Author: admin

  • How to help students overcome ‘learned helplessness’

    How to help students overcome ‘learned helplessness’

    BALTIMORE — Students who experience “learned helplessness” — the belief that even with effort, they will not progress — can resist help, be quick to surrender academically and exhibit passive behaviors, said speakers at the Council for Exceptional Children’s annual convention on Thursday.

    To educators and families, these students — whether with or without disabilities — may seem lazy, defiant and resigned to failure, speakers including special education teachers from Alabama told a conference session.

    However, students’ lack of self-confidence and sense of powerlessness can actually stem from early childhood traumas and from past negative school experiences. But all is not lost, the speakers said: Learned helplessness can be unlearned through academic interventions and by celebrating successes — even small accomplishments.

    “When we get these babies and they come to us at 3, 4, preschool age, we have got to start pumping them up to think that they can conquer the world,” said Michelle Griffin, a learning specialist at Tarrant City Schools in Tarrant, Alabama. 

    Here are the speakers’ recommendations for increasing students’ resilience and control over their learning:

    Encourage a growth mindset

    For students with learned helplessness, success can feel out of reach, leading them to believe that no matter how hard they try, they’ll miss the mark, said Danielle Edison, a special education teacher in Tuscaloosa City Schools in Alabama.

    Over time, this pattern can contribute to a significant learning gap and lower academic achievement. “By recognizing these signs early and implementing strategies to counteract them, we can help students regain confidence in their ability to take ownership of their learning,” Edison said.

    Teaching students to have a growth mindset — a belief that one’s abilities can improve through strategies and dedication — can help combat learned helplessness, the speakers said.

    To help students recognize their potential to improve, educators can encourage them to ask for help when needed. Teachers should also avoid doing the work for the students, setting unrealistic goals, or preventing them from making mistakes, the speakers said.

    “We can encourage a growth mindset by helping students use setbacks as learning opportunities rather than insurmountable barriers,” said Lena Cantrell, a 10-year Alabama educator who is pursuing an education specialist degree in special education at the University of Alabama. “Students become more willing to persevere when they see that failure is a step, not a stop.”

    Have a supportive learning environment

    Equity-focused interventions are another important tool. According to Cantrell, these can help students feel valued and capable of success. 

    “Cultivating a supportive environment plays a pivotal role,” Cantrell added. “When students know they are in a safe, understanding and encouraging space, they’re more likely to engage actively and take risks in their work.”

    Giving students autonomy in their learning and encouraging them to advocate for themselves can strengthen their problem-solving skills and confidence, Cantrell said.

    This doesn’t mean teachers are on the sidelines, said Amy Yarbrough, a special education teacher in Alabama’s Jefferson County Schools. Teachers can support students’ sense of control in their learning through physical and verbal prompts or by modeling a desired task.

    For example, by showing students how to close a plastic sandwich bag and then encouraging the student to do it on their own, a student can become more independent in that activity, Yarbrough said.

    Celebrate wins

    To help students overcome negative thoughts about their potential, teachers need to show positivity and encourage their students to be realistically optimistic. That means celebrating even the small steps toward success.

    Having positive affirmations can increase students’ motivation and resilience, the speakers said.

    “Help them experience success over and over again so that they’ll want to experience it more,” Griffin said.

    Source link

  • UPDATE: Another federal appeals court backs academic free speech for public employees

    UPDATE: Another federal appeals court backs academic free speech for public employees

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit just sided with free speech, joining five of its sister circuits in holding the First Amendment protects academic research, writing, and teaching at public colleges and universities. This carves out an important exception to the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos holding that public employees’ speech pursuant to their official duties is not protected.

    This is a big deal. Just ask Jason Kilborn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago suspended in late 2021 for using a redacted racial slur “n___” on a final exam question about employment discrimination. He also used the redacted term “b___” in the same question.

    UIC suspended Kilborn and launched an investigation into his (non-)use of the terms. That’s when FIRE stepped in — defending Kilborn, writing to UIC administrators, and securing him a lawyer through our Faculty Legal Defense Fund. With help from that lawyer, UIC briefly reached a resolution with Kilborn but it later reneged on that agreement and forced him to write reflection papers and participate in months-long training sessions before he could return to teaching.

    Kilborn sued, alleging administrators violated his constitutional right to academic freedom — and while the district court had dismissed the case, on Wednesday, the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit agreed the First Amendment protected Kilborn’s speech. That court rejected UIC’s “invitation to extend Garcetti to speech involving university teaching and scholarship when the Supreme Court was unwilling to do so,” and sent the case back to the district court. 

    With the rejection of that application of Garcetti, the district court will analyze this case using the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, which directs courts to weigh “the interests of the [employee] in commenting upon matters of public concern” against “the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” 

    This is now the sixth federal appeals court to establish this exception to Garcetti, extending academic freedom protections to public university faculty throughout Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. FIRE is currently awaiting a decision from the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit, where we’ve asked that court to do the same with respect to the Garcetti exception. Stay tuned for more as we continue to press and follow this issue closely. 

    Source link

  • IES, the Institute of Education Sciences, is in disarray after layoffs

    IES, the Institute of Education Sciences, is in disarray after layoffs

    President Donald Trump promises he’ll make American schools great again. He has fired nearly everyone who might objectively measure whether he succeeds.

    This week’s mass layoffs by his secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, of more than 1,300 Department of Education employees delivered a crippling blow to the agency’s ability to tell the public how schools and federal programs are doing through its statistics and research branch. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is now left with fewer than 20 federal employees, down from more than 175 at the start of the second Trump administration, according to my reporting. It’s not clear how the institute can operate or even fulfill its statutory obligations set by Congress. 

    IES is modeled after the National Institutes of Health and was established in 2002 during the administration of former President George W. Bush to fund innovations and identify effective teaching practices. Its largest division is a statistical agency that dates back to 1867 and is called the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which collects basic statistics on the number of students and teachers. NCES is perhaps best known for administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which tracks student achievement across the country. The layoffs  “demolished” the statistics agency, as one former official characterized it, from roughly 100 employees to a skeletal staff of just three. 

    “The idea of having three individuals manage the work that was done by a hundred federal employees supported by thousands of contractors is ludicrous and not humanly possible,” said Stephen Provasnik, a former deputy commissioner of NCES who retired early in January. “There is no way without a significant staff that NCES could keep up even a fraction of its previous workload.”

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    Even the new acting commissioner of education statistics, a congressionally mandated position, was terminated with everyone else on March 11 after just 15 days on the job, according to five former employees. Chris Chapman replaced Biden-appointee Peggy Carr, who was suddenly removed on Feb. 24 without explanation before her congressionally designated six-year term was to end in 2027. It was unclear who, if anyone, will serve as the commissioner after Chapman’s last day on March 21. (Chapman did not respond to an email for comment.) Meanwhile, the chief statistician, Gail Mulligan, was put on administrative leave until her early retirement on April 1.* There is apparently no replacement to review the accuracy of figures reported to the public.  

    Two offices spared

    Only two IES offices were untouched by this week’s layoffs: the National Center for Special Education Research, an eight-person office that awards grants to study effective ways to teach children with disabilities, and the Office of Science, a six-person office that reviews research for quality, accuracy and validity. It was unclear why they were spared. Other areas of the Education Department that fund and oversee education for children with disabilities also had relatively lighter layoffs.

    A draft of an executive order to eliminate the Education Department was prepared in early March, but Trump hadn’t signed it as of this week. Instead, McMahon said on Fox News that she began firing employees as a “first step” toward that elimination. Former department employees believe that McMahon and her team decided which offices to cut. Weeks before her confirmation, about a half dozen people from McMahon’s former think tank, the right-wing America First Policy Institute, were inside the department and looking at the bureaucracy, according to a former official at the Education Department. The Education Department did not respond to my email queries.

    The mass firings this month were preceded by a Feb. 10 onslaught, when Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency terminated much of the work that is overseen by these education research and statistics units. Most of the department’s research and data collections are carried out by outside contractors, and nearly 90 of these contracts were canceled, including vital data collections on students and teachers. The distribution of roughly $16 billion in federal Title I aid to low-income schools cannot be calculated properly without this data. Now, the statisticians who know how to run the complicated formula are also gone. 

    ‘Five-alarm fire’

    The mass firings and contract cancellations stunned many. “This is a five-alarm fire, burning statistics that we need to understand and improve education,” said Andrew Ho, a psychometrician at Harvard University and president of the National Council on Measurement in Education, on social media.  

    Former NCES Commissioner Jack Buckley, who ran the education statistics unit from 2010 to 2015, described the destruction as “surreal.” “I’m just sad,” said Buckley. “Everyone’s entitled to their own policy ideas, but no one’s entitled to their own facts. You have to share the truth in order to make any kind of improvement, no matter what direction you want to go. It does not feel like that is the world we live in now.”

    The deepest cuts

    While other units inside the Education Department lost more employees in absolute numbers, IES lost the highest percentage of employees — roughly 90 percent of its workforce. Education researchers questioned why the Trump administration targeted research and statistics. “All of this feels like part of an attack on universities and science,” said an education professor at a major research university, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. 

    That fear is well-founded. Earlier this month the Trump administration canceled $400 million in federal contracts and grants with Columbia University, blaming the university’s failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitism during campus protests last year over Israeli attacks on Gaza. Among them were four research grants that had been issued by IES, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Federal Work-Study program, which costs the government $1 billion a year. That five-year study was near completion and now the public will not learn the results. (The Hechinger Report is an independent news organization at Teachers College, Columbia University.) 

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions on education

    Tom Brock, executive director of the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, said he had been cautiously optimistic that he could successfully appeal the cancellation of his $2.8 million in education research grants. (He planned to argue that Teachers College is a separate entity from the rest of Columbia with its own president and board of trustees and it was not affected by student protests to the same degree.) But now the IES office that issued the grants, the National Center for Education Research, has lost its staff. “I’m very discouraged,” said Brock. “Even if we win on appeal, all the staff have been laid off. Who would reinstate the grant? Who would we report to? Who would monitor it? They have completely eliminated the infrastructure. I could imagine a scenario where we would win on appeal and it can’t be put into effect.”

    Active contracts

    Many contracts with outside organizations for data collection and research grants with university professors remain active. That includes the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which tracks student achievement, and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which collects data on colleges and universities. But now there are almost no employees left to oversee these efforts, review them for accuracy or sign future contracts for new data collections and studies. 

    “My job was to make sure that the limited public dollars for education research were spent as best as they could be,” said one former education official who issued grants for the development of new innovations. “We make sure there’s no fraud, waste and abuse. Now there’s no watchdog to oversee it.” 

    The former official asked to remain anonymous as did more than a dozen other former employees whom I talked to while reporting this story. Some explained that the conditions of their termination, called a “reduction in force” or “RIF,” could mean losing their severance if they talked to the press. The terminated employees are supposed to work from home until their last day on March 21, and they described having limited access to their work computer systems. That is stymying efforts to wind down their work with their colleagues and outside contractors in an orderly way. One described how she had to take a cellphone picture of her termination notice on her laptop because she could no longer save or send documents on it. 

    Related: DOGE’s death blow to education studies

    So far, there has been no sign of protest among congressional Republicans, even though some of the cuts affect data and research they have mandated. A spokesman for Sen. Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana and chairman of the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, directed me to Cassidy’s statement on X. “I spoke to @EDSecMcMahon and she made it clear this will not have an impact on @usedgov ability to carry out its statutory obligations. This action is aimed at fulfilling the admin’s goal of addressing redundancy and inefficiency in the federal government.”

    Following the law

    In theory, a skeletal staff might be able to fulfill the law, which is often “ambiguous,” said former NCES commissioner Buckley. For example, the annual report to Congress on the condition of education could be as short as one page. Laws mention several data collections, such as ones on financial aid to college students and on the experiences of teachers, but often don’t specify how often they must be produced. Technically, they could be paused for many years without running afoul of statutes.

    The remaining skeleton crew could award contracts to outside organizations to do all the work and have them “supervise themselves,” said Buckley. “I’m not advocating that oversight be pushed out to contractors, but you could do it in theory. It depends on your tolerance for contracting out work.”

    NAEP anxiety

    Many are anxious about the future of NAEP, also known as the Nation’s Report Card. Even before the firings, William Bennett, Education Secretary under President Ronald Reagan, penned an open letter along with conservative commentator Chester Finn in The 74, urging McMahon to preserve NAEP, calling it “the single most important activity of the department.” 

    Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat who chairs the National Governors Association, is especially concerned. In an email, Polis’ spokesman emphasized that Polis believes that “NAEP is critical.” He warned that “undercutting data collection and removing this objective measuring stick that helps states understand and improve performance will only make our efforts more difficult.” 

    Though much of the test development and administration is contracted out to private organizations and firms, it is unclear how these contracts could be signed and overseen by the Education Department with such a diminished staff. Some officials suggested that the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), which sets NAEP policy, could take over the test’s administration. But the board’s current staff doesn’t have the testing or psychometrics expertise to do this. 

    Related: Former Trump commissioner blasts DOGE education data cuts

    In response to questions, board members declined to comment on the future of NAEP and whether anyone in the Trump administration had asked them to take it over. One former education official believes there is “apparently some confusion” in the Trump administration about the division of labor between NAGB and NCES and a “misunderstanding of how work gets done in implementing” the assessment.

    Mark Schneider, a former IES director who is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said he hoped that McMahon would rebuild NCES into a modern, more efficient statistical agency that could collect data more cheaply and quickly, and redirect IES’s research division to drive breakthrough innovations like the Defense Department has. But he conceded that McMahon also cut some of the offices that would be needed to modernize the bureaucracy, such as the centralized procurement office. 

    So far, there’s no sign of Trump’s or McMahon’s intent to rebuild. 

    * Clarification: An earlier version of this story said that Mulligan had been terminated, but she revised a social media post about her status after publication of this story to clarify that she was not subject to the “reduction in force” notice. 

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about the Institute of Education Sciences was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Feds to Columbia: ‘You want $400 million in contracts back? Do this (or else)’

    Feds to Columbia: ‘You want $400 million in contracts back? Do this (or else)’

    Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the U.S. General Services Administration announced the immediate cancellation of $400 million in federal contracts with Columbia University. 

    The announcement corresponded with ongoing Title VI investigations alleging an anti-Semitic hostile environment at Columbia. Last night, the agencies sent a follow-up letter sidestepping important procedures and including demands that will seriously erode free speech and academic freedom on campus. 

    There is significant evidence to suggest that Columbia failed to respond effectively to unlawful conduct directed against Jewish students based on their Jewish identity and that this has resulted in Title VI violations. Indeed, Columbia responded to the agencies’ March 7 announcement about canceling contracts by stating it is “committed to working with the federal government to address their legitimate concerns.” [Emphasis added].

    However, the departments’ demands in last night’s letter to Columbia go too far. The letter announces steps the school must take “that we regard as a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States Government.” While these include some policy steps that Columbia should already have taken, the letter goes far beyond what is appropriate for the government to mandate and will chill campus discourse.

    Our nation’s colleges need to protect free expression and comply with anti-discrimination laws, but too often … they enact overbroad or vague policies that do not track the Supreme Court’s definition for discriminatory peer harassment.

    For instance, the letter demands that Columbia “Formalize, adopt and promulgate a definition of anti-Semitism.” It cites President Trump’s 2019 executive order on anti-Semitism — which orders the government to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition and examples of anti-Semitism for civil rights enforcement — hinting strongly that Columbia should adopt that definition. 

    While the IHRA definition was originally crafted to study incidents of anti-Semitism in Europe, its primary author has repeatedly stated that it was never intended to be used for anti-discrimination enforcement because it risks chilling speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on campus. The examples of anti-Semitism cited by IHRA include criticisms of Israeli policy that can, depending on the situation, be political speech protected by our First Amendment. 

    Other demands may be of even greater concern. The government’s demand that an academic department be put under “academic receivership” is a clear intrusion on academic freedom, and its deadline of March 20 for a “full plan” to do so is likely impossible to meet. And there is no basis to believe that the federal government has the power to demand that Columbia eliminate its University Judicial Board or to mandate specific punishments (“expulsion or multi-year suspension”) be given to student demonstrators.

    The demands in the letter pose a problem, but so is the process the government is using to issue those demands. This is not the normal procedure for revocation of federal financial assistance for violations of Title VI. Instead, the government appears to rely on authority under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to cancel contracts based on “termination for convenience of the government” clauses that exist in most federal contracts. As a Biden-era document states: “the Government has a lot of latitude to terminate contracts for convenience and the Federal Acquisition Regulations do not require a lot from the Government when terminating contracts for convenience.” 

    Federal anti-discrimination law has been one of the most frequently cited justifications for campus censorship throughout FIRE’s history. Our nation’s colleges need to protect free expression and comply with anti-discrimination laws, but too often — and sometimes at the federal government’s behest — they enact overbroad or vague policies that do not track the Supreme Court’s definition for discriminatory peer harassment. As a result, their policies and actions end up targeting speech protected by the First Amendment. This has long been a problem in the Title IX context relating to sex discrimination, and has more recently become a problem in the Title VI context as well.

    One important protection that colleges have against improper pressure from the federal government to censor students and faculty is the process federal civil rights law provides for colleges accused of failing to address unlawful discrimination. Civil rights investigations should not be handled through ad hoc directives from the government. Existing procedures, which include an attempt at a voluntary resolution followed by either an administrative hearing with the opportunity for the institution to defend itself or a trial in federal court, are intended to reduce the risk of error, individual biases, and overreach. 

    None of those safeguards are in evidence in the Columbia process, which increases the likelihood of abuse. Title VI processes are in place for a reason, and those procedures, when followed in good faith, are more likely to generate just outcomes for colleges, students, and faculty. 

    Earlier this week, the Department of Education announced it was launching Title VI anti-Semitism investigations into 60 colleges and universities across the country. Any of those institutions that have contracts with the federal government would reasonably expect to be treated similarly to Columbia and risk losing federal government contracts unless they enact policies similar to those outlined in last night’s letter. 

    The threat to both free speech and academic freedom are clear, and last night’s letter is a blueprint to supercharge campus censorship.

    Source link

  • Watch DOGE layoffs in real-time with Layoffs.fyi

    Watch DOGE layoffs in real-time with Layoffs.fyi

    Layoffs.fyi is keeping track of US federal government layoffs. The website was originally created to track tech layoffs and has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and NY Times. 

    Source link

  • Marc Miller removed as Canadian immigration minister

    Marc Miller removed as Canadian immigration minister

    The cabinet reshuffle came upon Carney’s swearing-in ceremony as Canada’s new Prime Minister on Friday 14 March, following his landslide victory in the Liberal leadership race announced on March 10.  

    Miller has been replaced by Rachel Bendayan, formerly the minister of official languages and associate minister of public safety under Trudeau. Bendayan is one of 11 female ministers in Carney’s 24-member cabinet.  

    Holding various government positions since being elected to parliament in 2019, Bendayan was the first Canadian of Moroccan descent to join the federal government.  

    While a change of tack regarding immigration is unlikely until after the federal election, international education stakeholders are hopeful about Miller’s successor who will head up Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

    “Canada is due for a reset on the immigration file. The former minister rode a wave of negative sentiment to make Canada feel increasingly unwelcoming to international students and their family members,” Canadian immigration lawyer Matthew McDonald told The PIE News.

    “My hope is that Minister Rachel Bendayan will bring a more positive spirit to the country’s immigration conversation,” he added.

    Based on Bendayan’s role as minister for official languages, McDonald said he expected she would continue IRCC’s commitment to the prominence of the French language in permanent residence programs.

    Bendayan’s legal background also suggests that she may continue the “technocratic approach” to policy seen of her predecessor, he added.

    The former minister rode a wave of negative sentiment to make Canada feel increasingly unwelcoming to international students

    Matthew McDonald, Canadian Immigration Services

    “We are changing how things work, so our government can deliver to Canadians faster – and we have an experienced team that is made to meet the moment we are in. Our government is united and strong, and we are getting right to work,” said Prime Minister Carney.  

    Carney, formerly head of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, and a relative political newcomer, will succeed Justin Trudeau as relations hot up between the US and Canada over Donald Trump’s trade war against its northern neighbour.  

    Trudeau’s large cabinet was made up of 37 ministers, including his longtime personal friend and the best man at his wedding, immigration minister Marc Miller.  

    Carney himself never sat on Trudeau’s cabinet, which was part of his appeal to some Liberal voters.  

    While several Trudeau stalwarts have been dropped from Carney’s cabinet, there is still considerable overlap and only three new faces, which Carney’s team said would ensure “continuity”.

    We are changing how things work, so our government can deliver to Canadians faster

    Mark Carney, Canadian Prime Minister

    In the absence of an education minister at the federal level, Miller has delivered many of the turbulent policy changes in international higher education over the past 14 months. He has become notorious in the sector for repeatedly doing so on a Friday afternoon.  

    During this time, Canadian institutions have been delivered study permit caps, twice, restrictions on post-graduate work opportunities and procedural changes around recruiting and enrolling international students, among myriad further disruptions.  

    Against the backdrop of a recent increase in anti-immigration sentiment across Canada, McDonald said that Bendayan had “the opportunity to seize this existential moment for Canada and reinforce that we are a country whose past, present, and future is an immigration story”.

    Previous statements made by Carney about tackling Canada’s housing crisis, prioritising those already in Canada for permanent residency and reducing temporary foreign worker levels suggest the government’s ongoing immigration policy will largely align with Miller’s going forward.  

    While Carney has not explicitly said anything about limiting international students, he has previously voiced concerns about institutions’ reliance on international students and has advocated for increased funding for postsecondary education.  

    Under Canada’s current immigration levels plan, the government is aiming to reduce temporary residents including international students and temporary workers to 5% of the total population by 2027.  

    Canada’s next federal election is currently scheduled for October, though there is speculation that Carney could call an election before parliament is expected to return on March 24.  

    Source link

  • Dismantling Ed Dept. Will Harm More Than 26 Million Kids — and America’s Future – The 74

    Dismantling Ed Dept. Will Harm More Than 26 Million Kids — and America’s Future – The 74


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

    The layoffs of half of the employees of the U.S. Department of Education clearly demonstrate the Trump administration’s follow-through on one of Project 2025’s mandates, which intends to eliminate the resources, protections and opportunities that millions of children and families across this nation rely on.

    It is evident that the White House will not stop until it wipes out the most basic protections and supports for the American people, including the youngest children. The first step was the attempt to defund Head Start and Early Head Start, impacting 800,000 young children across the nation. This order was halted by a federal judge in Washington, thanks to the lawsuits filed by Democracy Forward and attorneys general from 23 states. 

    The mass layoffs will severely hamper the department’s ability to execute on its core responsibilities. This move is a direct assault on millions of students, teachers and families. It is clearly a precursor to dismantling the department without congressional consent, which would have an even more devastating impact. The department serves and protects the most vulnerable children and young adults, ensuring that they have equal access to education. This includes:

    • 26 million students from low-income backgrounds — more than half of all K-12 students — who rely on the department for reasonable class sizes; school meals; tutoring; afterschool and summer programs; school supplies such as laptops and books; parent engagement programs; and, in some cases, transportation
    • 9.8 million students enrolled in rural schools
    • 7.4. million students with disabilities
    • 5 million English learners
    • 1.1 million students experiencing homelessness
    • 87 million college students who receive Pell Grants and student loans 

    The department was created in 1980 with a single, crucial purpose: to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Its creation followed decades of systemic inequities that left children in disadvantaged communities without the same learning opportunities as their more privileged peers. The department’s work has been a critical safeguard against discrimination in schools, whether on the basis of race, disability, gender or income. 

    Without the federal government’s intervention and oversight, the more than 13 million children who live in poverty would be even more vulnerable to systemic inequities. The department ensures that federal dollars are distributed to those students most in need, ensuring that underserved children have the same opportunities for success as their wealthier peers. Without the federal oversight and the department’s support, these students will fall even further behind, and the national achievement gap will grow wider.

    The federal government is the only entity that can ensure a baseline level of educational equity across the entire nation. The department holds states accountable for ensuring that all children, regardless of where they live or what their socioeconomic status may be, receive a quality education. If this accountability is removed, the children most at risk — those in underfunded schools, children of color, children with disabilities, English learners and those experiencing homelessness — will be the first to suffer. These children would be denied the critical services and protections they need to succeed in school and in life.

    Moreover, the president’s plan to turn education policy over to the states would completely dismantle the federal safety net that ensures that the most vulnerable children are not left behind. Each of the 50 states has different priorities, resources and political climates. While some might be able to provide excellent educational opportunities, others will leave children behind, particularly in rural or economically disadvantaged areas. Inequities between states could widen to an intolerable degree, and the resulting lack of uniform educational standards would only further disadvantage the children who need the most help.

    To be clear, the department cannot be dissolved at the whim of a sitting president. Under the Constitution, only an act of Congress can create or dismantle a federal agency. The president does not have the unilateral power to eliminate an entire federal institution that serves the educational needs of millions of children across this country. Attempting to do so would not only undermine the law, but also inflict tremendous harm to the very foundation of America’s educational system.

    The idea that dismantling the department could somehow improve that system is not only misguided, but dangerously naïve.

    It’s vital that we, as a nation, recognize the long-term damage this action would cause. The attempt to dismantle the Department of Education is not just an attack on a government agency — it is an attack on the future of America’s children.

    To parents across the country: This policy is not only unconstitutional — it is a grave threat to your children’s future. Whether your child is in a classroom in New York, Los Angeles or a small town in the Midwest, the U.S. Department of Education has worked to ensure that their educational opportunities are protected, funded and regulated. A president who seeks to eliminate this essential agency is jeopardizing the future of every single student in America.

    This is why we must all rise up and make our voices heard. We must demand that our leaders stop this dangerous plan in its tracks, that they fix what isn’t working and that they use this opportunity to reimagine public education and invest in a more effective, equitable system that gives all children the opportunity to succeed.


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

    Source link

  • Immigration policies in focus as Mark Carney sworn in as Canadian PM

    Immigration policies in focus as Mark Carney sworn in as Canadian PM

    Succeeding Justin Trudeau as Canada’s 24th Prime Minister, Carney’s swearing-in ceremony was conducted by governor general Mary Simon at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.

    Carney’s appointment as Canada’s leader comes at a time when the country is navigating through an increasingly tumultuous relationship with its closest neighbour and ally, the United States.

    Canada’s ties with the US have worsened after President Donald Trump imposed steep tariffs on Canadian goods and floated the idea of integrating Canada into the US, sparking strong backlash.

    Considered a political newcomer, who played significant roles as the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England between 2008 to 2020, Carney is known for having a tough stance on immigration. 

    Calling Canada’s immigration policy “failures of executions”, Carney stated that Canada has taken in more people than its economy has been able to handle. 

    “I think what happened in the last few years is we didn’t live up to our values on immigration,” he said at a Cardus event – a Christian non-partisan think tank – in November last year, according to Canadian media reports.

    “We had much higher levels of foreign workers, students and new Canadians coming in than we could absorb, that we have housing for, that we have health care for, that we have social services for, that we have opportunities for. And so we’re letting down the people that we let in, quite frankly.”

    Carney’s statement suggests that he will uphold the Canadian federal government’s plan to reduce immigration targets over the next three years.

    Recently, the federal government announced a shift in its immigration strategy, cutting the number of newcomers by 21% – from approximately 500,000 in 2024 to 395,000 in 2025 and 380,000 in 2026.

    In its race to reduce temporary residency numbers and overall inflow of immigrants, international students in Canada have faced the brunt of policy changes in the country.

    Canada has imposed more caps on study permits, eliminated fast-track study permit processing, increased PGWP eligibility and English proficiency requirements, in an effort to “align its immigration planning with capacity”.  

    Over the past year, policy restrictions have already had a significant impact in Canada, with the total number of study permits processed by the IRCC expected to be 39% lower than in 2023.

    A former international student himself, Carney is expected to continue with restrictive policies on the cohort, as he previously blamed Canadian provinces for “underfunding higher education”, which pushed institutions to rely on international students. 

    “Do we value higher education in this country or not? Well, if we value higher education, maybe we should start funding our universities,” stated Carney. 

    “On the foreign student side, it’s more on provincial policy, on squeezing universities, in a sense.”

    Daljit Nirman, an immigration lawyer based in Ottawa and founder, Nirman’s Law, believes aggressive student recruitment has contributed to housing shortages, an oversaturated job market, and increased strain on health care, making effective newcomer integration in Canada more difficult.

    “Given Carney’s stance and these recent policy changes, it is likely that Canada will continue implementing stricter controls on international student admissions during his tenure,” Nirman told The PIE News.

    “This measured approach aims to preserve the benefits of international education while ensuring that Canada’s infrastructure can effectively support those who choose to study and settle in the country.”

    According to Priyanka Roy, senior recruitment advisor at York University, while Carney’s stance on immigration may appear stricter, it will ultimately result in a more “balanced approach.”

    “While it may seem like a tougher stance on immigration, we believe that Prime Minister Carney’s stance is to create a balanced approach to immigration, ensuring that international student enrolment aligns with Canada’s economic capacity and does not place undue pressure on local infrastructure,” Roy told The PIE News.

    “York is proactively adapting by offering sustainable solutions, such as a four-year housing guarantee, on-campus job opportunities, and co-op programs; provisions that help our international students integrate into Canadian life while maintaining a balanced and healthy relationship with the local community.”

    Prime Minister Carney’s leadership presents a valuable opportunity to rebuild stronger ties between India and Canada, fostering an environment of trust and collaboration
    Priyanka Roy, York University

    The former banker, who won the Liberal Party race by 86% of the votes, also acknowledged immigration’s role in contributing to Canada’s economic future. 

    Emphasising the need for productivity and a growing labour force, Carney has previously highlighted that Canada’s growing labour force is “going to largely come through new young Canadians”.

    With immigration poised to be a key issue, rebuilding ties with India – one of Canada’s largest sources of migrants – will be crucial for the prime minister-designate.

    Having already expressed a willingness to mend relations following a major diplomatic crisis, Carney’s efforts to indulge in discussions with India could spell good news for Indian students eyeing Canada as a study destination.

    “Prime Minister Carney’s leadership presents a valuable opportunity to rebuild stronger ties between India and Canada, fostering an environment of trust and collaboration,” stated Roy.

    “As diplomatic relations improve, we are confident that more Indian students will continue to view Canada as an attractive destination for higher education and realign their preference for higher education in Canada.”

    Source link

  • PGWP eligibility expanded for college degree students

    PGWP eligibility expanded for college degree students

    Canada’s college sector has welcomed a recent policy change from the IRCC stating that graduates of college degree programs will now join university students in being exempted from PGWP field of study requirements announced in October 2024.  

    At the time, the IRCC updated the eligibility criteria for students applying for a post-graduation work permit, allowing only college graduates from certain fields of study to apply for a PGWP, thus putting the college sector at a severe disadvantage.  

    The most recent revision has been hailed as a rare piece of good news for Canadian colleges, which stakeholders warned were at risk of being “decimated” by the IRCC’s eligibility criteria.  

    Conestoga College senior vice-president Gary Hallam said the decision was an “important step forward” for the sector, acknowledging “the excellence of our academic programming and the essential role colleges play in ensuring graduates have the skills and knowledge needed for success in today’s workforce”.

    “We are particularly pleased our international students will now benefit from the breadth of our programming,” added Hallam, highlighting Conestoga’s 25 degree programs offering a blend of theory and hands-on practical learning.

    The change applies to students who applied for a study permit after November 1, 2024, to pursue a college bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree program.  

    Coupled with other restrictions, the field of study requirements were already having a dramatic impact on Canadian institutions, with new international college enrolments seeing a 60% decline in 2024, triggering a stream of course closures and layoffs felt hardest in Ontario.  

    The IRCC’s decision… acknowledges the essential role colleges play in ensuring graduates have the skills and knowledge needed for success in today’s workforce

    Gary Hallam, Conestoga College

    The English and French language requirements announced last year remain in place for all PGWP applicants, and non-degree students will still have to meet the field of study requirements intended to foster greater alignment between education and labour-market needs.  

    Earlier this year, the IRCC added education as an eligible field of study reflecting labour market shortages across the regions in areas such as early childhood education, teaching assistance and childcare provision.  

    Despite some confusion regarding the wording of the IRCC’s guidance, the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) confirmed the change, and that the department was working to update its website.  

    Since January 2024, the IRCC has stepped up scrutiny of international student recruitment at Canadian institutions, capping international student numbers with the aim of reducing temporary residents from 6.5% of Canada’s total population to 5% by the end of 2026.

    Source link

  • My robot university counsellor – The PIE News

    My robot university counsellor – The PIE News

    The PIE’s Director of Research and Insight, Nicholas Cuthbert tests the limits of virtual counsellor software!

    Can he tell the difference between a human and a machine? The video shows how AI is revolutionising recruitment, with powerful WhatsApp integrations and offer-letter capabilities making lead conversion faster and smoother than ever.

    Source link