Virginia Teacher Awarded $575,000 in Settlement Over Pronouns Dispute**Peter Vlaming, a former high school French teacher in West Point, Virginia, was awarded $575,000 in a settlement after filing a lawsuit against the West Point School Board. Vlaming, who taught for seven years, was terminated in 2018 for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns. Instead, he used the student’s chosen name while avoiding gender-specific pronouns.Vlaming filed a $1 million lawsuit in 2019, asserting that the school district’s actions violated his rights to free speech and religious beliefs. The settlement, which covers damages and attorney fees, was approved by a judge this week. Caleb Dalton, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, called the outcome “a win for freedom of speech in Virginia,” emphasizing that no government should compel employees to endorse beliefs contrary to their values.West Point Public Schools Superintendent Larry L. Frazier Jr. expressed satisfaction with the resolution, noting that it ensures no negative impact on the school community. Since Vlaming’s termination, the school district has adopted new transgender policies in alignment with guidelines introduced by Governor Glenn Youngkin in 2022, which give parents greater control over a student’s identity in school records.The case has drawn national attention, spotlighting

The audit highlighted several areas of concern, including the university’s handling of information technology units, managing a $500 million advertising contract, and tracking student residency status.One major issue raised in the audit was the lack of oversight in the university’s decision to spin off its information technology units into independent businesses, which were then supported with $198.1 million in sole-source contracts. This lack of oversight may have contributed to the failure of a $25.1 million IT project with no results.The audit also criticized UMGC’s management of a $500 million advertising contract, noting that enrollment at the university continued to decline despite the significant investment in advertising and publicity.Additionally, the audit raised concerns about the university’s tracking of student residency status, revealing that a significant portion of residency statuses were not independently reviewed and approved.In response to the audit, UMGC officials disagreed with some of the charges. They highlighted the university’s adherence to policies allowing it to contract with high-impact Economic Development Activities (HIEDA) businesses without competitive bidding. However, the audit argued that while state law permits this practice, it does not mandate the exclusive use of these entities.UMGC President Gregory W. Fowler stated that several audit recommendations had been accepted

The Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan suggested limiting the amount people have to repay for undergraduate loans to 5% of their incomes, down from the previous 10%.It also included provisions to limit accrued interest and shorten the payment period for certain small loans, allowing them to be forgiven.Multiple conservative-leaning states, led by Missouri, challenged the new plan, arguing that it would require spending up to $475 billion, which Congress did not authorize. They contended that the administration did not have the authority to implement such a sweeping policy without approval from Congress.In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, an Education Department spokesperson expressed disappointment, stating that lifting the injunction would have allowed for lower payments and other benefits for borrowers nationwide.The department will continue to advocate for lower repayment options for borrowers while working to minimize further harm and disruption to borrowers.The Supreme Court’s rejection of the administration’s request to lift the injunction means that the SAVE plan and previous changes to repayment terms dating back to 1994 remain on hold. This decision affects around 8 million people already enrolled in the SAVE plan.Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant setback for the Biden administration’s efforts to

ICYMI **The student loan system is in turmoil, leaving millions of borrowers uncertain about their financial futures. Over eight million borrowers are currently in forbearance due to sweeping legal challenges that have stalled President Biden’s student loan relief initiatives.** Millions more remain in limbo, unsure if they will qualify for forgiveness. This uncertainty stems from multiple court battles led by Republican-controlled states, which have effectively blocked several vital programs to ease the burden on borrowers. One of the primary targets is the SAVE plan, a new income-driven repayment program introduced by the Biden administration to lower monthly payments, reduce accumulating interest, and provide a clear pathway to student loan forgiveness. The program, aimed at helping borrowers manage their debt more effectively, was brought to a standstill when the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nationwide injunction in August. As a result, borrowers who enrolled in the SAVE plan have been placed in forbearance, during which no payments are required, and no interest will accrue. However, the downside is that these months will not count toward loan forgiveness under IDR plans or the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, effectively pausing the forgiveness clock for millions of borrowers. Legal challenges