In the year twenty fourteen, a deal was struck between Iowa State and two institutions, Ashford University and its parent company Bridgepoint Education Incorporated. It is called the Ashford settlement. The Iowa attorney general facilitated it. This was in response to charges of gross misconduct and violation of consumer fraud act in place to protect consumers. This was specifically related to how the institution did its recruitment, selection and eventual enrollment process. They however denied all allegations leveled against them.
With the accusations leveled against them, the two institutions became very defensive. They were accused of, among other things, intentionally withholding important information needed by students to make informed decisions and using underhanded tactics in their sales. Furthermore, they were accused of setting high fees for registration, which became non-refundable as well as misleading candidates during enrollment to online courses.
Even though the institution denied all the allegations and refused to take responsibility, they agreed to come to a settlement in a bid to conclude the inquiry and pending case against them. They were ordered to pay about seven and a quarter million dollars to victims. His was specifically in response to allegations that recruiters of the university often lied to progress their agenda of increasing recruitment numbers. It was reached after about three years of close investigations.
The agreement reached had the following terms. The two educational institutions were prohibited from making false, deceptive and misleading statements. In addition, they are not to omit any materials that could mislead students, engage in unfair practices or use unconscionable and coercive tactics aimed at persuading students to either enroll or retain enrollment in Ashford. These were explicitly stipulated in the settlement.
The two institutions agreed to make any vital information that is required by students available to enable them make good decisions. They should also agree to adequately train all personnel they have employed, they are to take all necessary steps to make sure that their retention techniques are legal. They are also required to compensate third parties that were instrumental in their recruitment process.
The agreement appointed Thomas J. Perrelli as the settlement administrator. He was asked to independently review the compliance of the two institutions to the terms demanded. He has the power to listen to recorded phone conversations, listen and review complaints, look at any records he requires that are helpful to his investigation as well as talking to any current and former student or employee. His task is to identify any problems and successes and report these findings annually to the attorney general and Bridgepoint Education Incorporated.
The agreement is inclusive of provisions that relate to the possible reimbursement of some students, former and current. However, this reimbursement must go through the office of the attorney general. The settlement administrator does not have any authority whatsoever relating to this reimbursement or other payments to be made under the agreement. This is not his work and thus he should not be involved.
There is an increase in the demand for education in the country. Many institutions are using underhanded methods to enroll students in their facilities. This is because there is a lot of competition in the industry. The agreement is a win for every stakeholder in education because it goes to show that the law respects education.
With the accusations leveled against them, the two institutions became very defensive. They were accused of, among other things, intentionally withholding important information needed by students to make informed decisions and using underhanded tactics in their sales. Furthermore, they were accused of setting high fees for registration, which became non-refundable as well as misleading candidates during enrollment to online courses.
Even though the institution denied all the allegations and refused to take responsibility, they agreed to come to a settlement in a bid to conclude the inquiry and pending case against them. They were ordered to pay about seven and a quarter million dollars to victims. His was specifically in response to allegations that recruiters of the university often lied to progress their agenda of increasing recruitment numbers. It was reached after about three years of close investigations.
The agreement reached had the following terms. The two educational institutions were prohibited from making false, deceptive and misleading statements. In addition, they are not to omit any materials that could mislead students, engage in unfair practices or use unconscionable and coercive tactics aimed at persuading students to either enroll or retain enrollment in Ashford. These were explicitly stipulated in the settlement.
The two institutions agreed to make any vital information that is required by students available to enable them make good decisions. They should also agree to adequately train all personnel they have employed, they are to take all necessary steps to make sure that their retention techniques are legal. They are also required to compensate third parties that were instrumental in their recruitment process.
The agreement appointed Thomas J. Perrelli as the settlement administrator. He was asked to independently review the compliance of the two institutions to the terms demanded. He has the power to listen to recorded phone conversations, listen and review complaints, look at any records he requires that are helpful to his investigation as well as talking to any current and former student or employee. His task is to identify any problems and successes and report these findings annually to the attorney general and Bridgepoint Education Incorporated.
The agreement is inclusive of provisions that relate to the possible reimbursement of some students, former and current. However, this reimbursement must go through the office of the attorney general. The settlement administrator does not have any authority whatsoever relating to this reimbursement or other payments to be made under the agreement. This is not his work and thus he should not be involved.
There is an increase in the demand for education in the country. Many institutions are using underhanded methods to enroll students in their facilities. This is because there is a lot of competition in the industry. The agreement is a win for every stakeholder in education because it goes to show that the law respects education.
About the Author:
If you are looking for the facts about Ashford settlement, go to our web pages online here today. Additional details are available at http://www.ashfordsettlement.com now.
No comments:
Post a Comment