Education

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing a comment letter opposing the Trump Administration’s proposal to remove certain reporting requirements that help the U.S. Department of Education determine whether local education agencies have significant disparities in representation in special education programming for children with disabilities based on race. Data and research have shown for decades that students are disproportionately identified for special education and related services, and disproportionately placed in segregated, restrictive special education settings, based on race and ethnicity. As such, it is necessary for the Department to evaluate whether states are using approaches that accurately identify and address this imbalance, rather than obscure it. California has a longstanding commitment to gathering and reporting detailed information on student’s educational experiences to promote equitable access to education for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, and disability status.  

“The Trump Administration wants to get rid of reporting requirements that help shine a light on race-based disparities in special education for students with disabilities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The disturbing reality is that children of color are disproportionately — and often mistakenly — represented in special education. Transparency in identifying and reporting this data is critical to addressing longstanding racial and ethnic inequities that remain pervasive and deeply problematic in our classrooms today. I stand with attorneys general from across the country in defense of efforts to improve, not obscure, how this data is collected and measured to build a better educational system that lifts up and supports all our students.”

Children of color are identified as children with disabilities at substantially higher rates than their peers, and there is a strong concern that some of these children may have been improperly identified as children with disabilities, putting them at a disadvantage in their education. Misidentification interferes with a school’s ability to provide children with appropriate educational services and raises concerns of potential inequities in both educational opportunities and outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education, through its Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, has for years sought to bring critical awareness to the problem, and to ensure that state and local educational agencies are working to address it — until now. Under this proposal, the Department seeks to improperly remove the requirement for states to report changes to their methodology for calculating significant disproportionality, falsely claiming that it will relieve states of administrative burden. Yet the data collection is far from burdensome for states — states are only required to submit standard methodologies one time and then resubmit upon any revisions to the standards set. Completing and submitting the form imposes minimal burden, and the benefits of tracking this important information outweigh any conceivable burden this data collection involves. 

If the U.S. Department of Education eliminates the reporting requirement it will be impossible for the Department’s Office of Special Education Programs to assess the reasonableness of any changes that states may make to their policies. Some states may revert to prior practices that could prevent them from identifying the magnitude of racial and ethnic overrepresentation in special education. Without publicly available information on how states calculate this imbalance, decisions about which local education agencies are identified as having imbalances and required to take corrective action will occur behind closed doors, shielded from both Department oversight and meaningful public scrutiny. Reporting is necessary for the Department to evaluate whether states are using appropriate approaches that accurately identify and address disproportionate representation in special education, rather than hide it.

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the Department of Education to withdraw its proposed rule for these reasons: 

1. Eliminating the states’ obligation to report changes to their methodology for calculating significant disproportionate representation in special education undermines the states’ interest in ensuring equal educational opportunities and outcomes for all students, including students of color and students with disabilities.
2. Removing the reporting requirement will end much-needed oversight and prevent the Department of Education from fulfilling its obligation to evaluate the rationality of changes states may make to their methodologies for calculating significant disproportionality.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in filing the comment letter.

A copy of the letter can be found here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in opposing the Trump Administration’s proposal to require colleges and universities to submit data linking race to admissions, financial aid, and student performance. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) claims to be seeking data to assist it in enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race. Higher education institutions in California have not used race as a factor in admissions or financial aid since Proposition 209 passed in 1996. In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the proposed data collection would require these institutions to undertake new, costly, and burdensome data collection efforts on an unreasonable timeframe and is unlikely to yield high quality data or achieve ED’s stated goals. The coalition expresses concern that, instead of addressing purported racial discrimination in postsecondary admissions or ensuring compliance with Title VI, this data may instead be misused to improperly target colleges and universities with lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or who have ideological differences with the current administration. 

“The Trump Administration is demanding that colleges turn over massive amounts of student data, forcing institutions to scramble under costly, confusing, and unnecessary reporting burdens, all to support President Trump’s scheme to weaponize data against colleges and universities this Administration disfavors,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Data should empower colleges and universities to better serve their students, not be used as a weapon to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. We call on the U.S. Department of Education to abandon its pretense of accountability and rescind this burdensome proposal.”  

On August 7, 2025, President Trump directed ED to expand the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), an already-required survey, to address alleged concerns about race-conscious admissions practices in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (SFFA v. Harvard). The new survey section will collect a broad range of data on undergraduate and graduate admissions, financial aid, and student outcomes, including data by race and sex on 1) the institutions’ applied, admitted, and enrolled cohorts, disaggregated by admission test score, GPA, family income, Pell Grant eligibility and parental education; 2) average high school grade point average and admission test scores; and 3) the count of students admitted via early action, early decision, or regular admissions. Additionally, the survey will include data about students receiving financial aid, including the average amount, cost of attendance, graduation rates, and graduates’ final cumulative grade point average. 

In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition highlight concerns with the proposal:

The proposed data collection will not achieve its stated goals: The proposal will not achieve the aim of helping to address racial discrimination. In SFFA v. Harvard, the Supreme Court held that the use of race as one factor in college admissions decisions violated equal protection. However, nothing in the ruling prevents colleges and universities from lawfully pursuing diversity as part of their mission. And given the variety of factors colleges use in making admissions and scholarship decisions, as well as the complex factors influencing student performance and graduation rates, it would be impossible to identify racial discrimination based on the data collection. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition raise alarms that ED may weaponize this data to aid the Trump Administration in targeting college and university it disagrees with. The attorneys general highlight the lack of consultation and input from stakeholders, the rushed process, and the alignment with the administration anti-DEI efforts as signs that ED may attempt to use this data to pressure these institutions to adopt administration priorities and abandon lawful efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion rather than to enforce anti-discrimination laws. 

The proposed data collection is unreasonably burdensome and is unlikely to result in high-quality data: The proposed data collection would require four-year colleges and universities to complete thousands of new survey data fields, despite vague definitions and unclear instructions. The schools would need to produce the data in a short, unreasonable timeframe, without proper input from stakeholders, and follow the burdensome requirement to submit data for five previous years. Much of the data requested will be inconsistently available across institutions and student populations, making it difficult to make meaningful comparisons. And the level of disaggregation proposed will also further splinter the data into small subgroups that make it less likely that statistically significant conclusions can be drawn, and poses concerns related to student privacy.

Attorney General Bonta remains committed to protecting California’s higher education institutions from unwarranted federal attacks and defending their efforts to foster diversity, equity, inclusion, and to serve all students. In March, Attorney General Bonta, as part of a multistate coalition, issued guidance to institutions of higher education and K-12 schools regarding their obligations under federal civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution. 

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. 

A copy of the comment letter is available here.

Proposed rule could block student loan forgiveness for thousands, deter job seekers from entering public service

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in opposing a proposed U.S. Department of Education (ED) regulation that would exclude some employees from Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility based on whether their employers engage in actions that the Trump Administration deems to have a "substantial illegal purpose.” The proposed rule may threaten PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in longstanding, important, and legal activities, such as providing legal or other services to immigrants, providing gender-affirming care to minors, participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, or engaging in civil protest and the right to assembly. 

“Nationwide, millions of Americans took out student loans to become public servants with the promise of debt relief down the line, and now, the Trump Administration is attempting to hold this debt relief tool hostage from employers that engage in actions the President does not like,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The promise of Public Service Loan Forgiveness allows states like California to attract and retain talent to serve the public good — this is critically important and essential for borrowers who would otherwise be unable to afford serving in the public sector. Today, I urge the U.S. Department of Education to reconsider this vague and arbitrary rule and put public service ahead of retributive political games.”

PUBLIC SERVICE LOAN FORGIVENESS BACKGROUND

In 2007, a bipartisan Congress created PSLF to encourage college graduates to work in the public sector, where salaries are often lower than at for-profit companies. The PSLF program enables public servants who work in eligible government and nonprofit roles to have their qualifying federal student loans forgiven after 10 years of qualifying service and payments. It helps public service employers recruit and retain skilled workers who might otherwise be forced to turn to private sector employment to afford to pay their student loans. Many California state employees are eligible for, actively pursuing, or have already benefited from PSLF as a means of managing the significant student debt that they incurred in preparing for skilled public service careers. 

THE PROPOSED RULE 

ED’s proposed rule would allow the Secretary of Education to disqualify employers from PSLF if she determines they are engaged in “substantially illegal” activity. The vagueness of the rule could empower the Trump Administration to target politically disfavored conduct and may threaten PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in longstanding and legal activities. As drafted, the rule would create uncertainty as to who is an eligible employer and will deter student borrowers from entering public service. If allowed to go into effect, ED could deem the State of California or specific California state agencies ineligible for PSLF, denying loan relief to state employees, and undercutting the state’s ability to recruit and retain skilled employees.  

In sending the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general of Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the letter can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced joining a coalition of 18 attorneys general in urging the U.S. Department of Education not to limit schools’ abilities to support students’ mental health needs and create a bureaucratic mess for school districts seeking grant funding. The comment letter submitted by the attorneys general calls attention to the Department’s proposed changes to its School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH) and Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP). The changes would, among other things, further implement the Department’s illegal decision to discontinue previously awarded grants — an action that Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of states are actively challenging in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

“The Trump Administration should be doing everything in its power to support the well-being of our students — particularly those who need mental health services the most. Tragically, it is not,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I are already in court defending the two grant programs at issue, and with our comment letter, we are doubling down on our efforts to ensure students in our states can benefit from these programs that are critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. We will continue holding the Trump Administration accountable until it reverses course and follows the law.” 

Spurred by episodes of devastating loss from school shootings, Congress established and funded MHSP in 2018 and SBMH in 2020 to increase students’ access to mental health services. MHSP addresses the nation’s shortage of school-based mental health service providers by awarding multi-year grants to projects that expand the pipeline for counselors, social workers, and psychologists through partnerships between institutes of higher education and local education agencies. SBMH funds multi-year grants to increase the number of professionals that provide school-based mental health services to students through direct hiring and retention incentives. The ultimate goal of the programs is to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into schools nationwide. In California, 44 universities and local education agencies are receiving vital grant funding through these programs. 

In the comment letter, the attorneys general underscore that: 

• The Department’s proposed priorities and program requirements are concerning because they fund only services provided by “school psychologists” — as opposed to services from other qualified mental health service providers like counselors, social workers, and psychologists.
• The Department is proposing a vague and problematic requirement: “Applicants that receive an award under this program are prohibited from using program funds for promoting or endorsing: (1) gender ideology, (2) political activism, (3) racial stereotyping, or (4) hostile environments for students of particular races.” This requirement violates the Constitution, which prohibits the Department from conditioning federal financial assistance on vague requirements. This program requirement could also be at odds with grantees’ existing legal obligations, including critical civil rights protections, because it could be read to prohibit grantees’ efforts to support students from particular racial backgrounds or English Language Learners.
• The Department should modify the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions to bring them into conformity with governing law and resolve the deficiencies outlined by the attorneys general.   

Joining Attorney General Bonta in sending the letter are the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. 

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

SAN FRANCISCO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today delivered remarks on California Department of Justice’s preparations to protect California’s values, people, and natural resources ahead of a second Trump Administration. To view a recording of the press conference, please visit here. 

Attorney General Bonta's Remarks as Prepared for Delivery:

As the reality of a second Trump Administration takes hold, I know there is a great deal of fear, sadness, anxiety, and panic. 

I understand. 

I’m here today to reassure you that in California, progress will prevail. 

No matter who is in the White House, no matter who holds control of Congress, in California we will keep moving forward. 

In California, we will choose calm over chaos. 

Fact over fiction.

Belonging over blame.

Unity over division. 

“Us and we” over “I and me.” 

It’s why we’re the 5th largest economy in the world. Not in spite of our commitment to workers, consumers, and the environment, because of it. 

Because we’re the largest and most diverse state in the nation.

Because we believe in the power of inclusivity.

Because we believe in truth over lies. Hope over hate. Light over dark.

Because  we believe in looking forward.

It’s who we are in the Golden State. It’s in our DNA. Nothing and no one can change that. 

As Attorney General, I’ll continue to use the full force of the law and authority of this office to address injustice. 

To stand up for all people, especially those who have long been overlooked and undervalued.

To safeguard reproductive rights. 

And advocate for more housing — especially more affordable housing for lower and middle-income families just trying to get by.

I’ll continue to take on greedy corporate giants and fight for more affordable gas, groceries, and everything in between.  

I’ll continue to defend our world-renowned natural resources and protect them for generations to come. 

Continue to fight for clean water to drink and clean air to breathe.

Continue to crack down on illicit guns on our streets and get fentanyl out of our neighborhoods. 

Continue to fight for workers.

I’ll continue to protect, defend, and serve every single Californian. No matter your politics. 

I’m here to ensure every person — no matter how they look, how much money they make, where they’re from, who they love, how they identify, or how they pray — can pursue their version of the California Dream. 

A fair wage and good benefits.  

A safe and affordable place to live.  

Affordable and accessible health care. 

Good schools to send our kids to. 

Safe neighborhoods to raise our families. 

That’s my promise to you, no matter who is in the White House.  

We’ve been here before.

We lived through Trump 1.0. 

We know what he’s capable of. 

We know what plans he has in store. 

The silver lining is just that: we know. 

We know to take Trump at his word when he says he’ll roll back environmental protections, go after our immigrant and LGBTQ+ communities, attack our civil rights, and restrict access to essential reproductive care.

Which means, we won’t be flat-footed come January.

You can be sure that as California Attorney General, if Trump attacks your rights: I’ll be there. 

If Trump comes after your freedoms: I’ll be there. 

If Trump jeopardizes your safety and well-being: I’ll be there.

California DOJ did it before and we’ll do it again.  

During the last Trump Administration, California DOJ fought to stop illegal rollbacks and proposals that would’ve harmed the well-being, health, safety, and civil rights of our people and of people across the country. 

That would have caused irrevocable damage to our environment.

No matter who is in charge of the federal government…

No matter what the incoming Administration has in store… California will remain the steadfast beacon of progress it has long been.  

A constant, unwavering, immoveable force to be reckoned with.  

We’ll continue to be a check on overreach and push back on abuse of power. 

Be the antidote to dangerous, extremist, hateful vitriol.

Be the blueprint of progress for the nation to look to.

Remember: in moments of chaos in D.C., you can always look to California for calm resolve. 

California leaders across the state are ready to stand arm-in-arm. 

Governor Newsom and every single Constitutional Officer;  

Senator Padilla and Senator-elect Schiff;  

Democratic members of Congress; 

Pro Tem McGuire, Speaker Rivas, and the California Legislature; 

Mayors, supervisors, and city councilmembers from San Francisco to San Diego are ready to fight for our California values. 

For our people. For our environment.

For progress and justice.

And as necessary, we’re ready to take on the challenges of a second Trump Administration — together.

While a great deal of change is on the horizon…

California’s path to progress remains full steam ahead.

It may not always be linear. Progress so rarely is. 

It zigs and zags. Takes frustrating detours. Inches forward and backward and forward again. 

The detours and setbacks don’t define our progress.

Our commitment to forward momentum defines our progress. Defines us. 

It’s what we do next that will define us. 

If you’re feeling despondent today, remember that you’re not alone. 

In California, we’re not looking back. We’re not moving back. 

We’re California! We’ll meet any challenges head on and rise to the occasion.

As is so often said, as California goes, so goes the nation.

In the days and months and years to come, all eyes will look west. 

In California, they’ll see: we’re still moving forward.

Thank you. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, New Jersey Attorney General Mathew J. Platkin, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle A. Henry today led a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing a multistate amicus brief in the Western District of Louisiana in support of the U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 Title IX Final Rule amidst several lawsuits filed by Republican states attorneys general and groups seeking to undermine the rule’s enhanced protections. The final rule restores strong protections against sexual harassment and assault and reinforces critical protections for LGBTQ+ students. Today’s announcement comes shortly after the California Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Title IX Rule that severely weakened prohibitions against sex-based discrimination in light of the Biden administration’s issuance of the final rule. In today’s amicus brief, the multistate coalition stresses the importance of implementing the new rule nationwide to ensure that our schools operate free from sex discrimination.

“Title IX has been vital to providing safe and welcoming schools for all students since its enactment in 1972, and the Biden administration’s final rule enhances safeguards against discrimination and protections for all students,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s brief is a testament to our commitment to ensure an equal education free from discrimination. Conservative attacks on policies that protect students across the nation will not stand. I will continue to use all of my resources to fight for these important protections for all students.”

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 requires that students receive an educational environment free from discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment and sexual violence. Following the Biden administration’s issuance of the final rule, several conservative attorneys general moved to quickly file lawsuits challenging the rule, and sought to stop the rule from going into effect on August 1, 2024. In today’s brief, the coalition states cite protecting students from discrimination on the basis of sex dramatically improves economic, psychological, health, employment, and educational outcomes for these individuals, yielding broad benefits without imposing significant costs on schools or compromising student privacy or safety. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the amicus brief is available here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that the California Department of Justice (DOJ) has ended monitoring of the Mojave Unified School District (District), concluding the four-year term of a 2020 stipulated judgment that addressed the District's policies and practices, including with regard to complaints of discrimination and retaliation. The settlement followed findings that the District failed to investigate a report that a principal threatened immigration-related consequences and retaliated against a student and his family for advocating for the student's legal rights. The terms of the 2020 judgment put in place reforms to protect students and ensure the District would improve its investigation and response process for complaints of discrimination and retaliation, revise policies, procedures, and practice, and staff training. The District has achieved substantial compliance with the judgment, and has agreed to implement an additional plan to significantly reduce disproportionalities in discipline for African-American students and students with disabilities, for a minimum of two years and provide DOJ with evidence of implementation two times a year.

“As the People's Attorney, I am committed to protecting students from discrimination and retaliation. The California Department of Justice and the Mojave Unified School District have worked together over the past four years to successfully implement the corrective actions set out in our 2020 stipulated judgment to address concerns regarding discrimination and retaliation,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “With the agreement announced today, Mojave Unified will take critical steps to ensure that no student is subject to discrimination in discipline and to provide additional mental health services for struggling students. My office will continue to work with the District to ensure the plan to reduce disproportionality in discipline is fully implemented, and we will continue to monitor over the next two years.”

 “Reflecting back to the start of the oversight, there were substantial changes needed to structure and maintain an environment that not only provided for, but addressed, the needs of all of our students,”said Dr. Aguirre, Mojave Unified School District Superintendent. “I thank all of our teachers, staff and administrators for their tremendous work and dedication to ensure that our practices and procedures are legally compliant, non-discriminatory and equitable. I am proud of their commitment to reviewing practices and procedures and for their reflection on what is fair and equitable in addressing and responding to our students’ needs. We could not have done so without the continuing support of our Governing Board members.”

In 2019, a DOJ investigation found that the District failed to properly investigate the family and student’s complaint of discrimination and retaliation. The investigation also found that the district violated state law with respect to search and seizure practices, special education identification, independent study and county community school placements, maintaining student record confidentiality, and the process for investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination and retaliation. DOJ and the District entered into a stipulated judgment that required significant reforms and a four-year monitoring period. 

At the conclusion of the judgment, the District achieved substantial compliance with all terms of the judgment by: 

• Improving procedures for handling student complaints, including ensuring that staff understand their obligations under the law to adequately respond to and track reports of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
• Ensuring alternative education programs meet legal requirements, following findings that the District provided only 10-15 minutes of support per week to below-grade-level students in independent study and that students placed in supervised suspension did not have a credentialed teacher for at least half a school year.
• Training staff in records management, as part of an effort to prevent the loss or removal of confidential student records.
• Addressing potentially inappropriate transfers to county community day schools, which, if not for expulsion, generally may only occur with the voluntary and informed consent of the student and family.
• Increasing the accessibility of special education evaluations, building on the District’s affirmative move to eliminate a screening process in order to help parents or guardians have a meaningful opportunity to engage in decisions about whether to evaluate their child for mental health-related disabilities.
• Reforming practices on searches and seizures, making sure there is reasonable suspicion, as legally required, before class-wide or grade-level-wide searches are conducted.
• Notifying families of the availability of translation and interpretation services, recognizing that meaningful access to education cannot be dependent on a student’s ability to translate between staff and a parent or guardian.
• Conducting a quarterly community advisory survey, supporting efforts to gage the efficacy of the independent study program and alternative education arrangements.
• Remedying grievances suffered by the individual harmed student, including by removing certain absences in the student’s record and providing 125 hours of free compensatory education and mental health services. 

The District has further committed to implementing a two-year suspension disproportionality reduction plan, and providing DOJ with evidence of implementation twice a year. The plan includes: 

• Continued comprehensive implementation of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), including re-entry protocol for students returning from out-of-school removals.
• Working with a consultant to provide guidance and support in the District’s PBIS implementation.
• Additional mental health and behavioral support staff at school sites.
• Training and implementation of restorative justice.
• Training for all staff and consistent teacher supports in PBIS, restorative justice, nondiscrimination, bias, conflict resolution and de-escalation, trauma, and social emotional learning curriculum.
• Tracking and monthly review of disaggregated PBIS and discipline data to identify trends and address root causes of discipline and disproportionality in discipline and implement necessary remedies. 

A copy of the agreement reached with the district is available here. A copy of the stipulated judgement is available here. 

Relief stems from evidence provided by the California Department of Justice during successful lawsuit brought against the college and its parent company 

OAKLAND – Joined by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the Biden-Harris Administration today announced the approval of $72 million in borrower defense to repayment discharges for more than 2,300 students who attended Ashford University (Ashford) and applied for relief. Ashford University was an online, for-profit school based in San Diego. The approvals come from a review by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) of evidence presented by the California Department of Justice during a successful lawsuit brought against Ashford University and its parent company, Zovio, Inc. (Zovio), which resulted in a judgment against the company in March 2022. Based upon evidence presented in that lawsuit, which covered the period from March 1, 2009, through April 30, 2020, the Department concluded Ashford and Zovio made numerous substantial misrepresentations during that period that borrowers relied upon to their detriment. The approved claims are from borrowers who enrolled in Ashford during this period and filed applications for borrower defense with allegations corroborated by these findings. Ashford student borrowers who were misled by Ashford and are not benefiting from today’s action can submit an application for relief at https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense. For help with the application, Ashford student borrowers can visit https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense-update.

“What Ashford University did to its students was unconscionable and illegal. That’s why the California Department of Justice took Ashford and its parent company to court. Ultimately, we prevailed, securing more than $22 million in penalties,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I want to thank the Biden-Harris Administration for changing the lives of thousands of former Ashford students today. They have lived a nightmare for too long. I encourage other individuals who took out federal student loans to attend Ashford, and were subject to its deceptive or misleading tactics, to apply for relief from the U.S. Department of Education as soon as possible.”

Borrowers will not have to make any payments on the loans being discharged. The Department will email borrowers who qualified for a borrower defense discharge in September that their applications have been approved. Borrowers will see any remaining loan balances for federal loans zeroed out and credit trade lines deleted. Any payments those borrowers made to the Department on their federal student loans will be refunded. Separately, the Department intends to initiate a recoupment proceeding at a later date to seek repayment of the liabilities associated with these approved claims.

“As the California Department of Justice proved in court, Ashford relied extensively on high-pressure and deceptive recruiting tactics to lure students,” said Under Secretary James Kvaal. “Today we are protecting the students who were cheated by Ashford, and we will also hold the perpetrators accountable, protect taxpayers, and deter future wrongdoing.”

The Department will also review the evidence to examine whether members of Ashford’s management and leadership took actions that violated Federal laws or regulations and threatened the integrity of the federal student financial aid programs. If the evidence shows they did, the Department may pursue appropriate remedies to enforce those rules.

In 2017, the California Department of Justice brought a lawsuit against Ashford and Zovio (which at the time was known as Bridgepoint Education) arguing that the for-profit college and its leadership engaged in numerous practices that misled and deceived prospective Ashford students. That suit led to an 18-day trial that featured nearly two dozen witnesses and more than 1,500 exhibits, plus additional written depositions. 

On March 3, 2022, the court ruled in favor of the California Department of Justice, concluding that Ashford made more than 1.2 million misleading representations to prospective students nationwide and assessing a civil penalty of $22.3 million. As the judgment said, the “Court heard substantial evidence that over the last decade, Defendants created a high-pressure admissions department whose north star was enrollment numbers.” It found that “admissions counselors would cross a ‘gray line’ ethically or ‘do things they wouldn’t normally do’ to boost numbers to keep their jobs.” The court found that executives’ testimony that Ashford “always put students first” lacked credibility. In fact, the court described a “paper trail [showing] that company executives were well aware of [the admissions department’s] fear-based culture.”   

The penalty assessed is the subject of an ongoing appeal, but Zovio did not challenge the court’s findings about the underlying conduct. As established by the court and verified through the Department’s independent review of the evidence, Ashford and Zovio engaged in extensive substantial misrepresentations:

• Ashford recruiters told students they would be able to work as teachers, social workers, nurses, or drug and alcohol counselors. But Ashford never obtained the necessary state approval and/or accreditation for students to enter these professions, meaning students wasted years of their lives and incurred tens of thousands of dollars of debt for degrees they could not use. 
• Ashford recruiters also lied about the cost to attend Ashford, the amount and type of financial aid students would receive, and the amount of debt students would accumulate. For instance, before they had access to borrowers’ financial aid award information some recruiters told prospective students that they would not incur out-of-pocket costs, that every Ashford student qualified for Federal Pell Grants, or that loan payments would be $50–$75 per month. Borrowers later discovered these promises were untrue when, for example, they unexpectedly reached lifetime loan limits during their enrollment, unexpectedly incurred out-of-pocket costs, and were forced to withdraw with debt but no degree. 
• Ashford recruiters misled students about how long it would take to obtain an Ashford degree by stating its bachelor’s programs were “accelerated” or by comparing Ashford’s bachelor’s programs to traditional four-year schools when, in fact, Ashford’s bachelor’s degree programs were structured to take five academic years to complete. 
• Ashford recruiters misled students about the ability to transfer credits both into Ashford and out of Ashford. Recruiters told students that Ashford would accept previously earned credits, reducing the amount of time and money students would spend completing their degrees. Students would later learn only some of the promised credits actually transferred. Ashford recruiters also promised students that the credits they earned at Ashford would transfer to other universities, when this was not always true.  

Borrowers relied upon these substantial misrepresentations to their detriment. Additionally, the evidence from the California case demonstrated that three-quarters of all Ashford bachelor’s degree programs would have resulted in a negative value for students, making the education they obtained effectively worthless. The Department approved these findings prior to July 1, 2023, and this action covers loans under the 1995 or 2016 regulation, as applicable.

Three years into the California lawsuit, on Aug. 3, 2020, the University of Arizona announced a plan for its affiliated foundation to acquire Ashford University and turn it into the University of Arizona Global Campus (UAGC). The University of Arizona acquired direct ownership of UAGC at the end of June 2023.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement urging the Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) to prioritize protecting student privacy. In an urgent letter sent to Superintendent Norman Enfield and the Board of Education, Attorney General Bonta expressed serious concern over the proposed Parental Notification policy, emphasizing the potential infringements on students' privacy rights and educational opportunities. The Attorney General's office is committed to protecting the rights and well-being of students in California schools.

"The protection of every student’s privacy and safety is of utmost importance, and that includes protecting their right to choose when, how, and with whom they share their gender identity. That is a personal decision for them, and them alone,” said Attorney General Bonta. “By allowing for the disclosure of a student’s gender identity without their consent, Chino Valley Unified School District’s suggested Parental Notification policy would strip them of their freedom, violate their autonomy, and potentially put them in a harmful situation. Our schools should be protecting the rights of all students, especially those who are most vulnerable, and should be safeguarding students’ rights to fully participate in all educational and extracurricular opportunities. I strongly encourage CVUSD to prioritize the rights and privacy of all their students.” 

The proposed policy is up for consideration tonight at the CVUSD Board of Education meeting. If approved, it would require schools to inform parents, without exception, if a student wants to use a name or pronoun different from what's on their birth certificate or official records. It would also require notification if a student wants to use facilities or participate in programs that don't match their gender on official records or if a student wants to change any information in their school records.

In the letter, Attorney General Bonta calls on CVUSD to fulfill its weighty responsibility as educators to create an inclusive and safe environment for all students. Additionally, the letter underlines that decisions about gender identity are deeply personal and should be handled with sensitivity, allowing students to make their own choices regarding when and how to disclose their identities to their parents. Furthermore, this proposed mandate demonstrates a reckless disregard for the real-world dangers some children may face at home. Any child harmed following such a mandatory parental notification could lead to potential liability for the school district. 

A copy of the letter can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Biden Administration’s plan to discharge between $10,000 and $20,000 in federal student loan debt for certain lower-income borrowers. On January 11, 2023, Attorney General Bonta joined 21 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of that historic plan.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is profoundly disappointing,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Approximately 40 million Americans — including more than 3.5 million Californians — stood to benefit from the Biden Administration’s historic student loan debt forgiveness plan, and now, they’ve been hung out to dry. As my fellow attorneys general and I underscored in our amicus brief, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona properly exercised his legal authority by targeting borrowers most impacted by the pandemic. I continue to stand by that belief.”