Author: admin

  • Trump bars Harvard from enrolling international students in alarming crackdown on speech

    Trump bars Harvard from enrolling international students in alarming crackdown on speech

    Today, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students.

    Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered her department to end Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, citing the university’s failure to hand over the behavioral records of student visa holders.

    The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to escalate its assault against Harvard University by revoking its ability to enroll international students is retaliatory and unlawful.

    Secretary Noem’s letter warns that the Trump administration seeks to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses.” But little is more un-American than a federal bureaucrat demanding that a private university demonstrate its ideological fealty to the government under pain of punishment.

    The Department’s demand that Harvard produce audio and video footage of all protest activity involving international students over the last five years is gravely alarming. This sweeping fishing expedition reaches protected expression and must be flatly rejected.

    The Department is already arresting and seeking to deport students for engaging in protected political activity it disfavors. Were Harvard to capitulate to Secretary Noem’s unlawful demands, more students could face such consequences. The administration’s demand for a surveillance state at Harvard is anathema to American freedom. 

    The administration seems hellbent on employing every means at its disposal — no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional — to retaliate against Harvard and other colleges and universities for speech it doesn’t like. This has to stop. 

    Since 1999, FIRE has fought for free speech and academic freedom at Harvard and campuses nationwide, and we will continue to do so. We know there is work to do. Whatever Harvard’s past failings, core campus rights cannot and will not be secured by surveillance, retaliation, and censorship.

    No American should accept the federal government punishing its political opponents by demanding ideological conformity, surveilling and retaliating against protected speech, and violating the First Amendment.

    Source link

  • Trump Administration Strips Harvard’s SEVIS Certification

    Trump Administration Strips Harvard’s SEVIS Certification

    Amid an ongoing legal showdown with Harvard University, the Trump administration has carried through on a recent threat to halt the private institution’s ability to host international students.

    The move was first reported Thursday afternoon by The New York Times, then subsequently announced on social media by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.

    “This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” Noem wrote in the announcement. “Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused.”

    (Though much of the federal government’s recent focus on Harvard has concerned the university’s alleged failure to address antisemitism on campus, the Trump administration has also raised questions about collaboration with foreign researchers, particularly those with ties to the Chinese and Iranian governments.)

    In her statement, Noem wrote that Harvard’s Student Exchange and Visitor Information System certification was being stripped “as a result of their failure to adhere to the law,” which she said should “serve as a warning to all universities” across the U.S.

    Current international students would be required to transfer to maintain their visa status.

    Noem added that Harvard would need to turn over demanded records within 72 hours if it would “like the opportunity of regaining” SEVIS certification “before the upcoming school year.”

    A Harvard spokesperson called the action “unlawful” in an emailed statement.

    “We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University—and this nation—immeasurably,” the spokesperson wrote. “This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.”

    Impact on Harvard

    Harvard enrolled 6,793 international students last fall, according to university data. International students have made up about a quarter of Harvard’s head count over the last decade—a population that could disappear, along with their substantial tuition dollars, if the Trump administration’s directive holds.

    Noem threatened to revoke Harvard’s SEVIS certification last month after the university pushed back on federal government demands to turn over “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities by April 30.” That threat followed Harvard’s refusal to acquiesce to sweeping demands to overhaul its governance, admissions and hiring processes and more in response to allegations of antisemitic conduct. The university then sued the Trump administration over a federal funding freeze and other recent actions.

    Revoking Harvard’s SEVIS certification is the second punch the government threw at the university this week, coming after the Department of Health and Human Services announced the termination of $60 million in multiyear federal grants, which officials attributed to concerns about campus antisemitism.

    Other sources of federal funding are on hold. Altogether, the Trump administration has frozen at least $2.7 billion flowing to the private university, or about a third of Harvard’s federal funds.

    A New Political Cudgel

    The Student Exchange and Visitor Program’s process for revoking universities’ SEVIS status is usually a prolonged and complicated bureaucratic affair, typically preceded by a thorough investigation of the institution and the possibility of appeal.

    Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, told Inside Higher Ed that the manner in which the federal government stripped Harvard’s SEVIS certification was unprecedented.

    “In a normal world, Harvard is supposed to actually get a notice that their SEVIS certification is being revoked, and then there is an appeals process,” Spreitzer said. “It doesn’t seem that DHS is following any of the regular requirements that are included in statute for taking this action.”

    In late March, Trump officials first proposed revoking SEVIS status from institutions that they believed fostered antisemitism on campus, aiming their threats specifically at Columbia and the University of California, Los Angeles, which were home to major pro-Palestinian protests in 2024. In mid-April they threatened Harvard with decertification.

    Clay Harmon, director of AIRC: The Association of International Enrollment Management, told Inside Higher Ed in March that historically, SEVP investigations are conducted when universities are suspected of delivering less-than-bona-fide degree programs, using shady coursework as a way to essentially sell student visas to would-be immigrants who want a fast way to enter the country. 

    “It is the government’s primary way of ensuring that international student visas are not granted for diploma mills, fake institutions or institutions that are not adequately financially supported,” Harmon said. “I’ve never heard of a fully accredited, reputable institution—whether it’s Columbia or Bunker Hill Community College—being subjected to some kind of extraordinary SEVP investigation outside of the standard recertification process.”

    The initial process of certification, Harmon added, is intensive and can take institutions months or even longer to complete, which is one reason why decertification is so rare. Wielding the organization’s oversight powers as a tool for leverage in a larger political battle, he said, would be “a significant departure from past practices and established precedents.”

    “It is clear that the administration is putting forward new interpretations of laws and powers that have not been established through case law or regular practice,” Harmon said.

    In an email to Inside Higher Ed on Thursday, Harmon said the administration’s decision to use decertification against Harvard “imposes real, immediate, and significant harm on thousands of students for reasons outside their control and unrelated to their own actions.”

    “This action may have broad and long-term negative impacts—well beyond Harvard and well beyond 2025—to the educational experience and financial health of U.S. institutions,” he wrote.

    Revocation of Harvard’s SEVIS certification prompted sharp reactions online.

    Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote on social media that Noem’s actions are “likely illegal” and her letter showed no evidence of Harvard’s violations.

    “Nothing in here alleges ANY specific violation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. Nothing. She cites no law violated, no regulation broken, no policy ignored,” Reichlin-Melnick wrote. “I don’t care what you think of Harvard; this is clear weaponization of government.”

    Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, called the government’s revocation of Harvard’s ability to host international students “retaliatory and unlawful.”

    In a statement posted on X, he assailed the Education Department’s demands that Harvard hand over footage of international students protesting on campus.

    “This sweeping fishing expedition reaches protected expression and must be flatly rejected,” Creeley wrote. “The administration’s demand for a surveillance state at Harvard is anathema to American freedom … This has to stop.”

    But some officials in the MAGA camp celebrated the move.

    “This is a remarkable first step,” Republican senator Ashley Moody of Florida wrote on X. “I applaud the administration for taking a stand to rid our universities of malign foreign influence.”

    Source link

  • ‘A shell of itself’: Federal judge pauses efforts to wind down Education Department

    ‘A shell of itself’: Federal judge pauses efforts to wind down Education Department

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

    The U.S. Department of Education is temporarily barred from carrying out an executive order to shut down the agency and must reinstate employees who were fired as part of a mass reduction in force in March, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

    In the preliminary injunction in State of New York v. McMahon, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ordered that the department be “restored to the status quo” prior to the day President Donald Trump retook office.

    The agency’s actions since show no evidence that its workforce reductions have improved efficiency or that the agency is making progress in working with Congress to close the department, Joun said. 

    “The supporting declarations of former Department employees, educational institutions, unions, and educators paint a stark picture of the irreparable harm that will result from financial uncertainty and delay, impeded access to vital knowledge on which students and educators rely, and loss of essential services for America’s most vulnerable student populations,” his ruling stated.

    Joun also said the Education Department is prohibited from carrying out President Donald Trump’s March 21 directive to transfer management of the federal student loans portfolio and special education management and oversight out of the Education Department.

    “A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,” Joun wrote. “This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.”

    The preliminary injunction requires the agency to submit a report to the court within 72 hours of the order, outlining all the steps it is taking to comply, and to do so “every week thereafter until the Department is restored to the status quo prior to January 20, 2025.”

    Thursday’s ruling is a setback to the Trump administration’s goals of reducing the size and scope of the federal government. The ambitions are to give more flexibility and decision-making power to the states, supporters of the administration action said.

    Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Education Department, said the agency will challenge the ruling “on an emergency basis.”

    “Once again, a far-left Judge has dramatically overstepped his authority, based on a complaint from biased plaintiffs, and issued an injunction against the obviously lawful efforts to make the Department of Education more efficient and functional for the American people,” Biedermann said in an emailed statement Thursday. 

    Biedermann added, “This ruling is not in the best interest of American students or families.”

    Public school supporters, on the other hand, celebrated the ruling.

    “Today, the court rightly rejected one of the administration’s very first illegal, and consequential, acts: abolishing the federal role in education,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, in a Thursday statement. Most Americans and states “want to keep the education department because it ensures all kids, not just some, can get a shot at a better life,” she said.

    The legal challenge began March 13, when the attorneys general in 20 states and the District of Columbia sued the Education Department to halt the mass workforce reductions announced March 11. 

    About half of the agency’s 4,133 employees were let go or accepted buy outs. Almost a third of the affected employees had worked in one of three offices within the Education Department: Federal Student Aid, the Office for Civil Rights and the Institute for Education Sciences. 

    Later that month, Trump signed an executive order at a White House ceremony that directed U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin closing down the agency to the “maximum extent appropriate.”

    “My administration will take all lawful steps to shut down the department,” Trump said at the March 20 signing ceremony. “We’re going to shut it down, and shut it down as quickly as possible.”

    McMahon, during several appearances on Capitol Hill, has acknowledged that only Congress has the authority to close the agency and said she is working with lawmakers to do so.

    Source link

  • Judge Orders Education Department Employees Reinstated

    Judge Orders Education Department Employees Reinstated

    On Thursday a judge ordered more than 2,000 fired employees of the Education Department reinstated.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images | Matveev_Aleksandr and raweenuttapong/iStock/Getty Images

    A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of employees at the Department of Education in a decisive rebuke of this spring’s sweeping reduction in force and the executive branch’s efforts to weaken the Education Department.

    Judge Myong Joun rejected the administration’s argument that the layoffs, which affected half of the department’s workforce, were part of a “reorganization” aimed at improving efficiency and said evidence showed the administration’s “true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute.” His order also prevents the department from implementing President Donald Trump’s March directive to dismantle the agency.

    Joun of the District of Massachusetts also said the injunction to rehire the fired staffers was necessary in order to restore the department’s ability to accomplish its core functions and statutorily mandated responsibilities.

    “Not only is there no evidence that Defendants are pursuing a ‘legislative goal’ or otherwise working with Congress to reach a resolution, but there is also no evidence that the RIF has actually made the Department more efficient,” Joun wrote in his 88-page ruling. “Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Department will not be able to carry out its statutory functions—and in some cases, is already unable to do so.”

    Reports of systemic failings and overloaded staff have streamed out of the beleaguered department ever since the March layoffs, from an untouched backlog of complaints at the Office for Civil Rights to the piling up of applications for student loan repayment and forgiveness plans.

    The injunction, handed down Thursday morning, means the administration must reinstate more than 2,000 Education Department employees and reopen regional offices that were shuttered during the reduction in force.

    The administration has already said it has issued a challenge to the ruling. Madi Biedermann, the department’s deputy assistant secretary for communication, said the administration has already appealed.

    In an email to Inside Higher Ed, Biedermann decried the decision, calling Joun a “far-left judge” who “dramatically overstepped his authority” and maintaining that the layoffs were “lawful efforts to make the Department of Education more efficient and functional.”

    “President Trump and the Senate-confirmed Secretary of Education clearly have the authority to make decisions about agency reorganization efforts, not an unelected Judge with a political axe to grind,” she wrote.

    A spokesperson for the Association of American University Professors, one of the plaintiffs in the case, wrote in a statement that they were “thrilled” with the decision.

    “Eliminating the [Education Department] would hurt everyday Americans, severely limit access to education, eviscerate funding for HBCUs and [tribal colleges and universities] while benefiting partisan politicians and private corporations,” they wrote.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the layoffs at a budget hearing just a day prior to the ruling. She said the goal was to “wind down the bureaucracy” of the department, and that while she hoped to have congressional support to dismantle it eventually, the administration did not intend to so on its own.

    Joun’s decision undercuts that defense. In the budget hearing, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat of Connecticut, told McMahon that the cuts were “unlawful” and a usurpation of congressional authority.

    “As long as you continue to deliberately and flagrantly defy the law, you will continue to lose in court,” DeLauro said.

    The injunction is the latest in a string of court orders challenging the Trump administration’s rapid cuts to federal agencies in its first 100 days, often under the supervision of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE was responsible for the vast majority of the Education Department layoffs, according to McMahon’s House testimony Wednesday.

    Joun’s ruling wasn’t the only one aimed at undoing the administration’s Education Department cuts. Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also ordered that the department restore grant funding to a Southern nonprofit that has helped further school desegregation efforts since the 1960s. The grant had been defunded as part of the administration’s push to eliminate spending on diversity, equity and inclusion.

    Source link

  • Scholar-Athlete Turned NBA Coach Returns Home: Jacque Vaughn Joins Kansas Staff

    Scholar-Athlete Turned NBA Coach Returns Home: Jacque Vaughn Joins Kansas Staff

    Jacque VaughnThe University of Kansas has made a significant addition to its basketball coaching staff with the hiring of alumnus Jacque Vaughn.

    Vaughn returns to Kansas as an assistant coach under Bill Self, becoming the first former NBA head coach to join the Jayhawks’ coaching staff.

    Vaughn brings more than 15 years of NBA coaching experience, having served as head coach for both the Orlando Magic and Brooklyn Nets. During his coaching tenure, he mentored NBA All-Stars including Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, and Ben Simmons, as well as former Kansas players Markieff Morris and Jalen Wilson.

    “We’re very excited to welcome Jacque and Laura into the fold,” Self said. “I’ve known Jacque from a distance for several years now and have always admired how he has conducted himself professionally and how he has treated people.”

    Vaughn’s Kansas career from 1993-97 established him as one of the program’s most exceptional student-athletes. He concluded his collegiate career as the Big Eight Conference’s all-time assists leader with 804 assists, earning second-team All-American honors during his senior season under Roy Williams while maintaining extraordinary academic standards.

    His scholarly achievements were equally impressive, earning Academic All-American First Team selections in both 1996 and 1997. Most notably, Vaughn received the 1997 Academic All-American of the Year award, joining Cole Aldrich as the only Kansas players to earn this prestigious national recognition. Additionally, he was honored by Diverse with the Arthur Ashe Jr. Scholar-Athlete Award in 1996, cementing his status as a role model for student-athletes nationwide.

    Following his collegiate career, Vaughn was drafted 27th overall by the Utah Jazz in 1997 and enjoyed a 12-season NBA playing career that included stops with five teams and culminated in an NBA Championship with the San Antonio Spurs in 2007. He transitioned to coaching as an assistant with San Antonio before becoming head coach of the Orlando Magic in 2012, later leading the Brooklyn Nets to playoff appearances in 2020 and 2023.

    “I’m truly honored and overwhelmed with excitement to return to my alma mater,” Vaughn said. “I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to bring those experiences back to the school that means so much to me.”

     

    Vaughn replaces Norm Roberts, who recently retired, representing a powerful example of how academic excellence and athletic achievement can create pathways for continued leadership in higher education.

    Source link

  • Oklahoma religious charter remains blocked in SCOTUS split

    Oklahoma religious charter remains blocked in SCOTUS split

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

    The nation’s first religious public charter school will not be able to open its doors in Oklahoma after a 4-4 split in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday morning upheld the state supreme court’s ruling that blocked the school.

    The high court did not issue written opinions in the case.

    In its June 2024 ruling in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, a six-justice majority of the Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with state Attorney General Genter Drummond, writing that the virtual public charter school’s creation would violate the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. St. Isidore was originally scheduled to open for the 2024-25 school year.

    “Enforcing the St. Isidore Contract would create a slippery slope and what the framers’ warned against — the destruction of Oklahomans’ freedom to practice religion without fear of governmental intervention,” the Oklahoma court’s majority wrote in the decision.

    If the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in favor of St. Isidore, the high-profile religious liberty case could have opened the door for a wave of other publicly funded religious schools. The split decision, however, leaves no national precedent on the question of whether religious schools can participate in public charter school programs without violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case.

    St. Isidore is “disappointed” that the decision to block the school’s opening was upheld “without explanation” from the U.S. Supreme Court, said Archbishop of Oklahoma City Rev. Paul Coakley and Bishop of Tulsa Rev. David Konderla, in a joint statement Thursday.

    Given this latest ruling, Coakley and Konderla said they are exploring alternative options to offer a virtual Catholic education “to all persons” in Oklahoma and remain committed to parental choice in education.

    The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, which initially approved St. Isidore’s contract in October 2023, will respect the Supreme Court’s authority following its split decision to uphold the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling, said the board’s Executive Director Rebecca Wilkinson, in a Thursday statement.

    “The split decision of the court affirms this was indeed a complicated matter with a wide spectrum of views on the appropriate relationship between education, public funding, and religious institutions in our state and country,” Wilkinson said. “The Statewide Charter School Board remains committed to upholding our constitutional responsibilities and the highest standards of transparency and excellence. We will move forward in that vein, ensuring our policies and practices reflect both the rule of law and commitment to all students.”

    Drummond said in a Thursday statement that the Supreme Court’s decision is a “resounding victory for religious liberty and for the foundational principles that have guided our nation since its founding.”

    “I have always maintained that we must faithfully uphold the Constitution, even when it requires us to make difficult decisions,” Drummond said. “I will continue upholding the law, protecting our Christian values, and defending religious liberty — regardless of how difficult the battle may be.”

    Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters spoke out against the Supreme Court’s move, adding in a Thursday statement that he will always oppose “religious discrimination” and that all children in Oklahoma should be free to choose the best school to attend, whether that’s “religious or otherwise.”

    “Allowing the exclusion of religious schools from our charter school program in the name of 19th century religious bigotry is wrong,” Walters said in the statement sent by First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit law firm focused on First Amendment cases on religion.

    Still, it seems likely the issues involving the First Amendment’s religious clauses will eventually return to the U.S. Supreme Court, “perhaps in a case better suited for resolution,” said Thomas Jipping, a senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, a national conservative think tank.

    While it may not be the last time the Supreme Court takes on a case over religious charter schools, “today’s outcome offers clarity for families and educators,” said Starlee Coleman, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, in a statement.

    About 8.1% of all public schools are charters. These schools serve 3.7 million enrolled students, of whom two-thirds are from low-income, Black or Latino communities, according to NAPCS.

    Source link

  • A new way of addressing the enigma of student engagement

    A new way of addressing the enigma of student engagement

    by Caroline Jones and Leonie Sweeney

    Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory as a Methodological Lens

    Higher education is experiencing post-pandemic challenges which have increased pressure on students in multifaceted and interconnecting ways (Jones & Bell, 2024). Existing research suggests that post-pandemic, students’ mental health and wellbeing has been significantly impacted (Chen & Lubock, 2022; Defeyter et al, 2021; Jones & Bell, 2025; McGiven & Shepherd, 2022; Nunn et al, 2021). This indicates that research into the field of higher education is needed more pro-actively than ever before, especially given the diverse student market.

    Currently there is considerable research in the form of critique of policy trends or evaluation of the effectiveness of changes in practice; however, the PATA theory lens suggests an approach to research centring on the educational psychologies and intricacies of the student and the enigma of student engagement (Buckley, 2018; Jones & Nangah, 2020: McFarlane & Thomas, 2017).

    Our recent article presents the PATA theory as a methodological lens through which higher education student behaviours, characteristics, and demographics can be researched. Furthermore, it provides an explanation of the PATA theory with specific links to student engagement. The idea of the PATA theory was first explored by Jones in 2017 and developed further in 2020 and 2021 in response to recognised issues faced relating to student engagement in widening participation student demographics. This research establishes the theory which can be applied to investigating the complexities of student demographics, with the aim being to develop knowledge and understanding of issues affecting students such as post-pandemic engagement.

    Guidelines from the QAA (2018) state that due to the demographic of the students who attend each institution, student engagement needs to be interpreted and encouraged in response to student/higher education institutional need. Therefore, student engagement can be interpreted in a variety of ways, examining the links between time, energy and other properties invested by HEIs and students with the aims of cultivating the student experience, strengthening educational outcomes, encouraging development and raising student achievement. Positive student engagement can lead to successful student outcomes, lower attrition rates and improved social mobility, demonstrating the importance of research for understanding and investing in student engagement practices.

    The PATA theory sits under the umbrella of alienation theory: it considers the individual student’s psychosocial status (self-concept/self-esteem levels) and has identified links to academic trust levels (Jones, 2021), particularly for students from the widening participation demographics or those who have experienced socio-economic disadvantage, see figure 1.

    Figure 1. PATA Theory (Jones, 2021)

    The PATA theory fits as a methodology within the realms of phenomenology as it enables researchers to present a narrative to represent the phenomena studied to extract significant statements from the data to formulate meaning. Neubauer, Witkop and Varpio (2019, p91) believe it is imperative for the researcher engaging in phenomenological research to be familiar with the philosophical ‘interpretations of human experience’, whilst Morrow, Rodriguez and King (2015, p644) advise that ‘descriptive phenomenology is especially valuable in areas where there is little existing research’. An additional crucial aspect of phenomenology is understanding that social reality has to be grounded in an individual’s encounters in authentic social situations. The focal point of the PATA theory lens research is to understand how students’ psychosocial status affects the academic trust of their higher education experiences and the relationships that arise out of the social exchanges therein, permitting researchers to construe the associations that the participants make.

    This article analyses the PATA theory potential range of research methods that can be employed and used in higher education practice and is supported by three case vignette examples with reflection points.  For example, we would usually see student disengagement relating to activities such as non-attendance, but the PATA theory shows us that the concept of student engagement is much more complex and encourages higher education institutions and professionals to view the issue in a more holistic student-centred way rather than homogenously.

    Additionally, post-Covid there has been a significant rise in the number of students presenting with mental health issues, with students struggling to attend and engage with their programmes of study. Currently, the assessment strategies used by HEIs for capturing student engagement fail accurately to measure both student engagement and sense of belonging. However, using the PATA theory as the research lens would provide a deeper insight into the post pandemic issues faced, by focussing on student alienation and the strengthening of trust between the student and the institution. HEIs could then scrutinise their existing on-campus experiences to aid the re-engagement process, and practice could be adapted to increase the student experience, such as including more pastoral 1:1 support time within the timetable.

    Some further practical illustrations of how the PATA theory might influence our understanding or make a difference in practice are:

    • To understand potential psychological barriers to student engagement based on demographics, behaviours and characteristics.
    • To identify success stories of positive engagement where good practice can be disseminated or shared to improve student outcomes.
    • To take a deep dive into higher education practices, course or programmes to find out if there are specific teaching and learning barriers affecting students.
    • Provides time and space to analyse intricate needs of specific demographics; behaviours and characteristics such as impact of low tariff on entry gaps or previous educational experiences.
    • Can lead to bespoke action to address potential equality and inclusion concerns.
    • Can be used as an early intervention tool to support students’ re-engagement potentially contributing to reduced attrition and improvements in social mobility.
    • Can be used to explore wider societal issues that affect engagement

    The PATA theory has its limitations, being a new and emerging theoretical perspective, and is very much open to academic critique. However, this concept does bring new insight to the complexities of the student community, the higher education institutional and political landscapes and could be used as a methodological lens to develop deeper knowledge and understanding of student engagement challenges. Whilst the PATA theory is a complex idea applied to a range of complex student issues, when the phenomenon is understood well, there is the potential to really make a difference to the educational outcomes for students. Furthermore, existing theories do not make connections between psychosocial status and academic trust which is where the PATA theory can contribute to a stronger understanding of the student phenomena.

    The article on which this blog is based is

    Jones, C. S., and Sweeney, L (2025) ‘The Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory: A new lens to research higher education student phenomena: behaviours, characteristics, and demographics’ Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 6(1), 79–110 https://sehej.raise-network.com/raise/article/view/1240.

    Caroline Jones is an applied social sciences teaching professional with extensive experience working in the children and young people field and lecturing/programme leading in Higher Education. Currently employed as a Tutor based within the Health and Education Faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, having previously been a Lecturer at the University Campus Oldham and at Stockport University Centre. Also an External Examiner for Derby University/Middlesex University and a Peer Reviewer for IETI. Research interests include; leadership and management, social mobility and social policy, risk, resilience and adolescent mental health, young care leavers, widening participation and disadvantage, originator of the ‘psychosocial and academic trust alienation’ (PATA) theory.

    Email: [email protected]. LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/caroline-jones-1bab40b3. Twitter/X: @c_JonesSFHEA. Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Caroline-Jones-39?ev=hdr_xprf.

    Leonie Sweeney is a teaching professional within the Applied Social Sciences faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, with many years of experience working within the children and young people sector. Currently employed as a Higher Education Course Leader and Lecturer, delivering Children and Young People and Early Years degree courses. Additionally, is an External Examiner for University of Chichester and University of Sunderland. Research interests include: student engagement, social mobility, widening participation.

    Email: [email protected]

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Among explosions and gunfire, a quiet place to study

    Among explosions and gunfire, a quiet place to study

    A 2017 study found that 45% of the adult population of the Kashmir Valley — around 1.8 million people — suffer from some form of psychological distress. It reported high rates of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

    The most recent India-Pakistan escalation on May 7, involving cross-border shelling, further worsened conditions, damaging homes and killing civilians in border districts like Uri, Poonch and Kupwara.

    Jan said such stories often lead her to question what went wrong in their society and why such tragedies continue to emerge from her homeland. Her parents advised her to shift to a private reading hall. She describes the atmosphere there as refreshing — a place filled with peers preparing for the same exam. The environment, she says, is motivating and focused, making it easier to concentrate and feel a sense of community.

    Spaces for students

    In recent years, the trend of private reading halls has seen a sharp rise across Kashmir. More and more students now prefer these dedicated spaces over studying at home, seeking focus and stability amid the turmoil. While such reading halls were once limited to urban centres like Srinagar and semi-urban towns like Anantnag and Baramulla, they’ve now expanded into far-flung areas such as Achabal and Kupwara — regions located miles away from the city hubs.

    Muazim Altaf, a pharmacy graduate and the owner of Pulse Library in Achabal — where Jan studies — recalls how the idea for the reading hall came to him. 

    He noticed that many students from nearby villages were travelling all the way to Srinagar, which is 70 kilometres from Achabal, staying in hostels just to access reading halls and a better study environment. “That’s when I thought, why not create something similar here in Achabal?” he said.

    In October last year, he opened Pulse with the intention of offering an affordable alternative to students who couldn’t afford hostel rents in Srinagar. The initiative wasn’t purely profit-driven, he said. His goal was to support local students by providing a productive study space within their own region.

    Initially, he started with 60 study cabins, which were fully booked within days. Encouraged by the overwhelming response, he expanded the facility. “Now we have 120 cabins, all booked until June,” he said. Each student is charged a modest monthly fee of nine pounds to use the space.

    He admits he hadn’t anticipated such a strong turnout. Students aged 17 to 29 now frequent Pulse — some preparing for competitive entrance exams, while others focus on passing exams required for government jobs. 

    One trend stood out to him: nearly 60% of the students are girls.

    A hunger to learn

    In 2022, more than 250,000 people visited just 131 public libraries across Jammu and Kashmir, highlighting both a hunger for learning and the shortage of adequate study spaces. With thousands of aspirants preparing for exams, existing public libraries are overwhelmed and operate only during daytime hours, making it tough for students who need longer study sessions.

    In response, young people across the region have stepped in, launching private reading halls that offer 24/7 access. Equipped with Wi-Fi, heating, cooling, kitchen spaces and discussion zones, these modern study hubs have quickly become essential for serious exam takers in Kashmir.

    Javed Pathaan, a recent PhD graduate from Kashmir University, runs a private reading hall in Srinagar’s Rajbagh area. “Having personally gone through the rigors of competitive exam preparation, I understand how valuable these extras can be,” he said. “Students who study for long hours need occasional breaks, so we’ve created a designated space for short naps.”

    He said that young students face intense mental and physical strain while preparing for exams in a conflict-ridden region. That’s why many choose private services like his over free public libraries.

    Shazir Ahangar, who wants to pass an exam to get a government job in Kashmir, shifted to Pulse Library at Achabal after leaving the public library in Anantnag. He found the public facility overcrowded and said it was hard to concentrate there. 

    “They’re open for just eight to nine hours a day, which isn’t enough when you’re preparing for competitive exams,” he said.

    The exchange of knowledge

    One of Ahangar’s main concerns was the lack of basic facilities. The public libraries he visited didn’t offer air conditioning during summer or designated kitchens for making tea or coffee. Nor do they have discussion rooms. 

    “At Pulse, it’s more than just studying,” he added. Students engage in group discussions, exchange ideas and even enjoy small breaks together. He especially appreciated the privacy provided by individual study cabins.

    Last year, Manan Bhat, 28, from Soura area of Srinagar, secured the 88th rank in India’s civil service exam, a major feat considering that every year, more than one million people appear for India’s Civil Services Examination, but fewer than 1,000 candidates are selected.

    When he first began coming to reading halls they were often nearly empty. “Now, they’re packed with students,” he said. 

    Manan said that the biggest advantage of reading halls is the individual focus they offer, allowing students to concentrate without distractions. He also highlighted how being surrounded by peers preparing for similar exams creates a supportive environment that encourages the exchange of knowledge.

    Safe spaces to study

    Owners of reading halls often play an active role in encouraging students, staying in touch with their parents to share updates on their performance and dedication. The atmosphere in these halls is competitive, similar to coaching centres.

    Muazim Altaf said that admitting students to the reading hall comes with significant responsibility, as parents place a great deal of trust in them. 

    “We share weekly reports with parents, including details like how much time their children spend studying and whether they arrive on time,” he said. This becomes especially crucial in a region battling widespread drug addiction. Parents often urge him to keep a close watch on their children. According to Muazim, any form of indiscipline or violation of library rules results in immediate expulsion.

    In December last year, Shri B.L. Verma, the minister of state for social justice and environment, told the Indian parliament that more than 823,000 people in Jammu and Kashmir — around 8% of the region’s population — use drugs of some kind, including cannabis, opioids or sedatives.

    Basit Fayaz, who recently secured an All India Rank of 70 in the national exam that determines placement in professorships and research fellowships, believes that joining a reading hall played a crucial role in his success. He said that without the focused study environment it offered, cracking the exam — let alone making it to the top 100 — would have been nearly impossible.

    “The reading hall in Achabal [Pulse] provided exactly the kind of calm and distraction-free atmosphere I needed,” he said, adding that it helped him stay insulated from the recurring disturbances like crackdowns and gunfights that are common in Kashmir.

    Fayaz appreciated the peer group he found there. He recalled how group discussions and study sessions with fellow NEET aspirants added great value to his preparation. He added that without such spaces, constant exposure to conflict-related events often disturbs one’s mental state and heightens anxiety.

    “In situations like escalations between India and Pakistan, gunfights or political crackdowns, these spaces help us stay focused and shielded from the chaos,” Fayaz said.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What distractions from studying do so many young people in the Kashmir region face?

    2. How can political turmoil at the national level affect people who live far from city centres?

    3. How important is it for you to have a safe, quiet space to study?

     

    Source link

  • Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    In some countries, higher education policy just seems to sit still for decades. In others, hyperactivity is a more normal state. Today we’re looking at the 2020s poster child for higher education hyperactivity. It’s not the usual suspects, the UK or Australia, it’s little New Zealand where we’re making our fourth stop on this podcast in just over two and a half years.

    When last we were in Wellington, we talked to Chris Whelan from Universities New Zealand about university underfunding the consequences of losing international students, and something called the University Advisory Group, which was supposed to set the national system on a new course along with a research advisory group who weirdly was made up of exactly the same people only following a different mandate.

    Since then, while these groups were noodling on how best to steer the system, the government made two big table flipping moves. One musing about creating a new type of institution, which was neither a university nor a college, and nobody knew what they were talking about, and the other simply deciding it wasn’t going to fund any more research in the social sciences and humanities through its research granting system. Fun times.

    Anyways, with all this excitement, we figured it was worth going back to the Tasman Sea to check in with one of our regular correspondents, Roger Smyth. He’s a former senior New Zealand public servant and now a consultant based in Canterbury. He’s got all the skinny for us. And so, over to Roger.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.32 | Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Roger, the last time we did a show about New Zealand, we had Chris Whelan from Universities New Zealand on, and we talked a lot about the University Advisory Group process. How far along is that work, and what are people in the sector saying about it? What’s the view at this stage? Is there still interest and momentum behind the process, or has it stalled out a little?

    Roger Smyth (RS): Okay, so the advisory group submitted an interim report late last year, and it’s scheduled to submit its final report this month. I understand that the report has now been submitted, but nothing has been published yet. Neither the interim report nor the final report, nor any of the dozens of submissions made in response to the UAG’s questions, have been released publicly.

    In these sorts of cases, the report usually isn’t published until the government has had a chance to make its initial decisions on some of the high-level questions—and that could still be a little way off.

    Of course, as you implied, Alex, there are rumors. And in some of the face-to-face consultations, the UAG has given a bit of a steer as to where it was heading. For instance, it’s pretty clear that in their interim report, they were proposing a machinery of government change—a reorganization of some of the government agencies in higher education, such as the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry of Education, and the policy unit responsible for research and innovation. But we won’t know that for sure until the report comes out.

    One of the big challenges the advisory group would have faced is that the government is committed to returning to a financial surplus in the 2027–28 fiscal year. That’s a significant challenge, with major demands on the budget. So the advisory group would have been instructed to make their proposals fiscally neutral, and that’s a big constraint on what they could recommend.

    My main view on this whole process is that it was never really clear what problem the University Advisory Group was set up to solve—apart from a general instruction to look for improvement and to make the system work better. One of the most distinctive features of the New Zealand system is its homogeneity. That has a lot of positives—it means that wherever you go, you’re guaranteed a reasonable level of quality. But it also has the downside that there isn’t really any outstanding, world-leading university.

    AU: Let me stop you there, because alongside the University Advisory Group, there’s also been a commission on research—on research and science—a review going on at the same time. Why did that happen in parallel rather than together?

    RS: Yeah, I think that’s an important point. The first thing is that the two advisory groups were actually chaired by the same person—Peter Gluckman, a distinguished medical scientist and academic—and they began operating at roughly the same time.

    You can see there was a desire to think about knowledge transfer opportunities within universities and how they contribute to the broader economy and the wider science system.

    The Science Advisory Group has now completed its report. It’s been submitted, and the government has published its initial decisions. This is an area where the review proposed a very substantial overhaul of the machinery of government. They proposed creating a super ministry for higher education, science, technology, and innovation.

    The government, however, did not accept that proposal. Most governments are a bit wary of major machinery-of-government reshuffles unless there’s a very strong rationale. These kinds of changes often involve a settling-in period where the system can lose its way, as people jockey for position and the focus shifts away from the core goals the system is meant to achieve.

    Instead, the review also proposed merging the seven non-university research institutes into a single public research organization. The government opted for a partial reorganization, establishing three public research organizations—focused on the bioeconomy, earth sciences, and health and forensic science. They’re also creating a new organization to cover advanced technology fields like AI, synthetic biology, aerospace, and quantum tech. So that’s probably a reasonable foundation for advancing the science system.

    AU: But of course, before they even got to that point—before the advisory group had reported—the government unilaterally made a change to what’s called the Marsden Fund. That’s sort of like our combination of the social sciences, humanities, and natural science councils. And it effectively nuked the humanities and social sciences, as I understand it. They basically said, “We’re not going to fund those anymore.” Why did the government do that? Why undercut your own report before it even comes out?

    RS: Yeah, this was definitely a decision that caused a lot of pushback and consternation—real ill feeling in universities and across the broader community.

    Most of the government’s research funding is directed toward major national strategic priorities, so it tends to go to areas like health, the hard sciences, engineering, agriculture—things like that. The Marsden Fund was one of the few avenues where humanities researchers could secure external funding, outside of what universities provide internally.

    I think part of this decision reflects the government’s desire to place greater focus on the hard sciences. If you look at the Marsden Fund trends, the social sciences and humanities panel had been gaining a slightly larger share of the funding in recent years, which naturally came at the expense of the hard sciences. So in some sense, this was a declaration that the government wants to reorient support toward areas seen as having greater economic impact.

    That said, the main driver was probably to send a message. But in doing so, it sent a very negative signal to the humanities community. Even researchers in the now-favored areas were concerned about the loss of this funding stream—particularly given that social science research can produce huge social value.

    AU: This tension between favored STEM subjects and less-favored fields like the social sciences, humanities, and business is also playing out in discussions around the government’s funding model. My understanding is that in New Zealand, the funding model essentially funds places. So, the government allocates a certain number of places to each institution. Now we’re projecting that there will be more enrollments than there are funded places, and the government would like to provide a bit of additional funding for STEM subjects, but not for others. We’re very familiar with this in Canada—it’s exactly what’s happening in Ontario right now. I’m curious how you think that will play out in New Zealand?

    RS: Okay, well, just to give a bit of context on the financial situation of the universities: like most Anglophone countries with a heavy reliance on the international student market, COVID hit New Zealand universities hard. In 2021, the impact was cushioned by a surge in domestic enrollments. The labor market was weak due to the pandemic, so more people turned to study, and universities did okay financially.

    But in 2022, following government stimulus measures, the labor market recovered and became more robust. Domestic enrollments fell sharply, and the international student market still hadn’t bounced back. That made 2022 the worst financial year ever for the universities. Six of the eight were in deficit, and one was just breaking even.

    In 2023, when finances were still tight, there was a lot of concern about university viability. The government stepped in with a short-term funding rate boost—not an increase in the number of places, but an increase in the dollars per place.

    Then there was a small increase in funding again last year. But the broader funding review never happened. The government changed, and that process was superseded by the UAG process we discussed earlier.

    And that process, as we said, is likely to avoid anything that would seriously impact the government’s bottom line. So, the universities have been in a tough situation.

    But now, the international market is starting to recover. It’s been slower than in the other countries we compete with, but in EFTS terms—equivalent full-time students—2024 saw an 11% increase in international enrollments. It’s still below pre-pandemic levels, but the trend is positive. And that matters because each international student generates about 60% more revenue than a domestic student.

    Right now, we’re in the middle of the financial reporting season. Five of the universities have reported for 2024. One reported a small deficit on its core business, but it was much lower than expected and offset by a surplus on its wider trading operations.

    So, it’s still tough—marginal—but not as gloomy as it was a couple of years ago.

    Even though there’s still pressure, and enrollments may be shifting toward more expensive fields, financially speaking, the worst appears to be over. The system is beginning to grow again.

    And on the point about STEM versus other fields—it’s worth remembering this is a system driven by student choice. The government doesn’t have much influence over where students choose to go. So, no matter how the government might want to steer things, it can’t really control those choices under the current policy environment. So, I’d say that the universities are managing through this.

    AU: Roger, I want to get into something I read recently—there was a fascinating article where the government, or at least the minister, was musing about the idea of creating a new type of tertiary institution. Something that’s not quite a university and not quite a polytechnic.But before I ask you about that, I think we need to give our listeners a bit of background on polytechnics in New Zealand.

    Your system merged all the polytechnics into one big national institution just before COVID, right? That was Te Pūkenga. Why do that? What was the point of one national institution? It’s a big country—two islands, 15 campuses. That’s a lot to bring together. What was the thinking behind that?

    RS: These reforms had two separate sources.

    First, we talked earlier about the financial challenges in the university sector, but the polytechnics were facing a real financial crisis. They’d been growing for years and carried high fixed costs, with relatively small student numbers spread across multiple campuses.

    Between 2012 and 2019, domestic enrollments dropped by about 25%. By 2019, nearly all the polytechnics were running deficits, and the sector’s collective deficit was quite substantial. So something clearly had to be done.

    Second, the government looked at what had been done in Australia. In New South Wales, for example, they merged all the TAFE institutions into a single statewide TAFE. It worked reasonably well there, and in Queensland as well.

    So they decided to follow a similar path and merge all 16 institutions—along with all work-based training—into a single national organization. That was the rationale behind the creation of Te Pūkenga.

    AU: What about the un-merger? So, a few years later you get a new government—the National government—and they’re going to undo the whole thing. Was that because it was, as you said, a machinery-of-government issue? Or was it more about a shift in how the government views vocational education?

    RS: I think it was both.

    Let’s look at both sides. First, the merger didn’t go well. There were some good aspects to the reforms. For instance, they set up six Workforce Development Councils to set standards for training and take a forward-looking view of labor market needs in specific fields. That was a positive.

    The idea of reintegrating polytechnic and work-based training into one coherent trades training system was also a good one. But the merger was very poorly executed.

    Costs blew out, and after three years they still hadn’t settled on a functioning operating model. There was almost no progress on the actual integration of work-based and polytechnic-based training. The initial chief executive didn’t work out and had to go.

    So that was one rationale for reconsidering—or unpicking—the merger.

    But the second reason was political. The incoming minister in 2023 had previously been a very successful chief executive of one of the polytechnics that was merged into the national institution.

    She was deeply committed to undoing the merger and restoring control to regions and local communities. So, the government came in with a clear policy to do this, and she got the ministry, and things got moving quickly.

    But, of course, life’s not that simple. No one wanted to go back to a system everyone agreed had serious problems. So how do you reconcile those two positions?

    After two years of back and forth, we’re now getting close to the new model. Those six Workforce Development Councils—the best part of the previous reform—are being disbanded and replaced with smaller organizations focused mainly on setting standards.

    The polytechnics, which remained as divisions within the larger organization, have all gone through what are called ruthless efficiency reviews to determine what could be dropped or changed to make them financially viable.

    We haven’t seen the full results of those yet, but some institutions will likely be deemed viable and split off as standalone, autonomous polytechnics. These will focus partly on trade training, but also on foundation education and some degree-level programs. Those will become autonomous institutions.

    But for those polytechnics that aren’t viable in the long term, they’ll be required to join a federation anchored by the Open Polytechnic, which delivers programs online. The idea is that those institutions can draw on the federation’s expertise and infrastructure to complement their face-to-face delivery with online components.

    AU: So I don’t want to ask you what’s going to happen, but I do want to ask when it’s going to happen—because there are a whole bunch of moving parts here, and you’ve got an election coming up. Is there enough time for the government to unwind all of this before the next election? Because I know, for example, with the Universities Accord process in Australia, the report came out well before the election, and even then, they couldn’t get everything done before voting day. So, what’s the pace of decision-making here?

    RS: The first thing is that if we look at the University Advisory Group, we should see the results of that fairly soon. I’d expect it within a couple of months—possibly even sooner. It might come out all at once, or it could follow the science review model, where there were high-level interim decisions released first.

    My sense of the brief given to the UAG is that we’re not going to see truly transformational change—nothing on the scale of the three big reviews we’ve had in the past: 1961, 1989–90, and 2002–03.

    So I’d expect incremental change rather than sweeping reform. And because of that, I think the university review will largely settle before the election.

    In contrast, the un-merging of Te Pūkenga and the broader vocational education reforms will take longer.

    Under the new arrangements, there will be greater integration between workplace and institutional training. Polytechnics and private providers will be allowed to act as arrangers and supervisors of work-based training.

    But implementing that integration will take time. There’s a two-year transition period, starting in 2026—which is the election year. So the un-merging process will only be partly complete when voters go to the polls.

    That said, I think this process will continue to play out slowly over time. Hopefully, it results in something positive.

    Despite everything—despite what will have been six years of turbulence and ongoing uncertainty—I do believe the sector will move forward with reasonable operating models.

    AU: May you live in interesting times. Roger, thanks so much for joining us today.

    RS: Thank you very much, Alex.

    AU: And that just leaves me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek—and you, our listeners, viewers, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at [email protected]. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us next week when our guest will be David Lloyd. He’s the remarkable individual who serves as both the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia and the co–Vice Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. How does he manage it? Those two institutions are on the brink of what’s likely the biggest institutional shakeup in Australian higher education since the Dawkins reforms of 1988. He’ll be here to talk about the merger, how it came about, and what the future looks like. Until then—bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • Data breach reporting lags in education, study finds

    Data breach reporting lags in education, study finds

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

    Dive Brief:

    • It took the education sector 4.8 months on average to report data breaches following ransomware attacks between 2018 and 2025, according to a report released last week by Comparitech.
    • Colleges and schools had the highest average reporting time for ransomware data breaches when compared to the business, government and healthcare sectors, Comparitech found in its analysis of over 2,600 U.S. ransomware attacks. 
    • At the same time, education companies — counted separately from colleges and schools — saw even higher reporting times at 6.3 months. Waiting months to disclose a data breach is dangerous, given that stolen data can be on the dark web before victims even know a breach happened, wrote the researchers for Comparitech, a cybersecurity and online privacy product review website.

    Dive Insight:

    Delayed reporting of data breaches comes at a time when schools and ed tech companies alike are grappling with the ongoing threat of ransomware attacks.

    Illustrating the prolonged response times for ransomware breaches, the latest Comparitech report pointed to Texas’ Alvin Independent School District confirming just this month that a June 2024 data breach impacted nearly 48,000 people. The data involved names, Social Security numbers, credit and debit card numbers, financial account information, medical and health insurance information, and state-issued IDs. 

    Organizations often wait to disclose a data breach because they are unsure if data was stolen following a ransomware attack until the hacker posts the stolen information on the dark web, Comparitech said. 

    “Data theft is a common component of ransomware attacks, so it’s not unreasonable for companies to assume hackers stole data, even if there isn’t any evidence to suggest data theft at first,” researchers wrote. “The worst thing to do is to jump to the conclusion that data hasn’t been stolen.”

    The FBI also advises against paying threat actors following a ransomware attack. If organizations pay a ransom, it still doesn’t guarantee any data will be recovered, the agency’s website states, adding that ransom payments can actually encourage more attacks.

    K-12 school districts have been especially concerned about a widespread breach of student and staff data across North America following a December 2024 ransomware attack on ed tech provider PowerSchool. 

    Though PowerSchool disclosed the cybersecurity incident about a week later, the company allegedly told districts not to worry about sensitive student and staff information being exposed. Five months later, however, PowerSchool publicly confirmed that, despite paying a ransom to threat actors, multiple school districts were being extorted with the same information stolen in the December incident.

    Since then, over 100 school districts — including Tennessee’s largest school system, Memphis-Shelby County Schools — have sued PowerSchool for negligence, breach of contract and false advertising.

    Source link