The authors are doctoral candidates in school psychology at New Jersey City University. Their names are withheld because they fear retaliation.

Students are often told that if they work hard, follow the rules, and meet expectations, their path to a professional career will be clear. For students in the School Psychology program at New Jersey City University, that promise is now being tested. 

As part of the state-mandated merger with Kean University, students nearing the end of their training are facing unexpected academic, financial, and professional consequences. What has been described as a “seamless transition” has instead shifted institutional challenges onto the very students who did everything right. 

The Financial Reality

Many affected students are working professionals, parents, and caregivers balancing jobs, family responsibilities, and graduate coursework. Being told mid-program that additional coursework may be required; or that graduation timelines may change; is not a minor disruption. It means rearranging work schedules, securing childcare, delaying entry into a critical profession, and taking on unexpected debt. 

Students may now be required to complete up to nine additional credits; an unplanned cost of approximately $6,000 to $9,000; on top of existing tuition and the demands of unpaid internships. These are not optional expenses; they are the cost of adapting to requirements that did not exist when students enrolled. 

A Moving Target

When these students enrolled, they committed to a clearly defined program at NJCU, one that held full accreditation through the National Association of School Psychologists. They followed that plan in good faith, expecting that meeting requirements would lead to a recognized and professionally sound degree. 

That expectation is now uncertain. Students have been told they will not be “grandfathered” under the original program requirements and must instead comply with new standards that were never part of their academic agreement. 

Compounding this uncertainty is a breakdown in communication during the transition. Students report difficulty obtaining timely responses to emails, canceled or missed advising meetings, and limited guidance on registration. In some cases, this has left NJCU students unable to independently register for required coursework, further delaying progress and increasing anxiety during an already unstable process.

The Accreditation Risk

Accreditation adds another layer of concern. While NJCU’s program was fully accredited at the time of enrollment, Kean’s comparable program currently holds only conditional accreditation. 

If full accreditation is not secured in time, students may be required to complete the NASP National Portfolio Review; an extensive and costly process involving additional time, documentation, and fees. 

A Difficult Position for Students

Students navigating this transition are also placed in a difficult position when advocating for themselves. While many faculty members remain supportive, the reality of a merged program creates uncertainty. Speaking up to request clarity or fairness may feel risky, particularly when academic progress depends on faculty evaluation and institutional approval.

A Broader Impact

This issue extends beyond a single cohort. School psychologists are in high demand and adding financial and administrative barriers risks discouraging qualified candidates from entering an already strained field.

Students supporting families face particular challenges when pursuing out-of-state internships, many of which provide the salaries and benefits necessary for financial stability and completion of required 1,200-hour placements. Differences in school calendars; such as earlier start dates in states like Georgia and Florida; have not historically been barriers under NJCU’s structure. However, under Kean’s current position, these “early starts” may now require additional coursework, creating yet another unexpected financial burden for students already balancing work, school, and family responsibilities.

Equally concerning is the broader uncertainty this situation creates. If a fully accredited program can be altered midstream in ways that disadvantage students, it raises an important question: is this an isolated case, or part of a larger pattern affecting students across programs?

A Call for Accountability

Students are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for what they were promised: a clear, fair, and consistent path to completing their degrees.

Universities have a responsibility not only to educate students, but to uphold the commitments they make to them. When institutional decisions shift the burden onto students, the result is not just financial strain; it is a loss of trust.

For these future school psychologists, the stakes are immediate and deeply personal. When the rules change midstream, the question remains: why are the students; who followed every requirement; the ones forced to pay the price?