children and teens. Case in point, existing social media platforms that youths may already access now have their own AI interface, such as Grok on X. As a result, anyone with an account on these platforms can obtain AI-generated information on virtually any topic, including sensitive issues such as mental health and suicide. These tools can also generate deepfake images that lead to criminal conduct, such as sexual exploitation, increasing concerns about how the technology may be used by adolescents.
The rapid expansion of AI technologies has created powerful tools that can improve efficiency, analysis, and accessibility to resources. However, these benefits also come with significant risks when such systems are misused, poorly monitored, or implemented without adequate safeguards. Until state and federal legislation catch up, schools and parents alike must take affirmative measures to protect children from harmful AI usage. For schools, implementing AI policies that regulate its use and reinforce institutional anti-harassment and anti-bullying requirements, training constituents on institutional expectations, and taking swift action in response to non-compliance are mission-critical. --- Nicholas A. Muto
| | |
“Schools become more resilient when the smaller physical details receive the same scrutiny as the larger systems during construction.”
Why this is important: Both when building new facilities and updating existing campuses, intentionality in design is key not only in traditional areas like structural elements, classroom layout, mechanical systems, building aesthetics, etc., but also in smaller physical details that impact campus security systems and concerns. This article does a great job of highlighting a few of those often-overlooked design elements that can have big impacts on campus safety and emergency responses. Bringing intentionality to addressing security/safety in campus and building design and layout is important not only because it improves the ability of the campus to protect the faculty, staff, and students that use the facilities every day, but also because failing to take safety/security into account can sometimes open an institution (and its design professional) up to liability in the event tragedy does strike.
Spilman’s Education and Construction Practice Groups work together to help educational institutions, contractors, and design professionals alike navigate the importance and impacts of safety in design when they are planning new projects, actively managing ongoing projects, and responding to unfortunate circumstances. --- Steven C. Hemric
| |
“The impact of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ was the main topic of conversation when several college presidents recently met with lawmakers and other government officials in Washington, D.C.”
Why this is important: On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” into law. The omnibus bill made significant changes to all aspects of government, including higher education. One of the most notable changes includes a limit on the federal student loans that students can obtain. Under this new setup, undergraduate students can take out only $20,000 per year in federal student aid and $65,000 for the entire undergraduate degree. This cap extends to a limit of $100,000 to $200,000 for graduate and professional degrees. Government officials believe these new limits will begin to curb the current student debt numbers while also holding colleges accountable. Opponents of these new provisions, such as the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, believe limits will only steer students to take out private loans for their education.
Administrators from Ohio colleges such as Walsh University, Cleveland Institute of Art, Kenyon College, and University of Findlay, as well as representatives of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio (AICUO), were on Capitol Hill in February to hold meetings with legislators on how these borrowing limits are impacting their schools. More than 1,500 private non-profit schools operate in the United States. These schools typically do not receive much state and federal funding, which insulates them from certain government oversight. However, these institutions often make up for the lack of funding with tuition from students – the same students who previously took on federal student loans to attend these schools. Now, with caps on federal student loans, private schools have concerns about future enrollment numbers.
There does not appear to be an immediate way to alleviate these concerns; the “One Big Beautiful Bill” is settled law. However, AICUO representatives are optimistic that lawmakers will revisit their concerns with the caps on federal student aid. --- Isaiah C. Robinson
| |
“There are six goals to the plan: increase postsecondary credential attainment, ensure affordable pathways to postsecondary credentials, support the economic development needs of the Commonwealth, support the workforce development needs of the Commonwealth, ensure accountability and efficient use of state funds, and strengthen the fiscal health and stability of the higher education sector.”
Why this is important: The Pennsylvania State Board of Higher Education (Board) recently adopted a multi-year strategic plan (Plan). The Plan aligns the needs of the Commonwealth with the higher education sector. In support of this effort, Pennsylvania issued a guiding document with six goals: increase postsecondary credential attainment, ensure affordable pathways to credentials, support economic and workforce development, ensure accountability and efficient state funding, and strengthen the sector’s fiscal health.
The first goal aims to bridge the gap for jobs requiring postsecondary education by increasing the number of candidates who are eligible. The Board plans to facilitate communication between educational institutions and Pennsylvanians about the benefits of postsecondary education and strengthen pathways for individuals to pursue higher education. This includes addressing barriers to access higher education, such as transportation, internet access, and availability of childcare.
The second goal addresses high costs and fears about student debt. To support prospective students and families’ comparison of affordable choices, the Board plans to communicate the costs of different education options. The Board will also implement dual credit funding and transfer policies. By making credentials stackable, the Board hopes to reduce overall costs and debt.
The third goal targets the needs of the Commonwealth by strengthening the engagement of higher education in regional and statewide economic development. The Board hopes to unlock the full potential of postsecondary education by communicating with higher education institutions to target the needs of state, regional, and local economies. By doing so, the Board aims to recruit and retain residents with postsecondary credentials in Pennsylvania.
The fourth goal addresses the growing disparity between postsecondary-level skilled Pennsylvanians and employer demand. By utilizing cross-sector partnerships, the Board plans to encourage collaborative approaches to meeting the needs of state, regional, and local employers.
The fifth goal outlines Board efforts to increase transparency regarding tools available to Pennsylvanians to explore different options within higher education. To effectuate this goal, the Board plans to regularly update and publish examples and evidence on how Commonwealth resources are supporting these goals.
Finally, the sixth goal outlines the Board's intentions to proactively evaluate the efficiencies and cost savings of higher education without sacrificing quality. To do so, the Commonwealth plans to develop tools and resources that support educational institutions in their missions.
Engrained in each of these Plan goals, communication and transparency are critical to its success. In part, these goals were established to address Pennsylvanians’ concerns regarding the costs of postsecondary education and the lack of transparency. The Board is addressing these concerns by opening pathways for stakeholder engagement so Pennsylvanians can evaluate the benefits of higher education.
From a legal perspective, the Board cannot force schools to adopt any changes. This is why communication and collaboration with higher education institutions are essential to the effectiveness of the Plan. Proponents of the Board and Plan seemingly anticipate that by creating clear pathways of communication between postsecondary institutions, employers, and Pennsylvanians, a de facto coalition will emerge to strengthen intrastate relations, boost economic growth, and lower student debt. However, since the Board was created in 2024, some senators have expressed concerns and aim to abolish the Board. These opponents say the Board has burdened taxpayers with added costs and little return on investment.
Overall, the Plan is a guiding document of goals and objectives without legal obligations. As the Plan continues to develop, especially with its emphasis on communication and transparency, postsecondary institutions should look out for new compliance expectations in the future. --- Annalee N. Blanks
| | |
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
| | | | |
