Author: admin

  • How the House Budget Threatens Student-Athletes – Edu Alliance Journal

    How the House Budget Threatens Student-Athletes – Edu Alliance Journal

    A Uniquely American Model Under Threat

    June 8, 2025, by Dean Hoke: Intercollegiate athletics occupy a powerful and unique place in American higher education—something unmatched in any other country. From the massive media contracts of Division I football to the community pride surrounding NAIA and NJCAA basketball, college sports are a defining feature of the American academic landscape. Unlike most nations, where elite athletic development happens in clubs or academies, the U.S. integrates competitive sports directly into its college campuses.

    This model is more than tradition; it’s an engine of opportunity. For many high school students—especially those from underserved backgrounds—the chance to play college sports shapes where they apply, enroll, and succeed. According to the NCAA, 35% of high school athletes say the ability to participate in athletics is a key factor in their college decision [1]. It’s not just about scholarships; it’s about identity, community, and believing their talents matter.

    At smaller colleges and two-year institutions, athletics often serves as a key enrollment driver and differentiator in a crowded marketplace. International students, too, are drawn to the American system for its academic-athletic fusion, contributing tuition revenue and global prestige. Undermining this model through sweeping changes to federal financial aid, without considering the downstream effects, risks more than athletic participation. It threatens a distinctively American approach to education, access, and aspiration.

    A New Threshold with Big Impacts

    Currently, students taking 12 credit hours per semester are considered full-time and eligible for the maximum Pell Grant, which stands at $7,395 for 2024-25 [2]. The proposed House budget raises this threshold to 15 credit hours per semester. For student-athletes, whose schedules are already packed with training, competition, and travel, this shift could be devastating.

    NCAA academic standards require student-athletes to maintain full-time enrollment (typically 12 hours) and make satisfactory academic progress [3]. Adding another three credit hours per term may force many to choose between academic integrity, athletic eligibility, and physical well-being. In sports like basketball, where teams frequently travel for games, or in demanding STEM majors, completing 15 credit hours consistently can be a formidable challenge.

    Financial Impact on Student-Athletes

    Key Proposed Changes Affecting Student-Athletes:

    • Pell Grant Reductions: The proposed budget aims to cut the maximum Pell Grant by $1,685, reducing it to $5,710 for the 2026–27 academic year. Additionally, eligibility criteria would become more stringent, requiring students to enroll in at least 15 credit hours per semester to qualify for full-time awards. These changes could result in approximately 700,000 students losing Pell Grant eligibility [4].
    • Elimination of Subsidized Loans: The budget proposes eliminating subsidized federal student loans, which currently do not accrue interest while a student is in school. This change would force students to rely more on unsubsidized loans or private lending options, potentially increasing their debt burden [5].
    • Cuts to Work-Study and SEOG Programs: The Federal Work-Study program and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG) are slated for significant reductions or elimination. These programs provide essential financial support to low-income students, and their removal could affect over 1.6 million students [6].
    • Institutional Risk-Sharing: A new provision would require colleges to repay a portion of defaulted student loans, introducing a financial penalty for institutions with high default rates. This could strain budgets, especially at smaller colleges with limited resources [7].

    Figure 1: Total student-athletes by national athletic organization (NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA).

    While Figure 1 highlights the total number of student-athletes in each organization, Figure 2 illustrates how deeply athletics is embedded in different types of institutions. NAIA colleges have the highest ratio, with student-athletes comprising 39% of undergraduate enrollment. Division III institutions follow at approximately 8.42%, and the NJCAA—serving mostly commuter and low-income students—relies on athletics for 8.58% of its total student base [8].

    Even Division I, with its large student populations, includes a meaningful share (2.49%) of student-athletes. These proportions underscore how vital athletics are to institutional identity, especially in small colleges and two-year schools where athletes often make up a significant portion of campus life, retention strategy, and tuition revenue.

    Figure 2: Percentage of student-athletes among total undergraduate enrollment by organization (NCAA Divisions I–III, NAIA, NJCAA).

    The Pell Grant Profile: Who’s Affected

    Pell Grants support students with the greatest financial need. According to a 2018 report, approximately 31.3% of Division I scholarship athletes receive Pell Grants. At individual institutions like Ohio State, the share is even higher: 47% of football players and over 50% of women’s basketball players. In the broader NCAA system, over 48% of athletes received some form of federal need-based aid in recent years [9].

    There are approximately 665,000 student-athletes attending college. The NCAA reports that more than 520,000 student-athletes currently participate in championship-level intercollegiate athletics across Divisions I, II, and III [10]. The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) oversees approximately 83,000 student-athletes [11], while the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) supports around 60,000 student-athletes at two-year colleges [12].

    The NAIA and NJCAA systems, which serve many first-generation, low-income, and minority students, also have a high reliance on Pell Grant support. However, exact figures are less widely published.

    The proposed redefinition of “full-time” means many of these students could lose up to $1,479 per year in aid, based on projections from policy experts [13]. For low-income students, this gap often determines whether they can afford to continue their education.

    Fewer Credits, Fewer Dollars: Academic and Athletic Risks

    Another major concern is how aid calculations based on “completed” credit hours will penalize students who drop a class mid-semester or fail a course. Even if a student-athlete enrolls in 15 credits, failing or withdrawing from a single 3-credit course could drop their award amount [14]. This adds pressure to persist in academically unsuitable courses, potentially hurting long-term academic outcomes.

    Athletic departments, already burdened by compliance and recruitment pressures, may face added strain. Advisors will need to help students navigate increasingly complex eligibility and aid requirements, shifting focus from performance and development to credit-hour management.

    Disproportionate Effects on Small Colleges and Non-Revenue Sports

    The brunt of these changes will fall hardest on small, tuition-dependent institutions in the NCAA Division II, Division III, NAIA, and NJCAA. These colleges often use intercollegiate athletics as a strategic enrollment tool. At some NAIA schools, student-athletes comprise 40% to 60% of the undergraduate population [8].

    Unlike large Division I schools that benefit from lucrative media contracts and booster networks, these institutions rely on a patchwork of tuition, modest athletic scholarships, and federal aid to keep programs running. A reduction in Pell eligibility could drive enrollment declines, lead to cuts in athletic offerings, and even force some colleges to close sports programs or entire campuses.

    Already, schools like San Francisco State University, Cleveland State, and Mississippi College have recently announced program eliminations, citing budgetary constraints [15]. NJCAA institutions—the two-year colleges serving over 85,000 student-athletes—also face a precarious future under this proposed budget.

    Economic Importance by Division

    Division I: Athletics departments generated nearly $17.5 billion in total revenue in 2022, with $11.2 billion self-generated and $6.3 billion subsidized by institutional/government support or student fees [16]. Many Power Five schools are financially resilient, with revenue from TV contracts, merchandise, and ticket sales.

    Division II: Median revenue for schools with football was around $6.9 million, but generated athletic revenue averaged only $528,000, leading to significant deficits subsidized by institutional funds [17].

    Division III: Division III schools operate on leaner budgets, with no athletic scholarships and total athletics budgets often under $3 million per school. These programs are typically funded like other academic departments [18].

    NAIA and NJCAA: These schools rely heavily on student-athlete enrollment to sustain their institutions. Athletics are not profit centers but recruitment and retention tools. Without Pell Grants, many of these athletes cannot afford to enroll [11][12].

    Figure 3: Estimated number of NAIA, Division III, and NJCAA programs by state.

    Unintended Tradeoffs: Equity and Resource Redistribution

    Attempting to offset lost federal aid by reallocating institutional grants could result in aid being shifted away from non-athletes. This risks eroding equity goals, as well as provoking internal tension on campuses where athletes are perceived to receive preferential treatment.

    Without new revenue sources, institutions may also raise tuition or increase tuition discounting, potentially compromising their financial stability. In essence, colleges may be forced to choose who gets to stay in school.

    The High-Stakes Gamble for Student-Athletes

    Figure 4: Estimated impact of Pell Grant changes on student-athletes, including projected dropouts and loan default rates.

    For many student-athletes, especially those from low-income backgrounds, the Pell Grant is not just helpful—it’s essential. It makes the dream of attending college, competing in athletics, and earning a degree financially feasible. If the proposed changes to Pell eligibility become law, an estimated 50,000 student-athletes could be forced to drop out, unable to meet the new credit-hour requirements or fill the funding gap [19]. Those who remain may have no choice but to take on additional loans, risking long-term debt for a degree they may never complete. The reality is sobering: Pell recipients already face long-term student loan default rates as high as 27%, and for those who drop out, that figure climbs above 40% [20]. Stripping away vital support will almost certainly drive those numbers higher. The consequences won’t stop with individual students. Colleges—particularly smaller, tuition-dependent institutions where athletes make up a significant share of enrollment—stand to lose not just revenue, but the very programs and communities that give purpose to their campuses.

    Colleges, athletic associations, policymakers, and communities must work together to safeguard opportunity. Student-athletes should never be forced to choose between academic success and financial survival. Preserving access to both education and athletics isn’t just about individual futures—it’s about upholding a uniquely American pathway to achievement and equity.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America. 

    References

    1. NCAA. (n.d.). Estimated probability of competing in college athletics. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/11/4/estimated-probability-of-competing-in-college-athletics.aspx
    2. Federal Student Aid. (2024). Federal Pell Grants. Retrieved from https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/grants/pell
    3. NCAA. (n.d.). Academic Standards and Eligibility. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/6/17/academic-eligibility.aspx
    4. Washington Post. (2025, May 17). Most Pell Grant recipients to get less money under Trump budget bill, CBO finds. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/05/17/pell-grants-cbo-analysis/
    5. NASFAA. (2024). Reconciliation Deep Dive: House Committee Proposes Major Overhaul of Federal Student Loans, Repayment, and PSLF. Retrieved from https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/36202/Reconciliation_Deep_Dive_House_Committee_Proposes_Major_Overhaul_of_Federal_Student_Loans_Repayment_and_PSLF?utm
    6. U.S. Department of Education, FY2025 Budget Summary. (2024). Proposed Cuts to Campus-Based Aid Programs. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html
    7. Congressional Budget Office. (2025). Reconciliation Recommendations of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61412
    8. NJCAA, NAIA, and NCAA. (2023). Student-Athlete Participation Reports.
    9. NCAA. (2018). Pell Grant data and athlete demographics. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/news/2018/4/24/research-pell-grant-data-shows-diversity-in-division-i.aspx
    10. NCAA. (2023). 2022–23 Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/research
    11. NAIA. (2023). NAIA Facts and Figures. Retrieved from https://www.naia.org
    12. NJCAA. (2023). About the NJCAA. Retrieved from https://www.njcaa.org
    13. The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS). (2024). Analysis of Proposed Pell Grant Reductions. Retrieved from https://ticas.org
    14. Education Trust. (2024). Consequences of Redefining Full-Time Status for Financial Aid. Retrieved from https://edtrust.org
    15. ESPN. (2024, March); AP News. (2024, November). Athletic program eliminations at Cleveland State and Mississippi College.
    16. Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2023). College Athletics Financial Information (CAFI). Retrieved from https://knightnewhousedata.org
    17. NCAA. (2022). Division II Finances: Revenues and Expenses Report. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2022/6/17/finances.aspx
    18. NCAA. (2023). Division III Budget Reports and Trends. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org
    19. Internal projection based on available data from NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA, and CBO Pell Grant impact estimates.
    20. Brookings Institution. (2018). The looming student loan default crisis is worse than we thought. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-looming-student-loan-default-crisis-is-worse-than-we-thought

    Source link

  • What’s coming for higher education in the spending review?

    What’s coming for higher education in the spending review?

    The breadth of what we expect from the public sector is such that expertise needs to be distributed around the civil service.

    There are numerous costly initiatives, allocations, and activities fueled by state spending – all of them have advocates and skeptics, and hidden pitfalls and tensions.

    Even if there was a single brain that had a grasp of everything, how would that person weigh up the costs and benefits of spending on lifesaving drugs against maintaining housing benefits? Or expanding school breakfast clubs against meaningful support for public libraries? Or properly maintaining research infrastructure against properly maintaining flood defences?

    A spending review is an exercise in compromise – a search for the least worst answer – that almost by design disappoints nearly everyone. If there’s good news in one area of spending, there is pain coming elsewhere.

    Where did spending reviews come from?

    The idea of taking the time every few years to gather together all current public sector spending demands and assess the possibilities for savings feels like it has been around for ever.

    In fact, the first multi-year spending review took place as recently as 1998.

    Before this, UK spending and taxation was decided based on prevailing economic conditions – leading to accusations of short-termism in government thinking. After all it is difficult to plan sustainable programmes of spending with only one year of funding confirmed.

    The first multi-year comprehensive spending review was a Gordon Brown innovation – coming off the back of two years with public sector finance (politically) constrained by the previous government’s last year of allocations, it represented (in the language of the time) an opportunity for a newish Labour government to demonstrate ongoing “prudence”.

    As Brown put it:

    By looking not just at what government spends but at what government does, the review has identified the modernisation and savings that are essential. The first innovation of the Comprehensive Spending Review is to move from the short-termism of the annual cycle and to draw up public expenditure plans not on a one year basis but on a three year basis. And the review‘s second conclusion is that all new resources should be conditional on the implementation of essential reforms, money but only in return for modernisation

    Labour stuck a pattern of three year reviews throughout their last period of office – including another comprehensive spending review in 2007. Under Conservative-led administrations the pattern became more irregular (largely for reasons of political expediency, but also to respond to one off events like the Covid-19 pandemic). The last spending review was in 2021 – three governments (and three Prime Ministers) ago.

    How a spending review works

    The specifics may vary, but the review is a series of conversations conducted by the treasury (usually under the auspices of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and each department. Starting with officials modelling the impact of broad-brush cuts at various levels and arguing about what constitutes the work their department is required to do (the ambit) and what (for non-zero based spending reviews) the baseline funding should be, the process ends with ministers taking the argument directly to the treasury – or overhead to the prime minister and via carefully placed stories in the press.

    Eventually – the key date this year was as recent as late May – ministers and the Chancellor will come to a final agreement over what will be allocated and what, in broad terms, it will be spent on.

    Those who have been closely involved tend not to be enamoured of the process – former DfE adviser Sam Freedman recently described it as “demented” and “not a good or strategic way to make decisions about government spending”.

    In 2024

    The current iteration kicked off straight after the 2024 election, with the first part of it announced by Rachel Reeves alongside the autumn budget. Alongside some punchy political lines (that “£22bn black hole” for one) she confirmed the overall envelope for the spending review:

    Day to day spending from 2024-25 onwards will grow by 1.5 per cent in real terms, and total departmental spending, including capital spending, will grow by 1.7 per cent in real terms.

    We also got some broad promises on education spending – an extra £300m for further education, a £2.3bn increase in the schools core budget and a reform of special educational needs provision. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies is warning that given other promises, most notably on defence and health, “unprotected” DfE recurrent spending (which would include spending on higher education) is likely to fall by around 3 per cent over the three years the review covers – and significant schools and FE spending (which the government is likely to want to protect) also appears within that bucket.

    Higher education is by no means alone in facing a very tight multi-year settlement – but it suffers in terms of public salience. While, thanks to the efforts of universities and trade unions, there is a general consensus that the sector is struggling it is neither as totemic (NHS, schools, defence) or visible (local services, adult skills, social care) as the recipients of other public spending. There’s been a lot of work done in making the arguments for investment, but these arguments are never going to be as strong as they need to be.

    That’s (flat) capital

    What Reeves appears to be promoting in the run up to the review is the availability of capital. Traditionally, spending reviews have only addressed departmental expenditure limits (DEL) – recurrent funding that can reasonably be controlled by the department in question – involving capital spending only really started in 2020 and 2021. Changes to, for example, eligibility rules for benefits can also have an impact on recurrent annual managed expenditure (AME) and spending reviews have moved further in that direction in recent times.

    Capital is more traditionally allocated and spent in fiscal events – it makes for big numbers and eyecatching infrastructure investments and doesn’t usually form a part of the spending reviews, but it was always in scope for 2024 to set capital budgets for at least five years.

    And the big sector-focused news has been about research and development funding. While by no means all R&D funding goes to universities, a substantial proportion will end up there – and the news that the overall allocation for R&D will keep pace with inflation until 2029-30 is undoubtedly good in the context of a very tight overall recurrent settlement. As my colleague James Coe sets out elsewhere on Wonkhe, there are other calls on R&D beyond the traditional UKRI allocations (though we know UKRI allocations will be broadly stable this year): there are calls for increased spending in defence research, there will be small (£30m to each current mayoral strategic authority) regional allocations, and there will likely be funding streams attached to each of the government’s missions.

    Recall also, the manifesto promise of ten-year funding settlements for some research activity. Five years of flat (inflation-compensated) funding represents exactly the kind of stable and predictable income that some parts of the sector have been asking for – if there are people unhappy with that, promising stability for ten years isn’t going to feel much different.

    Teaching funding

    Fans of the national accounts will know that the majority of funding allocated to teaching in higher education (the student loan outlay) is, in fact, AME capital. There has been some initial hope that the portion that isn’t (the recurrent DEL that is allocated via the grant letter to the Office for Students) would form a part of the long promised review of funding – but this looks less likely than a commitment to continue inflationary fee-cap uplifts alongside measures to improve efficiency in spending (rooting out fraudulent applications and suchlike, promoting shared services).

    The parallel is with funding for 16-19 students – an extra £190m will push per-student funding up an inflation-busting 5.9 per cent next year, to £5,105. The recurrent funding simply isn’t there to do anything like that for direct higher education funding, but using an increase in capital spending offers a release valve via the tuition fee loan mechanisms.

    Fee increases would be unpopular (a tax on aspiration, if you like) with young people and their parents. The temptation would be to favourably tweak the conditions of repayment, and there may be some headroom here – if you recall last year’s earnest and sporadically understood talk around PSNFL in the fiscal rules, one of the upshots was that loans count as assets, and the more loans we have the more (in the short-to-medium term at least) assets we have. While this could fuel a further expansion of the sector, the current policy weather suggests that this flexibility could instead be used to offer young people a better loan deal.

    On the day

    While a multi-year spending review is an exercise in demonstrating the long term planning capacity of a government, the event itself has to interface with the short-term news cycles. There needs to be some good news in there – and the pre-announced transport capital, R&D capital, and above-inflation settlement for health are part of that.

    Good news could also take the form of announcing popular savings. Very few people will be disappointed in cuts to bureaucracy (at least in the short term, people do tend to become very upset when waiting times rise and services become less effective) and measures to address fraud. Here we’ve already heard a lot of mood music around fraud within the higher education funding system – the very high profile case of Oxford Business College suggests that ministers see the opportunity to better manage the current allocations of funding, and there is a consultation response ready to drop. We’d assumed this would come alongside the promised white paper, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see at least headline proposals sneak out earlier.

    Finally we have the broader favourite that is “efficiency” savings. Universities have been very engaged with this agenda ever since the HE Reform letter – the conjunction of the Universities UK report, the release of TRAC data (slightly delayed over last year), and the spending review may not be entirely coincidental.

    Source link

  • No Kings Day of Protest June 14, 2025 (NoKings.org)

    No Kings Day of Protest June 14, 2025 (NoKings.org)

    On June 14—Flag Day—President Trump wants tanks in the street and a made-for-TV display of dominance for his birthday. A spectacle meant to look like strength. But real power isn’t staged in Washington. It rises up everywhere else.

    No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance. From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we’re taking action to reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like.

    We’re not gathering to feed his ego. We’re building a movement that leaves him behind.

    The flag doesn’t belong to President Trump. It belongs to us. We’re not watching history happen. We’re making it.

    On June 14th, we’re showing up everywhere he isn’t—to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.

    A core principle behind all No Kings events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events. Weapons of any kind, including those legally permitted, should not be brought to events.
    Contact

    For general inquiries, please email us at info@nokings.org. Members of the media, please email us at media@nokings.org with inquires.

    Source link

  • Bouquets or brickbats? How to interpret today’s announcement of £86 billion spending for research and development (R&D) to 2029/30

    Bouquets or brickbats? How to interpret today’s announcement of £86 billion spending for research and development (R&D) to 2029/30

    Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director, tries to make sense of the Government’s new plans on R&D spending up to 2029/30.

    Perhaps the Speaker of the House of Commons will be unhappy the Government have pre-briefed the media on what this week’s Spending Review will mean for research spending. But what should the higher education and wider research community make of it?

    1. As the BBC story on the £86 billion reminds us, ‘Earlier this week, Reeves admitted that not every government department would “get everything they want” in Wednesday’s review’. We are meant to think the £86 billion is one of the rare exceptions, a surfeit of generosity (albeit with taxpayers’ money) – that is why it is being pre-briefed as a good news story a few days before the Spending Review itself. Ministers have even managed to squeeze positive endorsements from those tipped off in advance, such as the Russell Group. But let’s be honest, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), which will oversee this £86 billion, is not getting what it wants. The £86 billion is thought to be a real-terms freeze; it is implausible to think DSIT Ministers have been lobbying the Treasury to stand still. If they had been, they would not have been doing their jobs. Some will wonder whether this explains why friends of the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology have been speaking up his chances of being moved to a bigger spending Department in due course.
    2. We have been here before. The proudest boast in the Government’s news release, apart from the total multi-year settlement of £86 billion, is of ‘a bumper funding package worth more than £22.5 billion a year in 2029/2030’. But hang on a moment; if Whitehall had more institutional memory, they might have worded this differently because it is five years since the Treasury, under a previous administration and despite being in the midst of COVID, boasted there would be public spending of £22 billion on R&D by 2024/25, just £500 million a year less and five years earlier than the new number for 2029/30. While the modesty of the new announcement might be partly excused by the sluggish economic growth seen since, it may also explain why the announcement seems not to have had the pickup in the Sunday newspapers that the Government would have been hoping for.
    3. A real-terms freeze is a cut in terms of the percentage of GDP spent on R&D, which is the usual way R&D spending is measured in the UK and internationally. In the past, policymakers have obsessed over whether the UK can reach 2.4% or even 3% of GDP on (public and private) R&D spending, putting such targets in many election manifestos. But by a stroke of the pen three years ago, the Office for National Statistics suggested the UK spends much more than we thought on R&D, meaning we had already hit the 2.4% target, overtaken the OECD average and even got close to the 3.0% ambition. So policymakers could claim they had already hit a target that had looked extremely stretching and shift their attention elsewhere. (The ONS’s change put red faces on those who had been lobbying for such targets, however: if the target you have been lobbying for has already been hit [even if it does not feel like it on the ground], what should your next move be? This is something no one quite seems to have worked out.) The new announcement is problematic in GDP terms because, if you assume any economic growth at all, then a real-terms freeze in research spending means a reduction in R&D spending as a proportion of GDP. The latest international data suggest the UK’s gross R&D spending  has been just above the OECD average (2.8% of GDP versus 2.7%). If the OECD average remains the same or (as has been happening) goes up somewhat, today’s announcement means the UK is likely to spend less on R&D as a proportion of GDP and once more fall behind our main competitors. (This is not absolutely guaranteed because today’s announcement is on public spending and most R&D spending is private spending. However, public spending on R&D is generally [though not universally] thought to ‘crowd in’ rather than ‘crowd out’ public funding.)
    4. It is easy for me to be a little cynical about all this because I was there when the same conversations happened between the Business, Innovation and Skills Department and the Treasury at the time of the 2010 Spending Review, which had a similar importance to this week’s forthcoming Spending Review. However, that experience also taught me that a flat settlement in a constrained environment can indeed be a win. The settlement in 2010 was flat-cash not flat real – in other words, it ignored future inflation, so was less generous even than the one being announced today. At one point during the 2010 negotiations, however, it had looked as if there would be actual cuts to the cash spent on research and development each year; expectations in the research community were running so low that, when flat cash was instead announced, it led to my boss, the Minister for Universities, being presented with a bouquet of white roses by the founder of Research Fortnight. 
    5. Today’s announcement is about the money but the Government’s spin doctors have also tried to focus on the uses to which the money is put. Voters are likely to find it hard to imagine what £86 billion spread over a number of years means in practice. However, as the Mirror reports, it could mean ‘In Liverpool, which has a long history in biotech, funding will be used to speed up drug discovery and in South Wales, which has Britain’s largest semiconductor cluster, on designing the microchips used to power mobile phones and electric cars.’ Those feels like things everyone can get behind, even if the focus on local spending may or may not mean a weakening of excellence as the key criterion on which to distribute research funding from central government. This focus on projects should also serve as a reminder to the research community that, whatever Ministers say now, there is likely to be more money available if they lobby smart in the months to come. After what was perceived as a good settlement for science in 2010, we still managed to secure additional funding at pretty much every subsequent spending review. There were lots of reasons for this to do with how effectively the Department lobbied (it helped having both a Lib Dem and a Tory Minister from the Department sit around the Cabinet table), George Osborne’s predilection for science (albeit generally for big new projects rather fully funding existing ones) and politicians’ ceaseless desire to have an exciting new building or two to don a hard hat for. Perhaps most importantly, the research community were ready with ideas of what additional projects should be funded whenever we went to them with the question; if we give policymakers the tools to lobby the Treasury in the years ahead, researchers could get more.
    6. Finally, I am left wondering what this five-year settlement means for the commitment in Labour’s 2024 election manifesto to ‘scrap short funding cycles for key R&D institutions in favour of ten-year budgets that allow meaningful partnerships with industry to keep the UK at the forefront of global innovation.’ It was always likely that this wording was a political trick to put the focus on the length of time rather than the quantum of money. But Spending Reviews are always about money and always have a fixed shorter timetable, so how this week’s announcement chimes with longer-term planning is an issue that won’t go away even if it primarily is for another week.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Liberty University Online: Master’s Degree Debt Factory

    Higher Education Inquirer : Liberty University Online: Master’s Degree Debt Factory

    Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the United States, has built an educational empire by promoting conservative values and offering flexible online degree programs to hundreds of thousands of students. But behind the pious branding and patriotic marketing lies a troubling pattern: Liberty University Online has become a master’s degree debt factory, churning out credentials of questionable value while generating billions in student loan debt.

    From Moral Majority to Mass Marketing

    Founded in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., Liberty University was created to train “Champions for Christ.” In the 2000s, the school found new life through online education, transforming from a small evangelical college into a mega-university with nearly 95,000 online students, the vast majority of them enrolled in nontraditional and graduate programs.

    By leveraging aggressive digital marketing, religious appeals, and promises of career advancement, Liberty has positioned itself as a go-to destination for working adults and military veterans seeking master’s degrees. But this rapid expansion has not come without costs — especially for the students who enroll.

    A For-Profit Model in Nonprofit Clothing

    Though technically a nonprofit, Liberty University operates with many of the same profit-driven incentives as for-profit colleges. Its online programs generate massive revenues — an estimated $1 billion annually — thanks in large part to federal student aid programs. Students are encouraged to take on loans to pay for master’s degrees in education, counseling, business, and theology, among other fields. Many of these programs are offered in accelerated formats that cater to working adults but often lack the rigor, support, or job placement outcomes associated with traditional graduate schools.

    Federal data shows that many Liberty students, especially graduate students, take on substantial debt. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard, the median graduate student debt at Liberty can range from $40,000 to more than $70,000, depending on the program. Meanwhile, the return on investment is often dubious, with low median earnings and high rates of student loan forbearance or default.

    Exploiting Faith and Patriotism

    Liberty’s marketing strategy is finely tuned to appeal to Christian conservatives, homeschoolers, veterans, and working parents. By framing education as a moral and patriotic duty, Liberty convinces students that enrolling in an online master’s program is both a personal and spiritual investment. Testimonials of “calling” and “purpose” are common, but the financial realities can be harsh.

    Many students report feeling misled by promises of job readiness or licensure, especially in education and counseling fields, where state licensing requirements can differ dramatically from what Liberty prepares students for. Others cite inadequate academic support and difficulties transferring credits.

     The university spends heavily on recruitment and retention, often at the expense of student services and academic quality.

    Lack of Oversight and Accountability

    Liberty University benefits from minimal federal scrutiny compared to for-profit schools, largely because of its nonprofit status and political connections. The institution maintains close ties to conservative lawmakers and was a vocal supporter of the Trump administration, which rolled back regulations on higher education accountability.

    Despite a series of internal scandals — including financial mismanagement, sexual misconduct cover-ups, and leadership instability following the resignation of Jerry Falwell Jr. — Liberty has continued to expand its online presence. Its graduate programs, particularly in education and counseling, remain cash cows that draw in federal loan dollars with few checks on student outcomes.

    A Cautionary Tale in Christian Capitalism

    The story of Liberty University Online is not just about one school. It reflects a broader trend in American higher education: the merging of religion, capitalism, and credential inflation. As more employers demand advanced degrees for mid-level jobs, and as traditional institutions struggle to adapt, schools like Liberty have seized the opportunity to market hope — even if it comes at a high cost.

    For students of faith seeking upward mobility, Liberty promises a path to both spiritual and professional fulfillment. But for many, the result is a diploma accompanied by tens of thousands in debt and limited economic return. The moral reckoning may not be just for Liberty University, but for the policymakers and accreditors who continue to enable this lucrative cycle of debt and disillusionment.

    The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate Liberty University Online and similar institutions as part of our ongoing series on higher education debt, inequality, and regulatory failure.

    Source link

  • Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay NCAA athletes millions (12 News, Phoenix, Arizona)

    Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay NCAA athletes millions (12 News, Phoenix, Arizona)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay NCAA athletes millions (12 News, Phoenix, Arizona)




    Source link

  • U.S. Judge Rules Colleges Can Directly Pay Student Athletes

    U.S. Judge Rules Colleges Can Directly Pay Student Athletes

    Grant House, the plaintiff in a now settled antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, swam for Arizona State University.

    Michael Reaves/Getty Images 

    Federal district judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval to a multi-billion-dollar settlement in the yearslong House v. NCAA lawsuit late Friday evening, effectively transforming college sports: Starting July 1, institutions will be allowed to pay student athletes directly.

    In accordance with the settlement, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and colleges in Division I conferences will distribute nearly $2.8 billion in back damages over the next 10 years to athletes who competed any time since 2016, as well as to their lawyers. The case also allows each college that opted in to pay their athletes collectively up to $20.5 million per year, in addition to scholarships. That figure will increase incrementally over time.

    The ruling, which technically resolves three antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA, essentially turns student-athletes from amateurs into professionals. But experts say this isn’t likely to end court battles over athletics. The creation of the revenue-sharing model (where schools distribute money earned from areas such as media rights or merchandise), combined with existing turmoil over the regulation of name, image and likeness (NIL) deals, will only invite more lawsuits, they say. 

    “The judge said, in essence, this is not a perfect settlement that solves everyone’s concerns, but it makes progress towards ‘righting the wrongs’ of higher education’s desire to maintain amateurism status for the players but no one else,” Karen Weaver, adjunct assistant professor in the graduate school of education at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    Although many colleges began making changes to their programs in anticipation of the settlement’s approval, the timing of the ruling could present logistical challenges as they move to start revenue-sharing with students from the July 1 deadline set out in the suit. 

    Current and former athletes have celebrated the ruling. 

    “It’s historic,” former college basketball star Sedona Prince, a co-lead plaintiff in one of the lawsuits, told ESPN. “It seemed like this crazy, outlandish idea at the time of what college athletics could and should be like. It was a difficult process at times … but it’s going to change millions of lives for the better.”

    Wild West Yet to be Tamed

    Judge Wilken’s ruling comes nearly two months after both parties presented arguments in early April for approving the settlement, and nearly five years after the suit was first filed in 2020. But contentious debates over how to manage paying student athletes really erupted in 2021, when NIL deals were first legalized. 

    Since then, collectives made up of alumni and boosters have paid athletes millions of dollars to play at schools through unregulated NIL partnerships. Top football and basketball players have earned the most.

    College leaders have argued that the collectives could give wealthier institutions an unfair recruiting advantage. The House settlement, which not only allows colleges to pay athletes directly but also gives conferences the power to regulate booster influence, could help solve that problem.

    “For several years, Division I members crafted well-intentioned rules and systems to govern financial benefits from schools and name, image and likeness opportunities, but the NCAA could not easily enforce these for several reasons,” NCAA president Charlie Baker wrote in a statement Friday. “The result was a sense of chaos: instability for schools, confusion for student-athletes and too often litigation.”

    “The settlement opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports,” Baker said. “This new framework that enables schools to provide direct financial benefits to student-athletes and establishes clear and specific rules to regulate third-party NIL agreements marks a huge step forward for college sports.”

    The settlement also establishes a new clearinghouse, run by Deloitte, that will vet any endorsement deal between a booster and an athlete worth more than $600, with the goal of ensuring it is for a “valid business purpose.”  

    Still, doubts remain about how the watchdog will work; one commenter on X noted that all it takes for boosters to create an NIL regulatory loophole is to pay athletes in multiple $599 payments rather than one mass sum

    Despite the efforts to regulate NIL payments through the clearinghouse, Weaver said the settlement will create “a feeding frenzy of agents and dealmakers capitalizing on a few athletes wealth while schools scramble to lock down players who could bolt for a better offer at any moment.”

    “I expect to see the first Title IX lawsuits, and requests for an immediate stay, filed as soon as this week,” she said. “It’s important for higher education leaders to understand the far-reaching impact on our industry—it’s only just begun.”

    Source link

  • It’s Expensive to Become a Teacher in California. This Bill Would Pay Those Who Try – The 74

    It’s Expensive to Become a Teacher in California. This Bill Would Pay Those Who Try – The 74


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

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    When Brigitta Hunter started her teaching career, she had $20,000 in student loans and zero income – even though she was working nearly full time in the classroom.

    “We lived on my husband’s pathetic little paycheck. I don’t know how we did it,” Hunter said. “And we were lucky – he had a job and my loans weren’t that bad. It can be almost impossible for some people.”

    Each year, about 28,000 people in California work for free for about a year as teachers or classroom aides while they complete the requirements for their teaching credentials. That year without pay can be a dire hardship for many aspiring teachers, even deterring them from pursuing the profession.

    A new bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Democrat from Torrance, would set aside money for school districts to pay would-be teachers while they do their student teaching service. The goal is to help alleviate the teacher shortage and attract lower-income candidates to the profession.

    “Nothing makes a bigger difference in improving the quality of public education than getting highly qualified teachers in the classroom,” Muratsuchi said. “This bill helps remove some of the obstacles to that.”

    Big loans, low pay

    To be a K-12 public school teacher in California, candidates need a bachelor’s degree and a teaching credential, typically earned after completing a one-year program combining coursework and 600 hours of classroom experience. During that time, candidates work with veteran teachers or lead their own classes.

    Teacher credential programs cost between $20,000 and $40,000, depending on where a student enrolls and where they live. In 2020, about 60% of teachers borrowed money to finish their degrees, according to a recent study by the Learning Policy Institute, with loans averaging about $30,000 for a four-year bachelor’s degree and a credential program.

    Entering the profession with hefty student loans can be demoralizing and stressful, the report said, adding to the challenges new teachers face. The average starting teacher salary in California is $58,000, according to the National Education Association, among the highest in the country but still hard to live on in many parts of the state. It could take a decade or more for teachers to pay off their loans.

    Muratsuchi’s bill, AB 1128, passed the Assembly on Monday and now awaits a vote in the Senate. It would create a grant program for districts to pay student teachers the same amount they pay substitute teachers, which is roughly $140 a day. The overall cost would be up to $300 million a year, according to Assembly analysts, but Gov. Gavin Newsom has set aside $100 million for the program in his revised budget.

    Muratsuchi has another bill related to teacher pay, also working its way through the Legislature. Assembly bill 477, which passed the Assembly this week, would raise teacher salaries across the board.

    Paying teachers, saving money

    Christopher Carr, executive director of Aspire Public Schools in Los Angeles, a network of 11 charter schools, called the bill a potential “game changer.”

    Teacher candidates often have to work second jobs to make ends meet, and sometimes finish with debt of $70,000 or more, he said. That can be an insurmountable barrier for people with limited resources. Paying would-be teachers would attract more people to the teaching profession, especially Black and Latino candidates, he said.

    School districts around the state have been trying to diversify their teacher workforces, based on research showing that Black and Latino students tend to do better academically when they have at least one teacher of the same race.

    Carr’s schools pay their teachers-in-training through grants and a partnership with a local college, which has led to more of them staying on to teach full time after they receive their credentials, he said. That has saved the schools money by reducing turnover.

    “This could open doors and be a step toward racial justice,” Carr said. “California has a million spending priorities, but this will lead to better outcomes for students and ultimately save the state money.”

    Tyanthony Davis, chief executive director of Inner City Education Foundation, a charter school network in Los Angeles, put it this way: “If we have well paid, qualified, happy teachers, we’ll have happier classrooms.”

    No opposition, yet

    Muratusuchi’s bill has no formal opposition. The California Taxpayers Association has not taken a position. The California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union, is a supporter.

    “This legislation comes at a critical time as we continue to face an educator recruitment and retention crisis,” said David Goldberg, the union president. “Providing new grants to compensate student teachers for important on-the-job training is a strong step forward in the right direction to strengthening public education.”

    Hunter survived her student-teaching experience and went on to teach fourth grade for 34 years, retiring last year from the Mark West Union School District in Santa Rosa. The last 15 years of her career she served as a mentor to aspiring teachers. She saw first-hand the stress that would-be teachers endure as they juggle coursework, long days in the classroom and often second jobs on nights and weekends.

    But paying student-teachers, she said, should only be the beginning. Novice teachers also need  smaller class sizes, more support from administrators and more help with enrichment activities, such as extra staff to lead lessons in art and physical education.

    “We definitely need more teachers, and paying student teachers is a good start,” Hunter said. “But there’s a lot more we can do to help them.”

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


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

    Source link

  • How do Kids Learn to Read? There Are as Many Ways as There Are Students – The 74

    How do Kids Learn to Read? There Are as Many Ways as There Are Students – The 74


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

    Five years after the pandemic forced children into remote instruction, two-thirds of U.S. fourth graders still cannot read at grade level. Reading scores lag 2 percentage points below 2022 levels and 4 percentage points below 2019 levels.

    This data from the 2024 report of National Assessment of Educational Progress, a state-based ranking sometimes called “America’s report card,” has concerned educators scrambling to boost reading skills.

    Many school districts have adopted an evidence-based literacy curriculum called the “science of reading” that features phonics as a critical component.

    Phonics strategies begin by teaching children to recognize letters and make their corresponding sounds. Then they advance to manipulating and blending first-letter sounds to read and write simple, consonant-vowel-consonant words – such as combining “b” or “c” with “-at” to make “bat” and “cat.” Eventually, students learn to merge more complex word families and to read them in short stories to improve fluency and comprehension.

    Proponents of the curriculum celebrate its grounding in brain science, and the science of reading has been credited with helping Louisiana students outperform their pre-pandemic reading scores last year.

    In practice, Louisiana used a variety of science of reading approaches beyond phonics. That’s because different students have different learning needs, for a variety of reasons.

    Yet as a scholar of reading and language who has studied literacy in diverse student populations, I see many schools across the U.S. placing a heavy emphasis on the phonics components of the science of reading.

    If schools want across-the-board gains in reading achievement, using one reading curriculum to teach every child isn’t the best way. Teachers need the flexibility and autonomy to use various, developmentally appropriate literacy strategies as needed.

    Phonics fails some students

    Phonics programs often require memorizing word families in word lists. This works well for some children: Research shows that “decoding” strategies such as phonics can support low-achieving readers and learners with dyslexia.

    However, some students may struggle with explicit phonics instruction, particularly the growing population of neurodivergent learners with autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. These students learn and interact differently than their mainstream peers in school and in society. And they tend to have different strengths and challenges when it comes to word recognition, reading fluency and comprehension.

    This was the case with my own child. He had been a proficient reader from an early age, but struggles emerged when his school adopted a phonics program to balance out its regular curriculum, a flexible literature-based curriculum called Daily 5 that prioritizes reading fluency and comprehension.

    I worked with his first grade teacher to mitigate these challenges. But I realized that his real reading proficiency would likely not have been detected if the school had taught almost exclusively phonics-based reading lessons.

    Another weakness of phonics, in my experience, is that it teaches reading in a way that is disconnected from authentic reading experiences. Phonics often directs children to identify short vowel sounds in word lists, rather than encounter them in colorful stories. Evidence shows that exposing children to fun, interesting literature promotes deep comprehension.

    Balanced literacy

    To support different learning styles, educators can teach reading in multiple ways. This is called balanced literacy, and for decades it was a mainstay in teacher preparation and in classrooms.

    Balanced literacy prompts children to learn words encountered in authentic literature during guided, teacher-led read-alouds – versus learning how to decode words in word lists. Teachers use multiple strategies to promote reading acquisition, such as blending the letter sounds in words to support “decoding” while reading.

    Another balanced literacy strategy that teachers can apply in phonics-based strategies while reading aloud is called “rhyming word recognition.” The rhyming word strategy is especially effective with stories whose rhymes contribute to the deeper meaning of the story, such as Marc Brown’s “Arthur in a Pickle.”

    The rhyming structure of ‘Arthur in a Pickle’ helps children learn to read entire words, versus word parts.

    After reading, teachers may have learners arrange letter cards to form words, then tap the letter cards while saying and blending each sound to form the word. Similar phonics strategies include tracing and writing letters to form words that were encountered during reading.

    There is no one right way to teach literacy in a developmentally appropriate, balanced literacy framework. There are as many ways as there are students.

    What a truly balanced curriculum looks like

    The push for the phonics-based component of the science of reading is a response to the discrediting of the Lucy Calkins Reading Project, a balanced literacy approach that uses what’s called “cueing” to teach young readers. Teachers “cue” students to recognize words with corresponding pictures and promote guessing unfamiliar words while reading based on context clues.

    A 2024 class action lawsuit filed by Massachusetts families claimed that this faulty curriculum and another cueing-based approach called Fountas & Pinnell had failed readers for four decades, in part because they neglect scientifically backed phonics instruction.

    But this allegation overlooks evidence that the Calkins curriculum worked for children who were taught basic reading skills at home. And a 2021 study in Georgia found modest student achievement gains of 2% in English Language Arts test scores among fourth graders taught with the Lucy Calkins method.

    Nor is the method unscientific. Using picture cues with corresponding words is supported by the predictable language theory of literacy.

    This approach is evident in Eric Carle’s popular children’s books. Stories such as the “Very Hungry Caterpillar” and “Brown Bear, Brown Bear What do you See?” have vibrant illustrations of animals and colors that correspond with the text. The pictures support children in learning whole words and repetitive phrases, suchg as, “But he was still hungry.”

    The intention here is for learners to acquire words in the context of engaging literature. But critics of Calkins contend that “cueing” during reading is a guessing game. They say readers are not learning the fundamentals necessary to identify sounds and word families on their way to decoding entire words and sentences.

    As a result, schools across the country are replacing traditional learn-to-read activities tied to balanced literacy approaches with the science of reading. Since its inception in 2013, the phonics-based curriculum has been adopted by 40 states and the Disctrict of Columbia.

    Recommendations for parents, educators and policymakers

    The most scientific way to teach reading, in my opinion, is by not applying the same rigid rules to every child. The best instruction meets students where they are, not where they should be.

    Here are five evidence-based tips to promote reading for all readers that combine phonics, balanced literacy and other methods.

    1. Maintain the home-school connection. When schools send kids home with developmentally appropriate books and strategies, it encourages parents to practice reading at home with their kids and develop their oral reading fluency. Ideally, reading materials include features that support a diversity of learning strategies, including text, pictures with corresponding words and predictable language.

    2. Embrace all reading. Academic texts aren’t the only kind of reading parents and teachers should encourage. Children who see menus, magazines and other print materials at home also acquire new literacy skills.

    3. Make phonics fun. Phonics instruction can teach kids to decode words, but the content is not particularly memorable. I encourage teachers to teach phonics on words that are embedded in stories and texts that children absolutely love.

    4. Pick a series. High-quality children’s literature promotes early literacy achievement. Texts that become increasingly more complex as readers advance, such as the “Arthur” step-into-reading series, are especially helpful in developing reading comprehension. As readers progress through more complex picture books, caregivers and teachers should read aloud the “Arthur” novels until children can read them independently. Additional popular series that grow with readers include “Otis,” “Olivia,” “Fancy Nancy” and “Berenstain Bears.”

    5. Tutoring works. Some readers will struggle despite teachers’ and parents’ best efforts. In these cases, intensive, high-impact tutoring can help. Sending students to one session a week of at least 30 minutes is well documented to help readers who’ve fallen behind catch up to their peers. Many nonprofit organizations, community centers and colleges offer high-impact tutoring.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


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

    Source link

  • Ivy Tech in Indiana to lay off 200 employees (WSBT-TV)

    Ivy Tech in Indiana to lay off 200 employees (WSBT-TV)

    More than 200 jobs at Ivy Tech are being eliminated due to a cut in state funding, and some of that loss is impacting people in South Bend. The student in this story discusses questions about the value of a community college education and finding gainful employment after graduation.   

    Source link