Blog

Shaping the Future of Cancer Treatment and Advocating for Women in STEM

Megan O’Meara, M.D., head of early-stage development at Pfizer Oncology, is deeply committed to scientific innovation, mentorship, and breaking barriers for the next generation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) industries. In this conversation, Megan shares her journey in oncology, leadership philosophy, and vision of a world where people with cancer live better and longer lives.

Megan O’Meara, M.D.

Head of Early-Stage Development, Pfizer Oncology

What drew you to pursue a career in oncology and what is it that inspires you most about working in this field?

I’ve always been curious about science. My grandfather was a pediatrician, and as a child he read books to me about the history of medicine. In high school, I worked in cancer research labs, and that gave me exposure to the field from an early age. By the time I was in college, there were exciting advancements happening, including broader use of tumor profiling and targeted therapies. I felt there was a huge opportunity to transform cancer treatment, and I knew I wanted to be part of it. I pursued my medical degree and later went into academic research before transitioning to industry, where I felt I might have the broadest impact on the greatest number of people.

Women make up less than 30% of the global STEM workforce. What has your experience been as a woman in research?

Being a woman in a historically male-dominated field can come with unique challenges and opportunities. There were times when I was the only woman in the room. On occasion, I felt like the only one leaving the office on time to make dinner for my family and worried about missing opportunities or important conversations that were happening when I wasn’t there.

Over time, I learned to accept the situation and be confident in setting personal boundaries. I inserted myself in different ways and advanced my career without losing who I am. I developed the confidence to be me — bringing my most authentic and whole self to work. Now, I encourage and empower other women to do the same.

As an industry, there’s still a long way to go. At a recent oncology conference, research showed that men presenting were introduced as “Dr.” while women were introduced by their first names. It seems nuanced, but it reflects a larger issue. Even in a field like oncology, where we pride ourselves on progress, bias still exists in subtle but pervasive ways. Things are improving, but they’re not where they should be yet. That’s why I feel so strongly about uplifting other women and creating opportunities for women in science.

Learn more about Pfizer Oncology at Let’s Outdo Cancer.

How are you working to change the research field to be more inclusive and supportive of women?

There were many people, particularly female leaders, throughout my career who saw my potential and championed my advancement. I try to do the same for all my team at Pfizer, including the talented women that work with me. I mention their names when I’m in a room with other leaders; I look for opportunities that will showcase their potential.

Outside of work, I volunteer at my daughter’s elementary school to organize events that engage students with science, such as bringing in Pfizer scientists to demonstrate lab techniques like DNA isolation and talk about how science can be applied to areas they are interested in. Studies show that girls start losing interest in science around age 12, so, if we can work to address that early, it can make a difference in improving female representation in STEM fields.

I’m also active in the Society for Immunotherapy in Cancer (SITC) Women in Cancer Immunotherapy Network. I’ve spoken about my journey in research at their events, which are often attended by many women in both academia and industry who are at a crossroads in their career. They’re wondering, “Can I do this?” Hearing people’s stories about how they made it work can be incredibly inspiring.

As head of the division at Pfizer Oncology responsible for developing innovative cancer treatments, what excites you most about the work your team is currently doing?

Right now, I’m particularly excited about our work in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). ADCs are innovative cancer medicines that specifically target cancer cells and deliver cancer-killing drugs directly to tumors, while sparing more of the healthy cells in the body.

ADCs have been the foundation of my career, having worked in the space for almost 15 years. This depth of experience, knowledge, and history is being applied now to what we’re doing at Pfizer to advance the field. And we’ve had a huge impact already — bringing treatments to people with blood cancer for the first time in decades and significantly changing the standard of care across tumor types.

Now, as a company, we’re asking, “How do we make ADCs even safer and more effective?” We’re exploring new drug linkers, different payloads, and novel combinations, all with the goal of giving patients better options. This kind of innovation is why I pursued a career in STEM — it’s tremendously fulfilling to be bringing us closer to a world where people with cancer live better and longer lives.

How is Pfizer uniquely positioned to make progress in cancer treatment?

I like to say Pfizer embodies a spirit of innovation and we have some of the most brilliant and dedicated scientists I’ve ever worked with. It’s rare to work at a company, even in big pharma, that has demonstrated leadership across multiple modalities of science the way Pfizer has. We’re constantly learning, adapting, and investing in what’s next across a wide pipeline of products. It’s an amazing powerhouse to be a part of.

For me, our success is also due to a culture — set by our executives — where each person has the opportunity to thrive. Chris Boshoff, chief scientific officer and president, R&D, is passionate about showcasing the team and giving people opportunities. I’ve experienced the same from other leaders. When I first joined Pfizer, Sally Susman, executive vice president and chief corporate affairs officer, introduced herself and said, “Next time you’re in New York, come meet my team.” She brought me into her leadership meeting and helped me build connections. These are just two of many people that have gone out of their way to create an environment where I am able to bring my best self to work, and I am doing the same to ensure my team of scientists has everything they need to succeed.

What do you hope for the future of women in STEM?

I hope that in 20 years, women don’t have to navigate as many barriers. I hope everyone can bring their whole self to the table without feeling like they need to sacrifice a piece of their personal life to succeed. Instead of feeling impostor syndrome around big opportunities, I hope women ask themselves, “Why not me?”

We still have work to do, but I truly believe we’re making progress. By supporting women, we’re supporting a better industry and better science.

Learn more about Pfizer Oncology at Let’s Outdo Cancer.

Source link

March 23, 2025
Texas Bill Would Limit Uncertified Teachers in Schools – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Lawmakers want to turn the tide on the growing number of unprepared and uncertified teachers by restricting who can lead Texas classrooms. But school leaders worry those limits will leave them with fewer options to refill their teacher ranks.

Tucked inside the Texas House’s $7.6 billion school finance package is a provision that would ban uncertified teachers from instructing core classes in public schools. House Bill 2 gives districts until fall 2026 to certify their K-5 math and reading teachers and until fall 2027 to certify teachers in other academic classes.

Texas would help uncertified teachers pay for the cost of getting credentialed. Under HB 2, those who participate in an in-school training and mentoring program would receive a one-time $10,000 payment and those who go through a traditional university or alternative certification program would get $3,000. Special education and emergent bilingual teachers would get their certification fees waived. Educator training experts say it could be the biggest financial investment Texas made in teacher preparation. Rep. Brad Buckley, the Salado Republican who authored the bill, has signaled the House Public Education Committee will vote on HB 2 on Tuesday.

District leaders, once reluctant to hire uncertified teachers, now rely on them often to respond to the state’s growing teacher shortage. And while they agree with the spirit of the legislation, some worry the bill would ask too much too soon of districts and doesn’t offer a meaningful solution to replace uncertified teachers who leave the profession.

“What’s going to happen when we’re no longer able to hire uncertified teachers? Class sizes have to go up, programs have to disappear…. We won’t have a choice,” said David Vroonland, the former superintendent of the Mesquite school district near Dallas and the Frenship school district near Lubbock. “There will be negative consequences if we don’t put in place serious recruitment efforts.”

A floodgate of uncertified teachers

Nowadays, superintendents often go to job fairs to recruit teachers and come out empty-handed. There are not as many Texans who want to be teachers as there used to be.

The salary in Texas is about $9,000 less than the national average, so people choose better-paying careers. Teachers say they are overworked, sometimes navigating unwieldy class sizes and using weekends to catch up on grading.

Heath Morrison started to see the pool of teacher applicants shrink years ago when he was at the helm of Montgomery ISD. Many teachers left the job during the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the problem.

“This teacher shortage is getting more and more pronounced,” said Morrison, who is now the CEO of Teachers of Tomorrow, a popular alternative teacher certification program. “The reality of most school districts across the country is you’re not making a whole lot more money 10 years into your job than you were when you first entered … And so that becomes a deterrent.”

As the pool of certified teachers shrunk, districts found a stopgap solution: bringing on uncertified teachers. Uncertified teachers accounted for roughly 38% of newly hired instructors last year, with many concentrated in rural districts.

The Texas Legislature facilitated the flood of uncertified teachers. A 2015 law lets public schools get exemptions from requirements like teacher certification, school start dates and class sizes — the same exemptions allowed for open enrollment charter schools.

Usually, to teach in Texas classrooms, candidates must obtain a certification by earning a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university, completing an educator preparation program and passing teacher certification exams.

Teacher preparation experts say certifications give teachers the tools to lead a high quality classroom. To pass certification tests, teaching candidates learn how to plan for lessons and manage discipline in a classroom.

But the 2015 law allowed districts to hire uncertified teachers by presenting a so-called “district of innovation plan” to show they were struggling to meet credential requirements because of a teacher shortage. By 2018, more than 600 rural and urban districts had gotten teacher certification exemptions.

“Now, what we’ve seen is everyone can demonstrate a shortage,” said Jacob Kirksey, a researcher at Texas Tech University. “Almost every district in Texas is a district of innovation. That is what has allowed for the influx of uncertified teachers. Everybody is getting that waiver for certification requirements.”

This session, House lawmakers are steadfast on undoing the loophole they created after new research from Kirksey sounded the alarm on the impacts of unprepared teachers on student learning. Students with new uncertified teachers lost about four months of learning in reading and three months in math, his analysis found. They missed class more than students with certified teachers, a signal of disengagement.

Uncertified teachers are also less likely to stick with the job long-term, disrupting school stability.

“The state should act urgently on how to address the number of uncertified teachers in classrooms,” said Kate Greer, a policy director at Commit Partnership. The bill “rights a wrong that we’ve had in the state for a long time.”

The price of getting certified

Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican who sits on the House Public Education Committee, said his wife has worked as an uncertified art teacher at Allen ISD. She started a program to get certified this winter and had to pay $5,000 out of pocket.

That cost may be “not only a hurdle but an impediment for someone who wants to teach and is called and equipped to teach,” Leach said earlier this month during a committee hearing on HB 2.

House lawmakers are proposing to lower the financial barriers that keep Texans who want to become teachers from getting certified.

“Quality preparation takes longer, is harder and it’s more expensive. In the past, we’ve given [uncertified candidates] an opportunity just to walk into the classroom,” said Jean Streepey, the chair of the State Board for Educator Certification. “How do we help teachers at the beginning of their journey to choose something that’s longer, harder and more expensive?”

Streepey sat on the teacher vacancy task force that Gov. Greg Abbott established in 2022 to recommend fixes to retention and recruitment challenges at Texas schools. The task force’s recommendations, such as prioritizing raises and improving training, have fingerprints all over the Texas House’s school finance package.

Under HB 2, districts would see money flow in when they put uncertified teachers on the path to certification. And those financial rewards would be higher depending on the quality of the certification program.

Schools with instructors who complete yearlong teacher residencies — which include classroom training and are widely seen as the gold standard for preparing teacher candidates — would receive bigger financial rewards than those with teachers who finish traditional university or alternative certification programs.

Even with the financial help, lawmakers are making a tall order. In two years, the more than 35,000 uncertified teachers in the state would have to get their credential or be replaced with new, certified teachers.

“The shortages have grown to be so great that I think none of us have a really firm handle on the measures that it’s going to take to turn things around.” said Michael Marder, the executive director of UTeach, a UT-Austin teacher preparatory program. “There is financial support in HB 2 to try to move us back towards the previous situation. However, I just don’t know whether the amounts that are laid out there are sufficient.”

Restrictions like “handcuffs”

Only one in five uncertified teachers from 2017 to 2020 went on to get a credential within their first three years of teaching. Texas can expect a jump in uncertified teachers going through teacher preparatory programs because of the financial resources and pressure on schools through HB 2, Marder said.

But for every teacher who does not get credentialed, school leaders will have to go out and find new teachers. And they will have to look from a smaller pool.

The restrictions on uncertified teachers “handcuffs us,”said Gilbert Trevino, the superintendent at Floydada Collegiate ISD, which sits in a rural farming town in West Texas. In recent years, recruiters with his district have gone out to job fairs and hired uncertified teachers with a college degree and field experience in the subjects they want to teach in.

Rural schools across the state have acutely experienced the challenges of the teacher shortage — and have leaned on uncertified teachers more heavily than their urban peers.

“We have to recruit locally and grow our own or hire people who have connections or roots in the community,” Trevino said. “If we hire a teacher straight out of Texas Tech University, we may have them for a year. … And then they may get on at Lubbock ISD or Plainview ISD, where there’s more of a social life.”

Floydada Collegiate ISD recruits local high school students who are working toward their associate’s degree through what is known as a Grown Your Own Teacher program. But Trevino says HB 2 does not give him the time to use this program to replace uncertified teachers. From recruitment to graduation, it takes at least three years before students can lead a classroom on their own, he said.

School leaders fear if they can’t fill all their vacancies, they’ll be pushed to increase class sizes or ask their teachers to prepare lessons for multiple subjects.

“Our smaller districts are already doing that, where teachers have multiple preps,” Trevino said. “Things are already hard on our teachers. So if you add more to their plate, how likely are they to remain in the profession or remain in this district?”

At Wylie ISD in Taylor County, it’s been difficult to find teachers to keep up with student growth. Uncertified teachers in recent years have made up a large number of teacher applicants, according to Cameron Wiley, a school board trustee.

Wiley said restrictions on uncertified teachers is a “good end goal” but would compound the district’s struggles.

“It limits the pot of people that’s already small to a smaller pot. That’s just going to make it more difficult to recruit,” Wiley said. “And if we have a hard time finding people to come in, or we’re not allowed to hire certain people to take some of that pressure off, those class sizes are just going to get bigger.”

Learning suffers when class sizes get too big because students are not able to get the attention they need.

“This bill, it’s just another obstacle that we as districts are having to maneuver around and hurl over,” Wiley said. “We’re not addressing the root cause [recruitment]. We’re just putting a Band-Aid on it right now.”

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/03/15/texas-school-funding-uncertified-teachers-shortage/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

March 22, 2025
Credit Score Penalties in the Home Insurance Market (Nick Graetz)

On February 4, Nick Graetz joined the University of Michigan’s Stone Center to present “Individualizing Climate Risk: Credit Score Penalties in the Home Insurance Market.”

Nick Graetz is an Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota in the Department of Sociology and the Institute for Social Research and Data Innovation. He is also a Fellow at the Climate and Community Institute, a progressive climate policy think tank developing research on the climate and inequality nexus. His work focuses on the intersection of housing, population health, and political economy in the United States. Learn more at ncgraetz.com.

Source link

March 22, 2025
However: the curriculum and assessment review
- Professor Sir Chris Husbands was Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University between 2016 and 2023 and is now a Director of Higher Futures, working with university leaders to lead sustainable solutions to institutional challenges.
Almost everyone has views on the school curriculum. It’s too academic; it’s not academic enough; it’s too crowded; it has major omissions; it’s too subject-dominated; it doesn’t spend enough time on subject depth. Debates about the curriculum can be wearying: just as everyone has a view on the school curriculum, so almost everyone has views about what should be added to it, though relatively few people have equally forceful ideas about what should be dropped to make room for Latin, or personal finance education, or more civic education and so on.

One of the achievements of Becky Francis’s interim report on school curriculum and assessment is that it tries to turn most of these essentially philosophical (or at least opinionated) propositions into debates about evidence and effectiveness and to use those conclusions to set out a route to more specific recommendations which will follow later in the year. It’s no small achievement. As the report says, and as Becky has maintained in interviews, ‘all potential reforms come with trade-offs’ (p 8); the key is to be clear about the nature of those trade-offs so that there can be an open, if essentially political debate about how to weight them.

The methodology adopted by Becky and her panel points towards an essentially evolutionary approach for both curriculum and assessment reform. The first half of that quoted sentence on trade-offs is an assertion that ‘our system is not perfect’ (p 8) and of course, no system is. But the report is largely positive about key building blocks of the system, and it proposes that they will remain: the structure of four key stages, which has been in place since the 1980s; the early focus on phonics as the basis of learning to read, which has been a focus of policy since the 2000s; the knowledge-rich, subject-based approach which has been in place for the last decade; and the essentials of the current assessment arrangements with formal testing at the end of Key Stage 2 (age 11), key stage 4 (essentially GCSEs) and post-16 which were established in the 1988 Education Reform Act.

More directly relevant to higher education, the report’s view is that ‘the A level route is seen as strong, well-respected and widely recognised, and facilitates progression to higher education’ (p 30) and that ‘A-levels provide successful preparation for a three-year degree’ (p 7). Whilst the review talks about returning to assess ‘whether there are opportunities to reduce the overall volume of assessment at key stage 4’ (p 41), it does not propose doing so for A-level. The underlying message is one of system stability, because ‘many aspects of the current system are working well’ (p 5).

However: one of the most frequently used words in the interim report is, in fact, ‘however’: the word appears 29 times on 37 pages of body text, and that doesn’t include synonyms including ‘but’ (32 appearances), ‘while’ (19 appearances) and a single ‘on the other hand’. Frequently, ‘however’ is used to undercut an initial judgement. The national curriculum has been a success (p 17),'[h]owever, excellence is not yet provided for all: persistent gaps remain’, The panel “share the widely held ambition to promote high standards. However, in practice, “high standards” currently too often means ‘high standards for some’”(p 5).

These ‘however’ formulations have three effects: first, and not unreasonably in an interim report, they defer difficult questions for the final report. The final report promises deep dives ‘to diagnose each subject’s specific issues and explore and test a range of solutions’, and ‘about the specificity, relevance, volume and diversity of content’ (p.42). It’s this which will prove very tough for the panel, because it is always detail which challenges in curriculum change. If the curriculum as a whole is always a focus for energetic debate, individual subjects and their structure invariably arouse very strong passions. The report sets up a future debate here about teacher autonomy, arguing, perhaps controversially in an implied ‘however’ that ‘lack of specificity can, counter-intuitively, contribute to greater curriculum volume, as teachers try to cover all eventualities’ (p 28).

Secondly, and in almost every case, the ‘however’ undercuts the positive systems judgement: ‘the system is broadly working well, and we intend to retain the mainstay of existing arrangements. However, there are opportunities for improvement’ (p 8). It’s a repeated rhetorical device which plays both to broad stability and the need for extensive change, and it suggests that some of the technical challenges are going to rest on value – and so political – judgements about how to balance the competing needs of different groups. Sometimes the complexity of those interests overwhelms the systems judgements. The review’s intention is to return to 16-19 questions, “with the aim of building on the successes of existing academic and technical pathways, particularly considering [possibly another implied ‘however’] how best to support learners who do not study A levels or T Levels” (p 9) is right to focus on the currently excluded, but the problem is often mapping a route through overly rigid structures.

The qualifications system has been better geared for higher attainers, perhaps exemplified by the EBacc [English Baccalaureate] of conventional academic subjects. Although the Panel cites evidence that a portfolio of academic subjects aids access to higher education, ‘there is little evidence to suggest that the EBacc combination [of subjects] per se has driven better attendance to Russell Group universities’ (p 24) – the latter despite the rapid growth of high tariff universities’ market share over recent years. This issue is linked to one of the most curious aspects of the report from an evidential point of view. It is overwhelmingly positive about T-levels, ‘a new, high-quality technical route for young people who are clear about their intended career destination’ which ‘show great promise’ (p 7). But (“however”) take up (2% of learners) has been very poor, and not just because not all 16-year-olds are ‘clear about their intended career pathway’. The next phase of the Review promises to ‘look at how we can achieve the aim of a simpler, clearer offer which provides strong academic and technical/vocational pathways for all’ (p 31). But that ‘simpler, clearer offer’ has defied either technical design or political will for a very long time. If it is to succeed, the review will need to consider approaches which allow combinations of vocational and academic qualifications at 16-19, partly because much higher education is both vocational and academic and more because at age 16, most learners do not have an ‘intended career pathway’.

And thirdly, related to that, the ‘howevers’ unveil a theme which looms over the report, the big challenge for national reform which seeks to deliver excellence for all. Pulling evidence together from across the report tells us that 80% of pupils met the expected standard in the phonics screening check and at age 11, 61% of pupils achieved the expected standards in reading, writing and maths (p 17). Some 40% of young people did not achieve level 2 (a grade 4 or above at GCSE) in English and maths by age 16 (p 30). To simplify: attainment gaps open early; they are not closed by the curriculum and assessment system, and one of the few graphs in the report (p 18) suggests that they are widening, leaving behind a large minority of learners who struggle to access a qualifications system which is not working for them. As the report says, the requirement to repeat GCSE English and Maths has been especially problematic.

The report is thorough, technical and thoughtful; it is evolutionary not revolutionary, and none the worse for that. Curriculum and assessment policy is full of interconnection and unintended consequences. There are tough challenges in system design to secure excellence and equity, inclusion and attainment, and to address those ‘howevers’. The difficult decisions have been left for the final report.
Source link
March 22, 2025
AFT sues Dept. of Education for denying borrowers’ rights (Student Borrower Protection Center)

Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order ordering the shutdown of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The order claims to ensure the “uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” yet Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon have gutted the arms of ED that make those functions possible. Read our statement on yesterday’s executive order here. Last week, Trump announced a 50 percent reduction in the workforce at the Department. Now he plans to move student loans to the Small Business Administration?!?!

The Trump Administration is intentionally breaking the student loan system and attacking borrowers and working families with student debt. But we’ve been fighting back.

On Tuesday night, the 1.8 million-member AFT sued ED for denying borrowers’ access to affordable loan payments and blocking progress towards Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)—in violation of federal law.

Three weeks ago, federal education officials eliminated access to Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans by removing the application from ED’s website and secretly ordering student loan servicers to halt processing all applications. These IDR plans provide millions of borrowers the right to tie their monthly payment to their income and family size, giving them the option to make loan payments they can afford.

IDR plans are also the only way for public service workers to benefit from PSLF—a critical lifeline for teachers, nurses, first responders, and millions of other public service workers across the country.

SBPC Executive Director Mike Pierce’s statement:

Source link

March 22, 2025
Republican Voters Value Higher Education. Here Are Their Priorities.

Title: What do Republican Voters Want on Higher Education?

Author: Ben Cecil

Source: Third Way

During the budgetary process that recently concluded, Congress considered substantial funding cuts to numerous areas, including higher education. Republican voters, however, may not view heavy cuts to higher education favorably. A recent survey of 500 Republican voters nationwide conducted by Third Way and the Republican polling firm GS Strategy Group found that Republicans value and support higher education, are in favor of less invasive reforms, and largely support policies directed at college affordability and accountability.

The survey responses make clear that Republican voters haven’t abandoned the concept of higher education, with over 60 percent of respondents reporting that a four-year degree is valuable in today’s economy. Beyond traditional four-year programs, Republican voters demonstrated substantial support for trade schools and community colleges, with favorability for the institutions at 91 and 87 percent, respectively. While Republican perspectives regarding the value of education remain positive, nearly 90 percent of voters polled said that more accountability is required for higher education.

Republican voters also rated many current higher education policies very favorably. Eighty-one percent of respondents said they support Pell Grants, while 79 percent supported Public Service Loan Forgiveness and income-driven repayment for student loans. The support for these programs aligns with one of respondents’ primary policy concerns; just under half of Republican voters said that affordability is the most significant problem that needs to be addressed within higher education.

To address college affordability concerns, Republicans aren’t in favor of relying on private industry; of the 12 policy reforms Third Way tested, privatization of student loan programs was ranked number 11, with just over half of respondents viewing it as a viable option. With affordability as a chief concern, Republican voters recognize and support the role the federal government plays in offering financial support for students.

The perspectives of Republican voters on higher education demonstrate clear policy aims and a hesitation to substantially change funding structures and government involvement. When asked if they prefer sweeping cuts to graduate lending or more accountability from institutions to improve their return on investment, only 20 percent of voters chose funding cuts. The message is clear: Republicans support increases to institutional accountability and college affordability but aren’t looking for broad cuts to higher education.

For further information, click here to read the full article from the Third Way.

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

March 22, 2025
In Bid to Close Education Department, President Trump Looks to Rehouse Student Loans, Special Education Programs – The 74

President Donald Trump said Friday that the U.S. Small Business Administration would handle the student loan portfolio for the slated-for-elimination Education Department, and that the Department of Health and Human Services would handle special education services and nutrition programs.

The announcement — which raises myriad questions over the logistics to carry out these transfers of authority — came a day after Trump signed a sweeping executive order that directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department to the extent she is permitted to by law.

“I do want to say that I’ve decided that the SBA, the Small Business Administration, headed by Kelly Loeffler — terrific person — will handle all of the student loan portfolio,” Trump said Friday morning.

The White House did not provide advance notice of the announcement, which Trump made at the opening of an Oval Office appearance with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The Education Department manages student loans for millions of Americans, with a portfolio of more than $1.6 trillion, according to the White House.

In his executive order, Trump said the federal student aid program is “roughly the size of one of the Nation’s largest banks, Wells Fargo,” adding that “although Wells Fargo has more than 200,000 employees, the Department of Education has fewer than 1,500 in its Office of Federal Student Aid.”

‘Everything else’ to HHS

Meanwhile, Trump also said that the Department of Health and Human Services “will be handling special needs and all of the nutrition programs and everything else.”

It is unclear what nutrition programs Trump was referencing, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture manages school meal and other major nutrition programs.

One of the Education Department’s core functions includes supporting students with special needs. The department is also tasked with carrying out the federal guarantee of a free public education for children with disabilities Congress approved in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.

Trump added that the transfers will “work out very well.”

“Those two elements will be taken out of the Department of Education,” he said Friday. “And then all we have to do is get the students to get guidance from the people that love them and cherish them, including their parents, by the way, who will be totally involved in their education, along with the boards and the governors and the states.”

Trump’s Thursday order also directs McMahon to “return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

SBA, HHS heads welcome extra programs

Asked for clarification on the announcement, a White House spokesperson on Friday referred States Newsroom to comments from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and heads of the Small Business Administration and Health and Human Services Department.

Leavitt noted the move was consistent with Trump’s promise to return education policy decisions to states.

“President Trump is doing everything within his executive authority to dismantle the Department of Education and return education back to the states while safeguarding critical functions for students and families such as student loans, special needs programs, and nutrition programs,” Leavitt said. “The President has always said Congress has a role to play in this effort, and we expect them to help the President deliver.”

Loeffler and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said their agencies were prepared to take on the Education Department programs.

“As the government’s largest guarantor of business loans, the SBA stands ready to deploy its resources and expertise on behalf of America’s taxpayers and students,” Loeffler said.

Kennedy, on the social media platform X, said his department was “fully prepared to take on the responsibility of supporting individuals with special needs and overseeing nutrition programs that were run by @usedgov.”

The Education Department directed States Newsroom to McMahon’s remarks on Fox News on Friday, where she said the department was discussing with other federal agencies where its programs may end up, noting she had a “good conversation” with Loeffler and that the two are “going to work on the strategic plan together.”

Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: [email protected].

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

March 22, 2025
Small Business Administration to Take Over Student Loans

A day after White House officials said the Education Department would administer the student loan program, President Donald Trump announced that the Small Business Administration would be taking over the $1.7 trillion portfolio.

He told White House reporters that the move would happen “immediately,” though he didn’t say how that process would work. Currently, federal law requires the Education Department to manage student loans, so the president doesn’t have the authority for the move, several experts and advocates said Friday.

Neither the White House nor the Small Business Administration responded to requests for more information or details about the plan.

In response to questions about how moving loans to SBA would work, the Education Department referred Inside Higher Ed to an interview that Education Secretary Linda McMahon did Friday with Fox News. McMahon said she’s working with the SBA on a strategic plan.

The announcement follows Trump’s executive order, signed Thursday, directing McMahon to close her department “to the maximum extent of the law.” McMahon and others have said a smaller version of the department would focus on core functions, which many experts presumed to include the student loan program. (Trump also said Friday that the Department of Health and Human Services would take over programs that support students with disabilities.)

Kelly Loeffler, who leads the SBA, wrote on social media that her agency “stands ready to take the lead on restoring accountability and integrity to America’s student loan portfolio.” Whether the department has the capacity to take on the program is an open question; Loeffler is planning to cut 43 percent of the staff, Politico and other news outlets have reported. The SBA runs several programs to support small businesses, including providing loans and helping with disaster recovery.

The Education Department issues about $100 billion in student loans each year and disburses $30 billion in Pell Grants. That funding is crucial to students who rely on the government to help pay for college.

But borrowers have struggled over the years to navigate the cumbersome student loan system and often have faced difficulty in repaying their loans. Meanwhile, the federal government’s growing loan portfolio has become a key issue for lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle. Former president Joe Biden’s fix was in part to make student loan forgiveness more accessible and make loan payments more affordable.

Trump said Friday that the loan system “will be serviced much better than it has in the past,” adding, “it’s been a mess.”

Agency Blindsided

It wasn’t clear Friday afternoon whether SBA would also take over the Pell Grant program and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid—a form that millions of students rely on to access federal, student and institutional aid. Currently, the Office of Federal Student Aid, which is part of the Education Department, administers those programs. That office was hit hard by recent mass layoffs at the department, and experts have questioned whether it will be able to fulfill its many responsibilities, which also include overseeing colleges and rooting out fraud in the federal student aid system.

Trump’s executive order pointed out that the Education Department manages a portfolio the size of Wells Fargo but with significantly fewer employees. “The Department of Education is not a bank, and it must return bank functions to an entity equipped to serve America’s students,” the order said.

An official high up at Federal Student Aid said Friday that the office was blindsided by the announcement. Just a day before, the official said, the plan was to move the loans to the Treasury Department. Agency officials have yet to receive any plans or communication about handing over the reins to SBA or what that would entail, the official said.

‘Clear Violation’

The federal statute that created FSA specifically gives that office authority to administer student financial assistance programs. Additionally, laws dictating how federal funding is allocated explicitly send money to the Education Department for the student aid programs. A former department staffer told Inside Higher Ed that the administration is “clearly circumventing the spirit and intent of the law if you were to move to functions.”

Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, agreed, writing on social media that the announcement “is a clear violation of education [and] appropriations law.”

Beth Maglione, interim president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, added in a statement that only Congress can move the student loan portfolio to a different agency; if the legislative branch agreed, doing so would take time.

“The administration would first need to articulate a definitive strategy outlining how the work of administering student aid programs would be allocated within the SBA, determine the necessary staffing and resources, and build the requisite infrastructure to facilitate the transition of these programs to another federal agency,” she said. “In the absence of any comprehensive plan, a serious concern remains: how will this restructuring be executed without disruption to students and institutions?”

Not a ‘Crazy Idea’

Some conservative policy experts who support shutting down the department cheered the move. Lindsey Burke, director for the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation, wrote on social media that “without student loans at ED, there will be little left at the agency. Just a few programs—certainly not enough to justify a cabinet-level agency.”

Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, like the Heritage Foundation a conservative think tank, acknowledged in an email to Inside Higher Ed that there are a lot of open questions about how the SBA move would work. But she said the announcement shows that the Trump administration understands that the recent staffing cuts “will likely make it too difficult to keep these programs properly administered otherwise,” she wrote.

Akers noted that since SBA currently manages its own loans, “it isn’t a crazy idea that they could pull this off.”

“Frankly, the department has handled student loan administration poorly, so the bar is pretty low on what would constitute an improvement,” she added. “I expect that the existing student loan infrastructure (and remaining staff) will likely move over to SBA, and there won’t be immediate changes in how these programs are run. That’s my hope. Because if things change too quickly, I expect that students will see disruptions that could affect their enrollments and personal finances.”

Liam Knox contributed to this report.

Source link

March 21, 2025
Columbia Agrees to Trump’s Demands

Acquiescing to demands from the Trump administration to address alleged antisemitism on campus, Columbia University has agreed to overhaul disciplinary processes, ban masks at protests, add 36 officers with the authority to make arrests and appoint a new senior vice provost to oversee academic programs focused on the Middle East, among other changes.

The decision, announced Friday afternoon, is the latest move in Columbia’s ongoing face-off with the federal government over last year’s pro-Palestinian protests, which spawned the nationwide encampment movement. Columbia yielded despite concerns about the legality of the demands, as well as of an associated effort by the Trump administration to strip the university of $400 million in research funding.

“We have worked hard to address the legitimate concerns raised both from within and without our Columbia community, including by our regulators, with respect to the discrimination, harassment, and antisemitic acts our Jewish community has faced in the wake of October 7, 2023,” university officials said in a Friday statement.

The acknowledgment is a rare admission of antisemitism on campus, despite the fact that a Title VI investigation by the Department of Education has not yet been completed.

Columbia announced additional efforts that the Trump administration didn’t request, including advancing the university’s Tel Aviv Center (though initial details are sparse) and creating a K-12 curriculum “focused on topics such as how to have difficult conversations, create classrooms that foster open inquiry, dialogue across difference and topics related to antisemitism.” That curriculum will be free for schools.

Columbia did not place the Middle East, South Asian and African Studies Department into “academic receivership” for a minimum of five years, as the Trump administration demanded, but the parties appeared to reach a compromise. A new senior vice provost will review a broader range of programs, expanding beyond the department targeted by Trump to include “the Center for Palestine Studies; the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies; Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies; the Middle East Institute; the Tel Aviv and Amman global hubs; [and] the School of International and Public Affairs Middle East Policy major,” according to the university.

The new senior provost, who has not yet been named, will review programs “to ensure the educational offerings are comprehensive and balanced” and evaluate “all aspects of leadership and curriculum” among other changes, which may include academic restructuring.

The full list of changes can be found here.

Interim president Katrina Armstrong announced the move in a statement titled “Sharing Progress on Our Priorities,” calling it “a privilege to share our progress and plans” after a difficult year of protests and scrutiny.

“At all times, we are guided by our values, putting academic freedom, free expression, open inquiry, and respect for all at the fore of every decision we make,” Armstrong wrote in the message posted Friday afternoon, which she signed, “Standing together for Columbia.”

Critics, however, have argued that yielding to the Trump administration undermines academic freedom and urged Columbia to fight the demands.

Legal scholars at Columbia and in conservative circles have noted that the Trump administration’s demands were likely unlawful. However, it seemed the university had no desire for a protracted legal fight.

After the news broke—first reported by The Wall Street Journal—many critics panned the move.

In a Friday press call, American Association of University Professors President Todd Wolfson blasted Columbia for failing to stand up to Trump.

“This is not the outcome we wanted to see we wanted to see Columbia stand up for their rights for academic freedom and freedom of speech on their campus and we did not expect for them to not only capitulate to the demands of the federal government but actually go beyond the initial demands as far as we can tell,” Wolfson said.

“This is an unprecedented intervention into academic freedom—never before in Columbia’s 250+ years has the federal government tried to exert control over a department before. And Trump et al. are only getting started,” Columbia history professor Karl Jacoby wrote on Bluesky.

Outside experts pointed to the likelihood that more universities will give in to Trump’s threats now that Columbia has yielded.

“Trump gets exactly what he wants from Columbia. Next up: most of the big-name institutions in American higher education. This is a turning point in the history of our industry,” Robert Kelchen, a professor of education and head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, wrote in a Bluesky post.

(Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.)

Source link

March 21, 2025
Trump says special education oversight will move to HHS

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Federal special education operations, currently spearheaded by the U.S. Department of Education, will move to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, President Donald Trump said on Friday.

“It’s going to be a great situation. I guarantee that in a few years from now… I think that you’re going to have tremendous results,” said Trump, while seated in the Oval Office of the White House. Trump also said he would move federal student loan and school nutrition program oversight from the Education Department to the Small Business Administration.

Trump did not say when or how the transitions would occur. Additional information from the Education Department about logistics concerning the transfer of responsibilities was not available Friday afternoon.

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, in a Fox News interview Friday, said funding for the federal special education law — the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — was in place before the creation of the Education Department in 1979. McMahon added that before the Education Department was created, special education programming was housed in what was then the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, “and it managed to work incredibly well.”

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote on the social media platform X on Friday that HHS, “is fully prepared to take on the responsibility” of supporting students with disabilities. He added, “We are committed to ensuring every American has access to the resources they need to thrive. We will make the care of our most vulnerable citizens our highest national priority.”

.@HHSGov is fully prepared to take on the responsibility of supporting individuals with special needs and overseeing nutrition programs that were run by @usedgov. We are committed to ensuring every American has access to the resources they need to thrive. We will make the care of…

— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) March 21, 2025

The Education Department oversees the distribution of about $15.4 billion for supports to about 8.4 million infants, toddlers, school children and young adults with disabilities. The department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilatives Services and Office of Special Education Programs also conducts monitoring, provides technical assistance to states and districts, and holds states and districts accountable for compliance to IDEA.

The president’s comments come a day after he signed an executive order during a White House event directing McMahon to shutter the department to the “maximum extent appropriate.”

At the Thursday signing of the executive order and during comments on Friday, Trump said the low academic performance of U.S. students required a shakeup at the federal level.

He and his administration have also cited the desire to reduce federal bureaucracy in order to give more decision-making power to the state and local levels.

But public school supporters have vigorously denounced the Trump administration’s moves to dismantle the Education Department, which have already included reducing the workforce by half and canceling research and teacher preparation grants. At least one group — Democracy Forward — says it is planning legal action to stop the department shutdown.

Chad Rummel, executive director of the Council for Exceptional Children, said in a statement Friday, “IDEA is an education law, not a healthcare law, and belongs at the Department of Education.”

CEC is a nonprofit for professionals who work in special and gifted education.

Rummel added, “Moving IDEA programs to HHS would de-emphasize the purpose of IDEA to provide a free and appropriate public education and other critical activities to infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities, and challenge the federal role to provide evidence-based research, personnel preparation, and technical assistance to advance the field of special education.”

National Parents Union President Keri Rodrigues said in a Friday statement, “This is not a minor bureaucratic reorganization — it is a fundamental redefinition of how our country treats children with disabilities.” The National Parents Union is a 1.7 million membership organization with more than 1,800 affiliated parent organizations in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

“We must call this what it is: an effort to dismantle protections, disempower families, and turn education into a battleground for profit-driven insurance corporations,” Rodrigues said. “We will not allow it.”

Source link

March 21, 2025