Search This Blog

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Department of Labor. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Department of Labor. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, April 28, 2025

Maximus AidVantage

[Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]

The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.

At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.

Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.

The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise

The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.

Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.

A Confusing Transition for Borrowers

For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.

One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.

Diminished Consumer Protections

Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.

For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.

The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs

Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.

If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.

The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure

Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.

Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.

Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers' union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.

The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans

Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.

The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.

Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.

A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?

Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.

This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.

Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty

The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.

The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.

Friday, January 15, 2021

Chasing Carl Barney: My 7-Year Fight for Student Justice and Corporate Accountability (Debbi Potts)

It was July 16, 2012 and I called a meeting with all of my staff.  I was the campus director of CollegeAmerica in Cheyenne Wyoming; one of the many campuses owned by Carl Barney. I called the meeting to inform my staff that I was resigning that day. I wanted to let them know before I emailed a resignation letter to Barney and the CEO and COO and left the building.  

The Dean of Education (Linda) also resigned that day because of her concerns about the lack of ethics of the company. My exit was abrupt, and my resignation letter called Barney out on the fraud that his organization is infested with. I left without notice and without a job to go to.

I told my staff that there comes a time in most people’s lives where you cannot put your foot over the line and that day had come for me. I could not put my name on one more enrollment agreement or participate in the fleecing of students.  

This is my story of the 7-year chase of Carl Barney as he levied a brutal, retaliatory, and relentless plan to silence me.  

Who is Carl Barney?

Carl Barney is a college owner who has turned his private colleges into money making machines for the benefit of his own wealth. His schools were a toxic blend of substandard education, outrageously high tuition, and poor outcomes that left students deep in debt with little to no skills or hope for a better future. The demographic of most of the students that were solicited to enroll lacked the ability to succeed; but that did not matter.

Why did I leave the company and how bad was it?

I was so excited to be part of changing student’s lives through education and taking the role of the top administrator of my own campus. Career schools are high priced and fast paced and unfortunately this one was not about the education of students; it was about sales and enrolling students and pulling down as much federal aid as you could to line Barney’s pockets.  As time went on it was evident that the company had no regard for oversight of rules or regulations that guide these types of schools; nor had they ever been held accountable for their blatant contempt.

An associate degree was upwards of $40k and a bachelor degree was $78k! The students were solicited through a hard sell of manipulative sales techniques and the education and equipment left much to be desired. The students struggled in 4-week courses where the mid-term was at the beginning of week 3.  The faculty who were mostly all adjuncts and were paid less than $10.00 per hour considering the time they put into lecturing, grading papers and coaching students who needed remedial help before they could even comprehend the course materials.

The company was “enrollment driven” with unrealistic goals every month of starting new students. It is called “greed” at the expense of education. Barney’s motto was “We do as we please and ask for forgiveness later.” Accreditation standards were violated throughout the entire system and the students were the ones who suffered.

An example of disregard for regulations

Barney could not operate his company by merely offering a quality education and focusing on students; he always had to have a scheme to entice and enroll students, even if it were a violation of accreditation. He rolled out a free services program where he decided to offer a free certified nursing course to the general public including all of the books, supplies and certification.  Sounds amazingly generous..right? Not so fast. This particular course was part of the medical assisting program and Barney believed that once he gave away “free” services, those students would enroll in the full program. The problem was that each of those students had a target on their back and they were heavily recruited to enroll into the full program. There were literally waiting lists of hundreds of potential enrollees across all of the campuses. Barney never bothered to get this stand-alone course approved through accreditation. Since this course was vocational in nature we also were required to track student completion and placement; that never happened.

Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC), the accrediting agency issued a “cease and desist” of these programs, leaving hundreds and hundreds of students hanging and angry and disillusioned. Campus directors were left on their own to try to explain this deplorable situation to our unsuspecting victims.

What happened next?

Linda and I immediately contacted the Wyoming and Colorado Attorneys Generals offices in order to divulge the numerous issues of consumer fraud that we had witnessed. 

I received a personal phone call from Barney a day after my exit. He was definitely on a fishing expedition that was intended to figure out what my plans were moving forward. In that conversation I reported to Barney that the company had owed me $7,000.00 for earned but not paid bonuses. He assured me that he would look into my unpaid bonus. Days went by and I decided to file for lost wages through the Wyoming employment labor board.

On July 21, 2012. I received an email from Barney, and it contained a document entitled “Saying Goodbye” which outlined his theory that you can tell a great deal about the character of people by the way they say goodbye. Additionally, he spewed that he hoped that I had filed a written report within the organization with my concerns about the fraud allegations or I was now a contributor to these allegations of fraud!  

I received my bonus in exchange for signing a contract to not disparage the company.

During the months that followed, I was in direct contact with the Attorneys General. In a LinkedIn communication with a former employee of the organization and I asked him to cooperate with the Attorneys General. The employee turned on me and turned the correspondence into Barney. I was sued for an alleged violation of the contract. I represented myself over a two-year period and wrote 75 legal motions to defend myself.  I filed a charge with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who took a case against them on my behalf. 

It was around that time that I met an attorney from Salt Lake City, Utah who had been enjoined by the US Department of Justice in a qui-tam action with several former employees of Barney’s Utah schools because Barney was illegally paying bonuses to admissions recruiters.

Mr. Bandon Mark, this attorney took my case pro-bono and followed me through depositions and court hearings for several years for the lawsuit, while EEOC pursued Barney in federal court.

The entire purpose of this retaliation by Barney was to punish me and intimidate me into silence…it did not work!  The more relentless he became, the more the fraud became public, he would not agree to settle anything, and neither would I.

In May of 2019, a jury of 6 people in a two-day trial awarded Barney $1.00 (instead of the $7,000.00 bonus he was trying to recoup). This was the least amount the jury could give! 

The Colorado Attorney General’s office testified on my behalf as an optic to show the jury what this malicious lawsuit was really about. As icing on the cake, EEOC forced Barney to never enforce the illegal contract they had issued me. The contract violated public policy by requiring me to not contact any governmental agencies with grievances against Barney or his schools. 

What started out as Barney attempting to make an example out of me for speaking the truth about the fraud in his schools actually opened the doors for me to spend 7 years chasing him.

As a result of this chase, I have been deposed numerous times including a 6-hour videotaped deposition all the while his attorneys spewed venom in my face in an attempt to intimidate me. I was scorned publicly in courtrooms for being a whistleblower…none of that mattered.

Barney’s feeble attempt to stop me from bringing truth forward only made the chase more enticing and his fury caused him to make many mistakes including spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees against me.  His desire to make me pay only served to make public what he had tried to stop me from saying! 

Fruits of my chase:

At the trial where Barney sued me in May 2019; the courtroom was filled with people who got to hear the fraud that Barney had tried to keep silent by suing me! This is in the community where I reside, and community members are now aware of the fraud.  

On August 21, 2020, a Colorado Court issued a fraud finding against Barney in a lawsuit where the Colorado Attorney General was the plaintiff, and I was the whistleblower.  

I have interviewed with US Department of Justice for an upcoming trial against Barney for illegal bonuses.

I have filed numerous complaints with their accreditor. (ACCSC)

I have interviewed with Veterans Education Success as part of their petition to the VA to cease funding to Barney’s schools.

I have participated in a podcast about my whistleblowing story with Heidi Weber who was responsible for the demise of Globe University with her whistleblowing efforts of their fraud. 

I have personally filed a complaint with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General (VA-OIG). 

I have interviewed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and provided information regarding their investigation of loan fraud regarding Barney’s schools. 

My story has been covered and publicized by David Halperin in Republic Report. Not just once, but twice

I have also been interviewed by David Halperin in Republic Report

 

Indeed …Barney’s schools are in peril

The following are on-going actions of great consequence:

·       The company is on probation with ACCSC and serious question are pending regarding the ability of Barney’s schools to continue to operate as a result of the Colorado Attorney fraud finding.

·       The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is awaiting a court decision to move forward to compel documents related to loan fraud.

·       The US Department of Education in tandem with some former employees are in the “discovery stage” of litigation regarding illegal bonuses Barney paid to recruiters.

·       Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois has petitioned the United States Department of Education to look at the possibility of suspending federal funds to Barney’s schools.

·       Due to declining enrollment, the lion’s share of Barney’s brick and mortar schools are closed, leaving only an online school platform which has its own issues with ACCSC. 

I will continue the chase wherever and whenever I can be helpful in fighting the fraud of Carl Barney in order to prevent more students from being harmed.   

Monday, July 7, 2025

Future Scenarios: A Post-College America (Glen McGhee)

By 2035, the traditional American college system may be a relic of the past. A variety of forces—economic, technological, demographic, and cultural—are converging to transform the landscape of higher learning. Grounded in Papenhausen's cyclical model of institutional change, current data and trends suggest a plausible future in which college campuses no longer serve as the central hubs of postsecondary education. Instead, a more fragmented, skills-based, and economically integrated system may rise in its place.

Since 2010, college enrollment in the U.S. has declined by 8.5%, with more than a million fewer students than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 80 colleges have closed or merged since 2020, and many experts forecast a sharp acceleration in closures, especially as the so-called “demographic cliff” reduces the pool of traditional-age college students. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia projects a potential 142% increase in annual college closures by the end of the decade.

This institutional unraveling is not solely demographic. Federal disinvestment in research and financial aid, rising tuition (up more than 1,500% since the late 1970s), and increasing underemployment among recent graduates are undermining the perceived and actual value of a college degree. Emerging technologies, particularly AI, are rapidly changing the ways people learn and the skills employers seek. Meanwhile, the proliferation of fake degrees and credential fraud further erodes trust in conventional academic institutions.

In response to these destabilizing trends, four future scenarios offer possible replacements for the traditional college system. Each reflects different combinations of technological advancement, labor market shifts, and institutional evolution.

The Corporate Academy Landscape envisions a future in which large companies like Google, Amazon, and IBM take the lead in educating the workforce. Building on existing certificate programs, these corporations establish their own academies, offering industry-aligned training and credentials. Apprenticeships and on-the-job learning become the primary paths to employment, with digital badges and blockchain-secured micro-credentials replacing degrees. Corporate campuses cluster in major urban centers, while rural areas develop niche training programs related to local industries such as agriculture and renewable energy.

In The Distributed Learning Networks scenario, education becomes fully decentralized. Instead of enrolling in a single institution, learners access personalized instruction through AI-powered platforms, community-based workshops, and online mentorships. Local libraries, maker spaces, and co-working hubs evolve into core educational environments. Learning is assessed through portfolios and real-world projects rather than grades or standardized exams. Regional expertise clusters develop organically, especially in smaller cities and towns with existing community infrastructure.

The Guild Renaissance looks to the past to shape the future. Modeled on pre-industrial apprenticeship systems, professional guilds re-emerge as gatekeepers of career development. These organizations handle training, credentialing, and job placement in sectors such as healthcare, construction, technology, and the arts. Hierarchical systems guide individuals from novice to expert, and regional economies specialize around guild-supported industries. Employment becomes tightly integrated with ongoing learning, minimizing the traditional gap between school and work.

Finally, The Hybrid Workplace University scenario grows out of the shift to remote and hybrid work. With more than one-third of workers expected to remain partially remote, workplaces themselves become learning environments. Education is embedded in professional workflows through VR training, modular courses, and flexible scheduling. As access to learning becomes geographically unrestricted, rural and underpopulated areas may see renewed vitality as remote workers seek lower-cost, higher-quality living environments.

Despite their differences, these scenarios share several transformational themes. Economically, resources formerly directed toward campus infrastructure are redirected toward skills training, research hubs, and community development. Culturally, the notion of lifelong learning becomes normalized, and credentials become more transparent, practical, and verifiable. Socially, traditional notions of campus life give way to professional and civic identity tied to industry specialization or community engagement.

The evolution of quality assurance is also noteworthy. Traditional accreditation may give way to employer-driven standards, market-based performance indicators, and digital verification technologies. Blockchain and competency-based evaluations offer more direct and trustworthy assessments of ability and readiness for employment.

Geographically, these changes will reshape communities in different ways. Former college towns must navigate economic transitions, potentially reinventing themselves as hubs for innovation or remote work. Urban areas may thrive as centers of corporate education and research. Rural regions may find new purpose through specialized training programs aligned with local resources and culture.

If these trends continue, the benefits could be substantial: reduced student debt, more direct paths to employment, faster innovation, and greater regional economic diversity. But challenges remain. The loss of traditional university research infrastructure may hinder long-term scientific progress. Access to elite training may increasingly depend on corporate affiliation, potentially limiting social mobility and excluding those without early access to professional networks. The liberal arts and humanities—once central to American higher education—may struggle to find footing in this new paradigm.

In the broad view, these emerging models reflect a shift away from institutional prestige and toward demonstrable competence. The change is not only educational but societal, redefining what it means to learn, to work, and to belong. Whether this transformation leads to a more inclusive and efficient system or deepens existing inequities will depend on how these new models are regulated, supported, and adapted to public needs.

By 2035, the American educational system may no longer be anchored to age-segregated campuses and debt-financed degrees. Instead, it may revolve around pragmatic, lifelong pathways—deeply integrated with the labor market, shaped by regional strengths, and responsive to continuous technological change.

Sources:

  1. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center

  2. U.S. Department of Education

  3. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
    4–5. National Center for Education Statistics
    6–9. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index
    10–11. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    12–13. McKinsey & Co., World Economic Forum
    14–16. U.S. Department of Justice, Accrediting Agencies
    17–19. Company Reports (Google, IBM, Amazon, Apple)
    20–21. U.S. Department of Labor
    22–24. Credential Engine, World Bank, Blockchain in Education Conference

  4. Burning Glass Institute
    26–29. EdTech Reports, OECD, Pew Research Center
    30–31. National Apprenticeship Survey
    32–34. Gallup, Stanford Remote Work Project

  5. UNESCO Blockchain for Education Report

Sunday, January 23, 2022

Maximus, Student Loan Debt, and the Poverty Industrial Complex

The Higher Education Inquirer is taking a close look at who's invested in Maximus, the enormous social welfare profiteer. Maximus has been servicing student loan defaulters for years and has now taken over Navient's federal student loan business, branding it Aidvantage

Since 1995, Maximus (MMS) has grown from $50 million in annual revenues to more than $4 billion in 2021. 

Maximus (MMS) Share Price 1995-2022
(Source: Seeking Alpha) 

With an army of more than 35,000 workers, Maximus' clients include 28 US agencies: the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of the Census, Patent and Trademark Office, Federal Student Aid, Department of Defense and US Army, Department of Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Medicare and Medicaid, Department of Labor, Office of Personnel Management, Securities and Exchange Commission and many more. 

As a contractor to Federal Student Aid (FSA), Maximus has more than 13 million student loans to service.  Its four contracts with the US Department of Education total almost $1 Billion.  

While CEO Bruce Caswell made more than $6 million in total compensation last year, Maximus' customer service representatives, the people who have to make the calls to the growing number of student loan defaulters, make less money than workers at Walmart. 

Maximus has recently posted federally contracted jobs on Indeed for $13.15 an hour in Texas and South Carolina, even though the federal minimum wage has been raised to $15 an hour. Wages for Maximus workers in other states are reportedly even lower, as little as $10 an hour in Kentucky and other states with regressive economies.   

Maximus' largest institutional investors include BlackRockVanguard Group, and State Street Corp--three financial behemoths.  BlackRock has $10 trillion in Assets Under Management (AUM), Vanguard Group has about $7 Trillion in Assets Under Management, and State Street has almost $4 Trillion in AUM. 

Bank of New York Mellon, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America each own 900,000 shares or more. 

Public retirement funds, including public school teachers retirement funds (see table below), are directly and indirectly invested in the Poverty Industrial Complex and the student loan mess through Maximus and other large corporations. 


Maximus' strategic partners include AWS, Microsoft, Oracle, and Cisco.  

Social justice advocates have to wonder, how can the student loan system be fixed if the US establishment has a vested interested in the mess?  
 
Maximus (MMS) Top Institutional Investors 



List of Public Funds Directly Invested in Maximus

Alaska Department of Revenue 
California PERS
California State Teachers Retirement System
Colorado PERS
Florida Retirement System
Pennsylvania Public School Retirement System
Teachers Retirement System of Kentucky
Louisiana State Employees Retirement System
Ohio PERS 
New Mexico Educational Retirement Board
New York State Retirement System
New York State Teachers Retirement System
Ontario Teachers Retirement System
Oregon PERS
State of Tennessee Treasury
Teachers Retirement System of Texas
State of Wisconsin Investment Board










Friday, May 23, 2025

Preliminary Injunction Halts Dismantling of the Department of Education (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)



We got great news yesterday: In a suit we brought with Democracy Forward, the AFT, and other allies in the labor movement, a district court in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s unlawful effort to dismantle the Department of Education. 

The massive reduction in force proposed by the administration would decimate crucial services the department provides to families across the country, severely limit access to education, and eviscerate funding for HBCUs and tribal colleges.

We can’t do this work without your support. Will you become a member or make a donation to the AAUP Foundation today?

Here’s some background on the case. In March, after having repeatedly expressed a desire to eliminate the Department of Education, the Trump administration announced a reduction in force that would cut its staff in half. Recognizing that the department was created by an act of Congress and was mandated to carry out a number of statutorily required programs, the administration claimed that it was not trying to eliminate the department but rather was seeking to improve “efficiency” and “accountability.”

The court definitively rejected this claim, saying that the “defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute. . . . A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all. This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.”

The court also highlighted the impact of the cuts on students, educational institutions, and unions. For example, the court found that “higher education is also likely to become more expensive for students” as the staffing cuts “will put federal funding for Pell grants, work-study programs and subsidized loans at risk, reducing the pool of students able to attend college and posing an existential threat to many state university systems such as those intended to serve first generation college students.”

The court found that the administration had violated two clauses of the US Constitution, and that its actions were beyond its authority as well as arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the department to reinstate staff and resume operations disrupted by the cuts.

Perhaps because of skepticism about the administration’s willingness to follow directives of the judiciary, the court specifically required that the administration provide notice of this order of preliminary injunction within twenty-four hours to all its officers, and that it “file a status report with this Court within 72 hours of the entry of this Order, describing all steps the Agency Defendants have taken to comply with this Order, and every week thereafter until the Department is restored to the status quo prior to January 20, 2025.”

What’s next: It is almost certain that the administration will appeal this decision and will likely seek to have the preliminary injunction stayed by the court of appeals while the case is pending.

Trump’s agenda is a clear path to setting America back in quality and fairness in education. The AAUP will continue to stand up against these attacks and fight for a higher education system that serves all Americans. We can’t do it without you.

Please join us as a member or make a donation today!

In solidarity,
Todd Wolfson, AAUP President
Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel