A mass referendum, revenue sharing and taxation of college sports

When the Supreme Court overturned the 1984 Chevron ruling in June, the vast majority of college graduates I spoke to, regardless of their political leanings, breathed a (quiet) sigh of relief.

The original Chevron ruling, which gave regulators significant leeway to set rules that Congress had not directly considered in legislation, has led to a series of whiplash events for leading colleges and universities over the past decade.

Why? Every time a new administration took office, it seemed like many higher education regulations changed dramatically.

As anyone will tell you, dealing with enormous uncertainty, where conditions change in significant and unpredictable ways every few years, is a surefire way to freeze innovation and investment.

While I expect that the rulings in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that toppled Chevron will, over time, lead to legal actions that begin to stabilize some of this regulatory whiplash, I ask I also wonder whether there will be any surprising effects.

Today’s higher education law prohibits incentive compensation – the payment of money – to employees or third parties in exchange for enrolling students. However, in 2011, the Ministry of Education published a letter to “Dear Colleagues” saying that the ban did not apply to third parties that provide bundled services, which could include recruitment. This ruling largely held the online program manager (OPM) industry together, allowing companies like 2U and others to share in the revenue from online programs at colleges and universities.

Many expected the current Department of Education to reverse this letter. And this expected turnaround is also an example of the whiplash that many have hoped to overcome.

But in a post-Chevron world, I wonder how the original 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter is even permissible. From the perspective of plain English, it appears to clearly override the policies of Congress as expressed in the Higher Education Act.

I wish it were different. To me the Dear Colleague letter makes sense as I would prefer the Department of Education to regulate outcomes rather than the arrangements under which colleges and universities provide education. But I’m not sure how to view the “Dear Colleague” letter in a post-Chevron world.

If I’m wrong, I’d like to know why.

Tax college sports?

In the spirit of continued speculation… As the changes surrounding college athletics reach their peak, “student-athletes,” as my Future U. co-host Jeff Selingo recently called them, are getting big deals from NIL (name, pic , similarity). collectives to attend and compete for specific schools; a mutual agreement between the NCAA and the House of Representatives allowing student-athletes to be paid directly by schools; and employee status on the horizon, I wonder if the IRS might step in and force the question of whether college sports teams will remain, well, part of colleges.

How might the IRS get involved?

Although tax-exempt corporations (nonprofit organizations) do not pay taxes, they may pay taxes on “unrelated business income.” The definition of unrelated business income is income that “arises from a regularly carried on trade or business not substantially related to the charitable, educational, or other purpose that forms the basis for the organization’s tax exemption.”

I have the impression that it is becoming increasingly difficult to claim that major university sports are related to the educational purpose of a university. Could the IRS declare college athletics income as unrelated business income – and therefore taxable?

If that were to happen, I wonder if colleges would spin off some of their sports teams as affiliated, for-profit entities.

Massachusetts referendum on MCAS graduation requirement

Several stories suggest Massachusetts voters will likely eliminate the requirement that students pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exams to graduate when they vote on Referendum 2 in November.

It would be a mistake to eliminate the requirement.

Although there is still a lot of room for improvement in the MCAS exams for English, science, and math, having a third party confirm that someone has learned and mastered certain basic skills and knowledge is a good thing. Teachers should not judge the performance of their students. Not only does this create an incentive for grade inflation, but it also puts teachers in the awkward position of acting not only as students’ coaches and advocates, but also as their judge and jury. This is unfair to teachers, students and parents.

In the absence of a robust range of publicly funded education options for families, this is a bad idea – and it targets a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

According to The74, “Ultimately, the vast majority of students – about 99% – meet the requirements.”

In other words, the tests largely serve as a lower limit rather than an upper limit. And it is as close to a mastery or competency-based education as we have in this country. Students are allowed to take the exams multiple times – and alternative ways of proving mastery are even provided.

Additionally, because there are no statewide high school course requirements in Massachusetts, students (and schools) have the opportunity, at least in theory, to explore a variety of interests in multiple avenues—professionally and academically.

Mass. Governor Maura Healey, Mass. Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler, the National Parents Union, the Democrats for Education Reform, the Boston Globe and others are right to argue for him.

As The74 quoted National Parents Union President and Massachusetts resident Keri Rodrigues, who is the mother of five children, one of whom receives special education, “removing the requirement on behalf of children with disabilities is ‘truly offensive.’ “

It would be another sad step in the name of justice that would be anything but fair.

Massachusetts may have long been a leader in education, but its star is fading.