Category: Administration

  • Immigration arrests at schools loom after Trump changes longstanding policy

    Immigration arrests at schools loom after Trump changes longstanding policy

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    The Trump administration has cleared the way for immigration arrests at or near schools, ending a decades-old approach.

    Republican and Democratic administrations alike have treated schools and child care centers, along with churches and hospitals, as “sensitive” or “protected” locations where immigration enforcement should only take place when there is an immediate danger to the public.

    But U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials announced on January 21 that they had rescinded the latest version of the policy, which was issued in 2021 by the Biden administration. The news was first reported early on January 21 by Fox News.

    A copy of the Homeland Security memo was not immediately available for review.

    But in a statement, a Homeland Security spokesperson said that Acting Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive on Monday that rescinded the sensitive locations policy. The spokesperson said the action would help federal authorities enforce immigration law and catch criminals who entered the country illegally. Immigration agents will be asked to use “common sense” in enforcing the law.

    “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” the statement read.

    Since Trump’s reelection, observers anticipated the end of treating certain locations as “sensitive” with respect to immigration enforcement. News reports surfaced in mid-December that the incoming Trump administration was planning to get rid of the policy. Since then, schools have been bracing for the possibility of immigration agents showing up at their doors.

    Even before this policy existed, large-scale immigration raids weren’t conducted at schools. But Trump’s policy change paves the way for immigration agents to detain parents during dropoff or pickup, as has happened occasionally in the past.

    Immigrant rights advocates worry that could lead to more absenteeism among children with immigrant parents, who may now fear being stopped by immigration agents while driving or walking their kids to school. That happened during the first Trump administration. Advocates also worry about the potential for routine interactions with school police to reveal a student or family’s immigration status, and lead to their deportation.

    Some school districts have issued explicit instructions to educators and parents about how school staff should handle an immigration agent’s presence on campus. Some districts have also said they will not permit a federal agent on school premises without a judicial warrant, and that staff will be instructed to call the school system’s lawyer if these agents do show up.

    Some of the nation’s largest districts, including Los Angeles and Chicago, have re-upped or expanded existing policies meant to protect immigrant students and families. New York City is scheduled to vote on a resolution this week that would reaffirm a policy preventing school safety agents from collaborating with federal immigration authorities in most cases.

    Others, including several Texas school districts near the U.S.-Mexico border, are taking a “wait and see” approach to avoid causing confusion or fear among families. At the same time, immigrant rights advocates say it’s helpful to inform families of their rights and show them how to make a plan in case a parent is detained.

    The end of treating schools as sensitive locations is just one of many executive actions on immigration that the new Trump administration has taken since taking office on January 20.

    Trump also signed an executive order that seeks to end the automatic right to citizenship for any child born in the U.S. On January 21, 18 states announced they were suing to block the policy change.

    This story has been updated to include confirmation and comments from the Department of Homeland Security about the policy change.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    Related:
    Trump has won a second term–here’s what that means for schools
    Trump picks Linda McMahon to lead, and possibly dismantle, Education Department
    For more news on education policy, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • The Meaning of 2025

    The Meaning of 2025

    So, was that a fun year, or what?

    From Marc “Tonya” Miller and the federal government knee-capping the postsecondary sector in January to Marc “Harding” Miller and the federal government coming back around in September to knee-cap the college sector specifically to Ontario college presidents calling each other whores and more…it was a year to remember. Heck of a ride.

    But as catastrophic as the current fall in revenue seems, it’s worth remembering a couple of things. First, we’re not alone in this. Australia, the UK, France, the Netherlands: they’re all going through something similar. So are some (primarily but not exclusively blue) US states. And second of all, Canada’s institutions are still on most measures better funded than those elsewhere in the OECD (although that advantage is getting narrower all the time). So there’s an argument to be made that there’s nothing special going on here, and in a way this is just reversion to the mean. Not a lot of comfort in that, obviously, but misery loves company, etc.

    There is, I think, a  world-wide phenomenon (though perhaps it does not capture the dynamics of low and middle income countries) which is: NOBODY WANTS TO PAY FOR IT. Higher education is expensive on a per-student basis and it now extends to a far higher percentage of the population than it has at any point in human history. The implicit assumption within higher education communities was that by broadening access to higher education, we would win more public approval for higher education finance. Instead, by making higher education the norm, we made the “gains” from higher education a lot harder for graduates to see since they weren’t as “exceptional” anymore. There’s a point where attempts to boost access to pos-secondary education ceases to feel like spreading opportunity and starts to feel like imposing chores. Beyond that point, public support for higher education falls.

    (More generally, the closer institutions come to being “universal,” the more they seem like utilities, and the fraction of the population that wants “world-class” utilities is vanishingly small. People just want utilities to work, quietly and properly, with no fuss—which is probably why evident dysfunction like months-long campus disruptions from encampments are so deeply unpopular.)

    In other words, we’ve spent 80 years building a system of higher education that is simply more expensive to run than the public is willing to support. Some countries have tried to get around this by financializing things a bit, imposing tuition fees but putting off the bill via student loans, and that helps somewhat as long as governments don’t use that as an excuse for continuing to reduce public funding (which, barring the UK, they mostly haven’t). Some, like Canada and Australia, have tried the neat trick of getting foreigners to pay for their higher education systems via international student tuition fees, but over-reliance on this tactic tends to run up against externalities in the housing market.

    Which means we finally have to confront the problem of nobody wanting to pay for the system we have created.

    There will be huge economic and geo-political ramifications to not paying for the system. Canadian universities depend on having fat margins in undergraduate and professional master’s degree to subsidize research. To a lesser but not insignificant extent, colleges depend on having fat margins in non-tech programs in order to cross-subsidize expensive programs in the trades programs. We don’t talk about these cross-subsidies much (in fact most institutions try to hide them as much as possible, which is a big reason that politicians and even public servants don’t really understand why universities and colleges behave the way they do), but they are fundamental to the way we organize institutions.

    Think about the consequences of reducing those cross-subsidies within universities at the exact moment when advances in technology are opening up huge potential advances in energy, materials science, and health. We (and the Brits, and the Aussies, and the Dutch) are simply going to cede advances in these areas to other countries who are not cutting back on science. China, probably. India and Turkey, maybe. And think about cutting the cross-subsidies in colleges at the exact moment when we need more and better-trained skilled tradespeople in order accelerate the construction of housing and other critical infrastructure.

    (Remember in 2016, when we could console ourselves that however big a disaster Trump was, at least Canada could profit by offering an attractive landing spot for international science and tech talent? Well, we aren’t saying that in 2024. We could be hiring up a storm of top talent, but the money isn’t there to do it, and the housing market is such a disaster we’re afraid to invite people in. Both levels of government have much to answer for.)

    Anyways, it’s easy to bitch about funding but as you’ve heard me say before, no one is coming to save us. There’s zero evidence that anyone in government is suddenly going to decide that Eating the Future is wrong, so the sector is going to have to work out solutions on its own. Non-enshittified solutions, that is. Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to re-think the whole model to make it less costly and more efficient. And that doesn’t just mean asking questions about whether we need this new building, or that academic program or this new executive position, or quite so many student services devolved to the faculty level (all of which are important!) but also some more fundamental questions, like:

    Is it integral to our model that undergraduate degrees be four years in length? (There are parts of Canada, like Manitoba, where it is not.)

    Are research and teaching really the complementary goods many claim they are, or would more specialization of effort be of benefit? (Equally: why should teaching cross-subsidize research, as it so plainly does in a variety of ways?)

    Do degrees need to be awarded along disciplinary lines (which have inconsistent relations to occupations and careers) or are there other ways to do it?

    What if, instead of giving research money to (mainly) universities and asking them to get matching funds from industry, we gave vouchers to industry to work with universities/colleges that they could either use or lose?

    What if colleges got out of skilled trades training altogether and handed it over to industry?

    Few people are going to like all the answers (or even the questions) here, but nevertheless these are the kinds of questions the post-secondary system should be asking not just itself but the rest of society as well.

    But that’s all for next year. In the meantime, happy and restful holidays to all. There will be a podcast tomorrow and our AI Newsletter on Friday, but this will be the final blog of 2024. Regular service will resume January 6. Be well

    The post The Meaning of 2025 appeared first on HESA.

    Source link

  • Fall and Rise | HESA

    Fall and Rise | HESA

    Fall and Rise

    The question I am getting more often than any other these days is: “what are you hearing about cuts at colleges and universities?” And my answer for the most part has been: “damned if I know.”

    The reason for my confusion is that publicly available details are few and far between. The HESA Towers team has been scouring the public record for details on institutional budget announcements; by our count, only 34 universities or colleges have so far announced anything concrete about their 25-26 budget plans and/or any planned cuts as a result of changing international student numbers. It’s possible more have been announced internally but just not caught the notice of the local press; we’ll be doing a lot more digging over the next couple of weeks. My guess is that many institutions are trying to avoid bad headlines by simply not going public about any plans to cut…but of course in the process, they are making it harder to convey to the public the magnitude of the downsizing being forced on the sector.

    (This is a really interesting version of the Tragedy of the Commons!).

    Some additional problems with the data: such information as one can glean from public sources is often skimpy and inconsistent: sometimes you get a figure for “loss of anticipated revenue,” sometimes you get a “projected deficit” (which sometimes is for 24-25, and other times for 25-26, and whether the figure is for operating budget or total budget take a bit of digging). Sometimes the numbers of programs being cut are announced but the identity of the programs is secret. Often you see that there will be budget cuts of $X million but there is no clarity about where those cuts will come from or the timeframe for the return to budget balance. In terms of job “cuts” as near as we can tell only five institutions have announced specific numbers for layoffs which have actually so far occurred, for a total of 214 lost jobs. You may have seen higher estimates from other sources, but these seem to include data on jobs which “will be affected” and it’s not 100% clear how many of these are permanent jobs which will be eliminated vs. permanent posts which will not be filled, or contract jobs which will not be renewed. All of these nuances may sound petty, but it’s really hard to get meaningful numbers unless you get this stuff right.

    The story of how universities and colleges deal with the sudden loss of international student income (and the long-term consequences of provincial disinvestment) is the biggest and most consequential story in Canadian postsecondary education this century. How we deal with this collectively will shape the sector for over a decade, maybe even out to 2050. The HESA Towers team is working hard to document what is happening and help the sector make sense of fast-moving events and respond appropriately. So today I want to tell you about two initiatives we’re launching.

    The first is a Retrenchment Watch, which will follow developments in institutional cutbacks not just in Canada, but around the world (albeit with a particular focus on the anglosphere). Higher education probably hit peak public funding around the globe over a decade ago, but what we’re now seeing is an actual contraction of the sector as a whole, happening via an un-coordinated set of decisions made by individual institutions according to local imperatives. Understanding how this is happening is of great importance, not just for posterity but for present-day decision makers. And we’ll be making this information freely available to all via Retrenchment Watch.

    For the moment, the Retrenchment Watch is extremely bare bones, but we’ll be filling it out very quickly over the next few weeks, with the Canadian institutions first. If you want regular updates on who is cutting what as well as some basic pattern analysis, please fill out this form, and we’ll get you signed up to our newsletter so you’re always up-to-date.

    The second is what we are calling “The Recovery Project.” We know that institutional leaders aren’t just thinking about surviving cuts, they’re also thinking about how to position their organizations to thrive in the aftermath. To help them, we’re launching a subscription research project looking at universities and colleges around the world who have faced serious financial sustainability problems over the past three decades and examining how they turned their fortunes around. In a crisis, there’s no time to re-invent the wheel: with this research institutions can understand better what works, when and why. By spreading the cost of research collectively across many institutions, we can offer this premium product—which involves monthly reports and webinar sessions for all members—at a huge discount to individual schools (and if your school is a member of the University Vice-President’s Network, we’ll be offering an even bigger discount).

    If you’re interested in joining this project, my colleague Tiffany MacLennan has been working to bring this information together. Email her at [email protected] and we’ll get back to you ASAP with a prospectus.

    There’s no disguising how the sector is taking a beating right now. It will recover. The only question is how quickly, and which institutions will be at the forefront.

    Source link