Over the past several years, debate has raged among policymakers at the federal level about the best way to ensure for-profit colleges provide students with a decent college education, and don’t burden their students with high levels of debt they can’t repay.

Toward the end of their tenure, Obama administration officials implemented two rules aimed at cracking down on for-profit colleges, over resistance from Congressional Republicans and the for-profit college industry.

One, known as the gainful employment rule, required programs that train students for careers to show that a decent share of their graduates were successfully repaying their debts. The other, known as borrower defense, helped to make borrowers whole when they said they’d been scammed by their schools.

“ States are part of what’s known as ‘the triad’ of college governance, which includes the federal government, accreditors and state regulators. ”

Efforts by the Obama administration to crack down on these schools amid evidence that their students were more likely to struggle to find jobs and be able to repay their loans were met with resistance from Congressional Republicans and lobbyists representing for-profit schools.

Attempts by Betsy DeVos’s Department of Education to walk back those rules are facing resistance from Democratic lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups.

Now, state lawmakers are entering the fray. In recent months, local lawmakers have been working to develop their own rules to rein in for-profit colleges in the localities they oversee. These efforts are the latest battle front between state lawmakers and the federal government over who should regulate student-loan and education industries.

States have always played a role in regulating higher education institutions. They’re part of what’s known as “the triad” of college governance, which includes the federal government, accreditors and state regulators.

As the Department of Education under DeVos and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Trump administration have walked back regulations surrounding these schools, states have taken a more active role in overseeing them, said Whitney Barkley-Denney, legislative policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, a consumer advocacy organization.

“ As efforts to regulate for-profit colleges have found a less receptive ear under President Trump, advocates are bringing their ‘war on the sector’ to the state level. ”

State lawmakers and law enforcement officials, “have really been looking to see how they can step up and make sure that people in their states and their constituents are protected from predatory institutions,” she said.

But to representatives of the for-profit college industry these measures take the state’s role in higher education governance too far.

As efforts to regulate for-profit colleges have found a less receptive ear in Washington under the Trump administration, advocates are bringing their “war on the sector” to the state level, said Steve Gunderson, the president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, a for-profit college trade group.

It’s appropriate for the state licensing agency to help students who have been the victims of fraud, said Steve Gunderson, the president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, a for-profit college trade group. But some of these activist initiatives are moving away “from the appropriate definition of a state licensing agency,” he added.

Here’s a look at some of what state and local lawmakers are proposing:

California

California lawmakers introduced a suite of bills earlier this year aimed at cracking down on bad actors in the for-profit college space. Those include a proposal that would make it more difficult for these for-profit colleges to evade regulations by posing as or becoming nonprofit schools. Another proposal would ban colleges from requiring their admissions representatives to meet certain quotas.

“ California proposed a law that would make it more difficult for these for-profit colleges to evade regulations by posing as or becoming nonprofit schools. ”

Another proposal would also enshrine a controversial federal regulation into state law. That rule, known as gainful employment, requires that programs that are explicitly designed to prepare students for a career prove that their graduates are employed and earning enough money to repay their loans.

Originally put in place by the Obama administration and challenged in court, the gainful employment rule at the federal level is facing challenges from DeVos’s Department of Education.

But if David Chiu, a Democratic California assemblymember representing part of San Francisco, gets his way, gainful employment would be the law of the land in California. An initial analysis by the Department of Education found that more than 250 programs in California failed the gainful employment standard.

That means delays in implementation of the regulation are putting California students at risk, he said. “Ideally, the federal government would have continued to protect our students,” Chiu said. “And if not for the actions of Mr. Trump and Ms. DeVos we would not have been forced to look at how we protect our students.” Now, Chiu says, “We don’t have a choice.”

New York City

In New York City, regulators are taking a different approach to overseeing for-profit colleges, focusing on the information the schools provide to students.

In March, the city’s Department of Consumer Affairs proposed new rules that would require for-profit colleges operating there disclose the total cost of the program to prospective students, the graduation rate for the past two years from the program and the median time to complete the program. In addition, the schools would be required to present students with this information at least 72 hours before they enroll.

“ New York City proposed new rules that would require for-profit colleges there to disclose to prospective students the total cost of the program, among others. ”

The idea behind the rules is to make sure that prospective students are informed and have time to digest the information and make a decision that’s right for them, said Lorelei Salas, the commissioner of New York City’s Department of Consumer Affairs.

Through the office’s work and investigations, they learned that the conversations between students and enrollment representatives at for-profit colleges looked more like “a very high pressure sales situation,” Salas said. “Almost like what you see at the used car dealerships.”

The DCA sued Berkeley College last year, alleging the for-profit school used high-pressure sales tactics to lure students.

In addition to investigations of this type, research conducted by the DCA also fueled concern among agency officials about for-profit colleges. An analysis of student debt in New York conducted by DCA and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that attendance at a for-profit college was a predictor of student loan distress among New York City borrowers.

Salas said it’s “hugely important” for her agency to work to address these issues, “because we’re seeing a rollback of federal protections and the issues in this particular industry.”

Maryland

Maryland lawmakers passed a law earlier this year that would require for-profit colleges to disclose certain data to prospective students. They also passed a law requiring that schools operating with for-profit interests abide by state regulations covering for-profits, even if the schools are technically non-profit organizations.

“ Maryland lawmakers passed a law earlier this year that would require for-profit colleges to disclose certain crucial data to prospective students. ”

Over the past few years, a handful of for-profit colleges have attempted to convert to non-profits, as part of what consumer advocates say is a strategy to avoid regulatory scrutiny. One of these schools, Argosy University, collapsed earlier this year amid claims the school’s nonprofit parent organization misused financial-aid funds.

“I’ve always felt the for-profits were somewhat predatory,” said Paul Pinsky, a Maryland state senator who sponsored the for-profit college legislation. “I felt we had to protect our students in Maryland.”

Still, one provision Pinsky and other advocates were hoping would become law never came to fruition. That proposal would have required for-profit colleges get no more than 85% of their revenue from government funding to operate. Right now, federal law requires for-profit colleges get no more than 90% of their revenue from federal financial-aid funds.

Virginia

But other states have had a tough time getting for-profit college regulations through at all. In Virginia, Debra Rodman, a Democratic member of the Virginia House of Delegates, introduced a bill last year that would ban for-profit colleges from requiring students to sign away their right to a trial as a condition of enrolling.

The bill ultimately died in subcommittee, but Rodman said she plans on strengthening the bill so it’s in a position to pass in the next session.

“ Virginia has eyed so-called arbitration agreements, which require those who sign them to settle any disputes they have with a company outside of court. ”

Consumer advocates have become concerned about so-called arbitration agreements, which require those who sign them to settle any disputes they have with a company in arbitration — a secret process that advocates argue favors companies — instead of in court.

The Obama administration banned colleges that receive federal financial aid from requiring students to sign these agreements as a condition of enrolling. For-profit colleges are challenging that provision in court and the Department of Education is working to re-write this rule.

As a professor at Randolph-Macon College, Rodman said she’s always had an interest in education issues. But she became particularly concerned about for-profit colleges after the high-profile closure of a for-profit college with many campuses in her state.

“What I have learned from this process is that states really do have a lot of ability to be a watchdog over these predatory institutions,” Rodman said. She added that she’s in favor of “innovative and creative ways” of providing access to education, “but there are people who are taking advantage.”

New York State

In New York state, the executive and legislative branches are in a stalemate over whether and how best to address concerns over for-profit colleges’ impact on students and our nation’s student debt problem.

The state’s Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo suggested regulating for-profit colleges as part of his budget plan this year. His proposals included: requiring for-profit colleges receive no more than 80% of their revenue from the government (including both state and federal funding sources) and requiring that they spend at least 50% of their revenue on instruction, among other rules.

“ New York State wants for-profit colleges to receive no more than 80% of their revenue from the government and spend at least 50% on instruction. ”

But the legislature, which is controlled by Democrats in both houses, didn’t take steps during the budget process that would be required for those proposals to become law.

“The Senate and Assembly did not take action during the budget process, saying they believed it should be done after the full-year 2020 budget process was complete,” said Don Kaplan, a spokesman for Cuomo. “The latest state budget process is now complete and yet tens of thousands of students are still caught in profit-generating schools that provide nothing but student debt, limited career options and high tuition costs.”

Deborah Glick, a Democrat who represents lower Manhattan in New York’s state assembly and is also the chair of the assembly’s higher education committee, said lawmakers are in the process of discussing which metrics might be appropriate to use to evaluate the success of the types of schools targeted in Cuomo’s proposal. Schools that train students specifically for careers, which are often, but not always for-profit, would have been subject to some of the measures proposed by the governor.

“ Lawmakers want to ensure students get a quality education at a reasonable cost, but not penalize colleges that work with students who take longer to graduate. ”

Glick said lawmakers wanted to make sure they struck the “sweet spot” between ensuring that students got a quality education at a reasonable cost, while not penalizing colleges that work with a population of students who may take a long time to graduate — like student parents, for example.

“When a major policy is in the budget you don’t have to do a more thoughtful analysis because the time frame is very short,” she said. “A whole new area of program and policy is not something that should be jammed into the budget — even though we do it sometimes.”

John Liu, a Democrat, who represents part of Queens in the state senate and is a member of the education committee, said he believes that student debt is a real problem for individual students and the economy.

He said lawmakers are “taking a very serious look” at ways they can curb abuses by bad actors. But “our governor’s proposals are too sweeping and lump very blunt categories of institutions in together in a way that perhaps does not best serve our overall needs,” he said.