Bonding (not -age)
Reading of these tales of woe I feel that, in an industry as strictly regulated as aviation, the regulator has a moral duty to protect students.
Taking the UK as an example, the CAA licence Air Transport Operators under the ATOL bonding scheme where (very generally speaking) any company wishing to operate a commercial air transport operation has to pay a bond into a fund which is then used to repatriate holiday makers if the company goes belly up.
It should not be without the wit of man to have a similar bonding scheme that is part of the licencing / registration process for any company wishing to operate a Flight Training Organisation, be it Private or Professionally orientated, and that bond be sized appropriately to the scale and complexity of the operation, e.g. (and these are figures plucked out of the air) a small flying school with 2 x C-152s that is hardly ever going to have more than a dozen students has a bond of £ 30K whereas a larger FTO with 50 x CPL/IR students has a bond of £ 500,000.
Of course, this places an additional financial burden upon the school but anyone entering into a business venture with genuine intent would include the bond in the business plan they took to the bank.
But more importantly, the prospective student can rest easy in the knowledge that, should the company go bust he or she will get some of their money back, if not all.
Just a thought.
I'll fetch me coat.
2close