A new report finds that $41 million in state appropriations “were not properly restricted and in some instances were co-mingled with other funds” at Oklahoma State University in violation of state laws and policies, according to an internal audit obtained by media outlets in the state.
The audit—conducted by an office of the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges Board of Regents, which oversees Oklahoma State and other public institutions—found “significant issues in the allocation and management of legislatively appropriated funds” at OSU.
The report found examples of such funds being transferred improperly, including $11.5 million for aerospace, health and polytechnic programs being directed to the OSU Innovation Foundation instead, without a contractual agreement or approval from regents.
“As a result, some state appropriated funds were utilized for unauthorized and unrelated purposes, and were not retained in full by OSU, the intended recipient,” the audit found.
A university spokesperson told the Tulsa World that “while the financial decisions and transactions which occurred are concerning, they were isolated and do not impact OSU’s overall financial foundation.”
The audit also called on Oklahoma State to improve financial oversight and transparency.
Though the audit did not name former president Kayse Shrum, who resigned abruptly without explanation last month, it indicated the alleged misappropriation happened during her administration. Shrum did not appear to be interviewed as part of the audit, according to a list of individuals who were contacted as part of the investigation into the use of appropriated funds.
The path from early promise to widespread impact requires one thing and one thing only: scalability – the capacity to grow and expand in a robust and sustainable way. Put simply: you can only change the world at scale.
To tackle inequality in higher education, we need scalable interventions. The interventions that make the biggest difference will be those that we can successfully expand from a small group to a much bigger one.
Across many policy areas, ideas that appear promising after being tested at a small scale often have a much lower impact when expanded. Existing evidence suggests the majority of interventions – somewhere in the range of 50% to 90% – will have weak effects when scaled. This is what the economist John List terms a ‘voltage drop’: ‘when an enterprising idea falls apart at scale and positive results fizzle’.
Interventions in higher education are frequently designed at either the module or school level, with the intention to eventually scale up. Often, interventions are started by a single enthusiastic practitioner, who then tries to scale up the intervention later on. For example, a student support programme may go from being implemented within the school of psychology to across the whole institution. Similarly, policymakers may seek to scale an idea that was successful at one institution by implementing it across a range of other institutions.
As a result, higher education emerges as a prime area where we should consider the intended scale of implementation from the outset. While many interventions struggle to scale, List argues this challenge is surmountable by building into our processes an understanding of five key factors that impede scaling.
1. False positives
The first major cause of voltage drops is the prevalence of false positives: concluding there is a significant effect when there is not. False positives can arise in a manner of ways, but we can split them into three categories: statistical error, human error, and fraud.
We can go a long way to addressing this trifecta of false positives by embracing the open science movement. Key tenets of this approach include pre-registration of trials, independent evaluation, and open publication of data and code. Opening our research up in this way not only helps to prevent fraud (more prevalent than we might think in academia) but also encourages more collaboration with peers and enables others to build on your work.
2. Know your intended audience
When testing your intervention, consider whether this initial group is representative of the broader population you hope to impact. If the intervention is not designed for only one group, we should not test it with only one group.
For example, say we trial an intervention with Engineering students before rolling it out across the institution. This could cause difficulties if Engineering students are different from the wider population we are interested in. It may be that the intervention only works on our sampled population (in this case Engineering students) and no longer works when we roll it out to the entire student population.
3. Spillovers
Interventions often give us evidence of what works at a small scale, but it is difficult to anticipate how this could change when an intervention becomes a large-scale movement.
This is particularly important when we look at scaling interventions from one institution to many. We should consider that the positive effects of an intervention at the institution level may disappear once the programme is scaled further. For example, consider a career guidance programme that improves graduate outcomes at an institution. When rolled out across the country, it may alter the dynamics of the graduate labour market in such a way that the original benefits are negated.
4. Is the success due to the practitioner, or the idea?
We should consider whether the intervention, as tested, accurately reflects the characteristics it will have when deployed widely.
The key analogy here is one of chefs and ingredients. If the reason behind a restaurant’s success is its ingredients, it will be more likely to scale well, as the ingredients can be scaled across many branches. But a restaurant will struggle to scale if its success is down to the unique magic of the chef.
Similarly, an intervention may fail to scale if we can mainly attribute its positive impact to a practitioner’s individual brilliance at a specialised skill: the talented practitioner cannot be so easily scaled.
5. Rising costs
If the costs grow disproportionately with the intervention, it will struggle to scale. For example, at a small scale, it may be relatively easy to find an effective practitioner who can deliver the intervention as it was intended and have a high impact on students.
But, as we’ve seen, if the success of a programme rests on the talent of practitioners, this is unlikely to scale well. As the intervention scales and hires more staff, finding staff who can have the desired impact will become increasingly difficult and expensive.
Moving towards having an impact at scale
It is a worthwhile pursuit to make incremental but meaningful changes that improve the lives of students. Many practitioners, not to mention students themselves, will be able to attest to the difference a small-scale intervention can have on a student’s life, helping to break down barriers, narrow gaps and open up doors.
But to move the dial on inequality in higher education, we should build considerations around scaling into our interventions. In doing so, we can move our focus towards building an evidence base that helps us make a much larger change. By making this move, we can realise List’s powerful assertion: ‘you can only change the world at scale’.
Nueve días después de que el presidente Donald Trump firmara órdenes ejecutivas con medidas enérgicas contra la inmigración ilegal, Damaris Alvarado-Rodríguez decidió cerrar un aula en una de sus guarderías en Filadelfia.
A pesar de tener tarjetas de residencia, las maestras de ese salón de clases, en donde atienden a niños y niñas que tienen un año de edad, estaban demasiado nerviosas para ir a trabajar. Desde que Trump tomó posesión, sus funcionarios se han enfocado en Filadelfia y otras denominadas ciudades santuario donde se limita la cooperación en la aplicación de las leyes de inmigración. Los agentes de inmigración han estado presentes constantemente en los vecindarios donde están situados los tres centros de Alvarado-Rodríguez.
“Tengo mucho miedo de cómo esto va a afectar a nuestros niños, familias y personal”, dijo.
En un programa de cuidado infantil familiar en Albuquerque, Nuevo México, Maggie, de 47 años, quien fue abogada antes de emigrar desde México hace 10 años, también ha visto los rápidos efectos de las órdenes ejecutivas. Cinco de los 12 niños a su cuidado dejaron de presentarse. Maggie dijo a través de un intérprete que los padres deciden dejar a sus hijos pequeños con hermanos mayores o abuelos en lugar de con ella, es decir, que salen de casa solo para trabajar y así estar fuera del alcance de las autoridades lo más posible. (The Hechinger Report no utiliza los nombres completos de algunos de los entrevistados porque temen por su seguridad).
“Los padres dijeron: ‘Vamos a esperar a que las cosas se calmen’”, dijo Maggie.
Relacionado: La educación es una labor de toda la vida. Suscríbete a nuestroboletín semanal gratuito, que incluye las noticias más importantes sobre el mundo de la educación.
En Estados Unidos, 1 de cada 5 trabajadores de cuidado infantil es inmigrante. En ciudades grandes como Nueva York, los inmigrantes constituyen más del 40 % de la fuerza laboral de cuidado infantil. En Los Ángeles, es de casi el 50 %.
“En la economía del cuidado infantil, los inmigrantes son la columna vertebral de este trabajo”, afirma Erica Phillips, directora ejecutiva de la Asociación Nacional de Cuidado Infantil Familiar. Estos educadores de la primera infancia se “dedican a prestar uno de los servicios más esenciales y con mayor impacto para los niños pequeños de todo el país”.
Los expertos opinan que las órdenes ejecutivas de Trump amenazan dicha columna vertebral. Entre otros cambios, las órdenes amplían las normas sobre qué inmigrantes pueden ser deportados rápidamente, sin tener una audiencia; exigen que algunos no ciudadanos se registren y presenten huellas dactilares; y limitan los permisos de trabajo.
Un patio de recreo en uno de los centros de cuidado infantil que Damaris Alvarado-Rodríguez dirige en Filadelfia. Alvarado-Rodríguez recientemente cerró una de las aulas porque varios maestros tenían miedo de ir a trabajar debido a posibles redadas de ICE. Credit: Image provided by Damaris Alvarado-Rodriguez
Varios proveedores de cuidado infantil dijeron que la situación parece más grave que en años anteriores. La actual administración ha establecido cuotas diarias de aprehensiones de inmigrantes, lo que ha producido arrestos de más inmigrantes por día que el promedio bajo la administración anterior. Esto incluyea muchos sin antecedentes penales, que no eran el blanco de la ejecución de la ley bajo el expresidente Joe Biden. Asimismo, Trump ha impulsado medidas para terminar con el estatus legal de millones de personas pues propuso eliminar la ciudadanía por nacimiento.
Estados Unidos no puede permitirse perder personal de cuidado infantil. Hay ya muchos programas que tienen problemas crónicos de rotación de trabajadores, lo que puede crear inestabilidad en las vidas de los niños y niñas a su cuidado. Las tasas de rotación en el sector de cuidado infantil son 65 % más altas que el promedio en otros sectores. Los salarios bajos (una trabajadora promedio de cuidado infantil gana 13,07 dólares la hora) dificultan la contratación de personal. A menudo, los cuidadores carecen de prestaciones y pueden ganar más al trabajar en restaurantes de comida rápida o en venta minorista. La pandemia debilitó la fuerza laboral, algo que se ha tardado en reponer. Para lidiar con la escasez de cuidadores infantiles, varios estados han intentado aprobar leyes que permitan a los adolescentes trabajar en dichas aulas.
“Ya estamos empezando desde un punto en el que no hay suficiente cuidado infantil, los programas están en apuros y la fuerza laboral ya está viviendo un estrés increíble”, dijo Lea Austin, directora ejecutiva del Centro para el Estudio del Empleo en el Cuidado Infantil de la Universidad de California en Berkeley. “Solo podemos esperar que esto vaya a devastar aún más todo el ecosistema de cuidado y educación temprana”.
El país lleva mucho tiempo recurriendo a los inmigrantes para los trabajos de cuidado, incluido el cuidado infantil y otras labores como el cuidado de personas mayores. Los inmigrantes tienen mayor probabilidad de servir como cuidadores de “amistades, familiares y vecinos” al asumir acuerdos informales de atención donde hay flexibilidad y que son más populares entre padres de familia.
Al desempeñar estas funciones de cuidado, los inmigrantes permiten que otros padres puedan trabajar. Se calcula que hay 142.000 inmigrantes indocumentados que trabajan como niñeras y asistentes de atención personal o de salud en el hogar en todo el país, lo que crea “un efecto multiplicador de productividad en toda la economía”, según una investigación del Center for American Progress. En la ciudad de Nueva York, la mayoría de las 14.000 niñeras de la ciudad son inmigrantes.
En el norte de California, Adriana, una joven de 27 años que emigró de México hace dos años, dijo que quiere empezar a trabajar y que recientemente le ofrecieron un empleo en una compañía grande. No obstante, primero necesita encontrar una guardería para su bebé de 3 meses, y le preocupa que los funcionarios de inmigración la separen de su bebé. “Tengo miedo, sobre todo porque parece que podrán entrar en mi lugar de trabajo”, dijo a través de un intérprete. “Me preocupa dejar a mi bebé solo”.
El Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de EE. UU. (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés) no respondió a las múltiples solicitudes de comentarios. Una de las órdenes ejecutivas de Trump, firmada poco después de haber asumido el cargo, anuló las restricciones que impedían que ICE realice redadas en escuelas y programas de cuidado infantil.
Las tarjetas rojas que ofrecen algunos programas de cuidado infantil y escuelas, como estas en un centro en Texas, tienen como objetivo ayudar a las familias a comprender sus derechos en caso de ser detenidas por agentes de inmigración. Credit: Jackie Mader/The Hechinger Report
La política de inmigración puede tener un efecto paralizador en las comunidades, lo que hace que los inmigrantes eviten trabajos que podrían aumentar su visibilidad ante las autoridades, dijo Chris Herbst, profesor asociado de la Universidad Estatal de Arizona, que estudió el impacto de la política en el cuidado infantil entre 2008 y 2014. Debido a que el sistema de cuidado infantil de Estados Unidos depende tanto del trabajo de los inmigrantes, “los impactos son instantáneos”, añadió.
En Albuquerque, Ana dirige un programa de cuidado infantil que atiende a 50 familias del área, la mayoría de las cuales son ciudadanas estadounidenses. Ana se fue de México en 2020 con su esposo y su hijo pequeño cuando la violencia aumentó en su estado natal de Sinaloa, y ahora le preocupa que la puedan deportar. Ese tipo de preocupación la comparte su personal: tres de sus 14 empleados han dejado de ir a trabajar por miedo a las redadas de inmigración.
Recientemente, Ana y su esposo reunieron algunas pertenencias en caso de ser detenidos. Para prepararse, también han considerado certificar un documento de tutela encargando a su hijo de 3 años, que es ciudadano estadounidense, así como de su hijo de 8 años, que no es ciudadano, a un familiar. “Lo que nos motiva es mejorar la situación de nuestras familias, vivir en mejores lugares y aumentar las oportunidades para nuestros hijos”, dijo. “Esperamos que [los funcionarios de inmigración] persigan a los delincuentes y no intenten seguir o perseguir a personas que son buenas y trabajadoras”.
Elida Cruz dirige un programa de cuidado infantil en el centro de California donde atiende a los hijos de trabajadores migrantes. Cruz opina que el miedo es palpable en algunos de los padres de familia; tanto ella como su esposo reparten víveres y transportan a los pequeños hacia y desde su programa de cuidado infantil para que los padres puedan limitar su tiempo fuera de casa. Su esposo escogió una palabra clave con una familia, la cual pronuncia tres veces para que los padres sepan que es seguro abrir la puerta.
Cruz, como muchas otras proveedoras de cuidado infantil, ha intentado educar a las familias inmigrantes sobre sus derechos al compartir con ellas recursos disponibles y entregarles “tarjetas rojas” que aconsejan a las personas sobre qué hacer si se les acercan agentes de inmigración. Además de preocuparse por los efectos en las familias y los niños, le preocupa qué sucederá si dichas familias se van. “Financieramente, sería la devastación de mi negocio”, dijo. “Tendría que cerrar. Me quedaría sin clientes, sin niños”, añadió. “Nuestros negocios se van a hundir porque todos dependemos de los trabajadores del campo”.
Puede que solo sea cuestión de tiempo: incluso los niños pequeños a su cargo parecen estar conscientes de que las cosas podrían cambiar en cualquier momento. “Es desgarrador ver las caritas de los niños, llenas de miedo”, dijo. Un niño preguntó si los agentes de inmigración vendrían a su centro.
Cruz le dijo lo único que se le ocurrió, aunque sabía que era una mentira piadosa.
“Le dije: ‘¿Sabes por qué no van a venir aquí? … Porque ni siquiera tienen nuestra dirección, así que no saben que estamos aquí, mijo’”.
Este artículo sobre el cuidado infantil fue producido por The Hechinger Report, una organización de noticias independiente sin fines de lucro centrada en la desigualdad y la innovación en la educación. Suscríbete a nuestro boletín de noticias.
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.
Hancy Maxis spent 17 years incarcerated in New York prisons. He knew that he needed to have a plan for when he got out.
“Once I am back in New York City, once I am back in the economy, how will I be marketable?” he said. “For me, math was that pathway.”
In 2015, Maxis completed a bachelor’s degree in math through the Bard Prison Initiative, an accredited college-in-prison program. He wrote his senior project about how to use game theory to advance health care equity, after observing the disjointed care his mom received when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. (She’s now recovered.)
When he was released in 2018, Maxis immediately applied for a master’s program at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. He graduated and now works as the assistant director of operations at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx. He helped guide the hospital’s response to Covid.
Maxis is one of many people I’ve spoken to in recent years while reporting on the role that learning math can play in the lives of those who are incarcerated. Math literacy often contributes to economic success: A 2021 study of more than 5,500 adults found that participants made $4,062 more per year for each correct answer on an eight-question math test.
While there don’t appear to be any studies specifically on the effect of math education for people in prison, a pile of research shows that prison education programs lower recidivism rates among participants and increase their chances of employment after they’re released.
Hancy Maxis spent 17 years incarcerated in New York prisons. He now works as the assistant director of operations at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx. Credit: Yunuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger Report
Plus, math — and education in general — can be empowering. A 2022 study found that women in prison education programs reported higher self-esteem, a greater sense of belonging and more hope for the future than women who had never been incarcerated and had not completed post-secondary education.
Yet many people who enter prison have limited math skills and have had poor relationships with math in school. More than half (52 percent) of those incarcerated in U.S. prisons lack basic numeracy skills, such as the ability to do multiplication with larger numbers, long division or interpret simple graphs, according to the most recent numbers from the National Center for Educational Statistics. The absence of these basic skills is even more pronounced among Black and Hispanic people in prison, who make up more than half of those incarcerated in federal prisons.
In my reporting, I discovered that there are few programs offering math instruction in prison, and those that do exist typically include few participants. Bard’s highly competitive program, for example, is supported primarily through private donations, and is limited to seven of New York’s 42 prisons. The recent expansion of federal Pell Grants to individuals who are incarcerated presents an opportunity for more people in prison to get these basic skills and better their chances for employment after release.
Alyssa Knight, executive director of the Freedom Education Project Puget Sound, which she co-founded while incarcerated, said that for years, educational opportunities in prison were created primarily by people who were incarcerated, who wrote to professors and educators to ask if they might send materials or teach inside the prison. But public recognition of the value of prison education, including math, is rising, and the Pell Grant expansion and state-level legislationhave made it easier for colleges to set up programs for people serving time. Now, Knight said, “Colleges are seeking prisons.”
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
Jeffrey Abramowitz understands firsthand how math can help someone after prison. After completing a five-year stint in a federal prison, his first post-prison job was teaching math to adults who were preparing to take the GED exam.
Fast forward nearly a decade, and Abramowitz is now the CEO of The Petey Greene Program, an organization that provides one-on-one tutoring, educational supports and programs in reading, writing and now math, to help people in prison and who have left prison receive the necessary education requirements for a high school diploma, college acceptance or career credentials.
The average Petey Greene student’s math skills are at a fourth- or fifth-grade level, according to Abramowitz, which is in line with the average for “justice-impacted” learners; the students tend to struggle with basic math such as addition and multiplication.
“You can’t be successful within most industries without being able to read, write and do basic math,” Abramowitz said. “We’re starting to see more blended programs that help people find a career pathway when they come home — and the center of all this is math and reading.”
Abramowitz and his team noticed this lack of math skills particularly among students in vocational training programs, such as carpentry, heating and cooling and commercial driving. To qualify to work in these fields, these students often need to pass a licensing test, requiring math and reading knowledge.
The nonprofit offers “integrated education training” to help students learn the relevant math for their professions. For instance, a carpentry teacher will teach students how to use a saw in or near a classroom where a math teacher explains fractions and how they relate to the measurements needed to cut a piece of wood.
“They may be able to do the task fine, but they can’t pass the test because they don’t know the math,” Abramowitz said.
Math helped Paul Morton after he left prison, he told me. When he began his 10.5 years in prison, he only could do GED-level math. After coming across an introductory physics book in the third year of his time in prison, he realized he didn’t have the math skills needed for the science described in it.
He asked his family to send him math textbooks and, over the seven years until his release, taught himself algebra and calculus.
The recent expansion of federal Pell Grants to individuals who are incarcerated presents an opportunity for more people in prison to get these basic skills and better their chances for employment after release. Credit: Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post via Getty Images
“I relentlessly spent six hours on one problem one day,” he said. “I was determined to do it, to get it right.”
I met Morton through the organization the Prison Mathematics Project, which helped him develop his math knowledge inside prison by connecting him with an outside mathematician. After his release from a New York prison in 2023, he moved to Rochester, New York, and is hoping to take the actuarial exam, which requires a lot of math. He continues to study differential equations on his own.
The Prison Mathematics Project delivers math materials and programs to people in prison, and connects them with mathematicians as mentors. (It also brings math professors, educators and enthusiasts to meet program participants through “Pi Day” events; I attended one such event in 2023 when I produced a podcast episode about the program, and the organization paid for my travel and accommodations.)
The organization was started in 2015 by Christopher Havens, who was then incarcerated at Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. Havens’ interest in math puzzles, and then in algebra, calculus and other areas of mathematics, was ignited early in his 25-year- term when a prison volunteer slid some sudoku puzzles under his door.
“I had noticed all these changes happening inside of me,” Havens told me. “My whole life, I was searching for that beauty through drugs and social acceptance … When I found real beauty [in math], it got me to practice introspection.”
As he fell in love with math, he started corresponding with mathematicians to help him solve problems, and talking to other men at the prison to get them interested too. He created a network of math resources for people in prisons, which became the Prison Mathematics Project.
The group’s website says it helps people in prison use math to help with “rebuilding their lives both during and after their incarceration.”
But Ben Jeffers, its executive director, has noticed that the message doesn’t connect with everyone in prison. Among the 299 Prison Mathematics Project participants on whom the program has data, the majority — 56 percent — are white, he told me, while 25 percent are Black, 10 percent are Hispanic, 2 percent are Asian and 6 percent are another race or identity. Ninety-three percent of project participants are male.
Yet just 30 percent of the U.S. prison population is white, while 35 percent of those incarcerated are Black, 31 percent are Hispanic and 4 percent are of other races, according to the United State Sentencing Commission. (The racial makeup of the program’s 18 female participants at women’s facilities is much more in line with that of the prison population at large.)
“[It’s] the same issues that you have like in any classroom in higher education,” said Jeffers, who is finishing his master’s in math in Italy. “At the university level and beyond, every single class is majority white male.”
He noted that anxiety about math tends to be more acute among women and people of any gender who are Black, Hispanic, or from other underrepresented groups, and may keep them from signing up for the program.
Sherry Smith understands that kind of anxiety. She didn’t even want to step foot into a math class. When she arrived at Southern Maine Women’s Reentry Center in December 2021, she was 51, had left high school when she was 16, and had only attended two weeks of a ninth grade math class.
“I was embarrassed that I had dropped out,” she said. “I hated to disclose that to people.”
Smith decided to enroll in the prison’s GED program because she could do the classes one-on-one with a friendly and patient teacher. “It was my time,” she said. “Nobody else was listening, I could ask any question I needed.”
In just five months, Smith completed her GED math class. She said she cried on her last day. Since 2022, she’s been pursuing an associate’s degree in human services — from prison — through a remote program with Washington County Community College.
In Washington, Prison Mathematics Project founder Havens is finishing his sentence and continuing to study math. (Havens has been granted a clemency hearing and may be released as early as this year.) Since 2020, he has published four academic papers: three in math and one in sociology. He works remotely from prison as a staff research associate in cryptography at the University of California, Los Angeles, and wrote a math textbook about continued fractions.
Havens is still involved in the Prison Mathematics Project, but handed leadership of the program over to Jeffers in October 2023. Now run from outside the prison, it is easier for the program to bring resources and mentorship to incarcerated students.
“For 25 years of my life, I can learn something that I wouldn’t have the opportunity to learn in any other circumstances,” Havens said. “So I decided that I would, for the rest of my life, study mathematics.”
Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965 or [email protected].
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.
Three years into the current Artificial Intelligence (AI) hype cycle, catalyzed by the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, AI continues to profoundly disrupt higher education. A recent survey of more than 300 university leaders affirms many of the concerns expressed in public discourse: the majority of students use generative AI while the majority of faculty do not; cheating has increased while AI detection tools remain unreliable; almost all institutions feel behind progress in some way. While we certainly share these concerns, we do remain relatively optimistic about one aspect of higher education: learning to write.
Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT can now produce polished, technically competent texts in seconds, challenging our traditional understanding of writing as a uniquely human process of creation, reflection, and learning. For many educators, this disruption raises questions about the role of writing in their disciplines. In our new book, How to Use Writing for Teaching and Learning, we argue that this disruption presents an opportunity rather than a threat. Notice from our book’s title that our focus is not necessarily on “how to teach writing.” For us, writing is not an end goal, which means our students do not necessarily learn to write for the sake of writing. Rather, we define writing as a method of inquiry that allows access to various discourse communities (e.g., an academic discipline), social worlds (e.g., the knowledge economy), and forms of knowledge (e.g., literature).
The true value of writing lies in the thinking it generates (pun intended)—prioritizing new information, triangulating it with other sources of information to uncover new insights, and analogizing the information to make sense of it from different perspectives. We call this process of prioritization, triangulation, and analogizing “concentric thinking,” as it involves making multiple layered connections, similar to how our brains develop schemas. We not only assign writing in order to teach our content, but students also use writing to explore connections between assigned texts, lived experiences, and other course content.
By reframing writing as a cognitive process rather than merely an outcome, AI’s existence compels us to integrate writing more intentionally into our courses, regardless of the discipline. Sure, AI might produce an A-quality essay in seconds, but we humans remain a curious species; writing, along with its equivalent reading, is the primary way we satisfy our information-seeking drive. AI not only presents a good excuse to use writing for teaching and learning, but it also demands it. After all, to use generative AI effectively, one must be able to clearly prompt the tool as well as critically read the output.
The other cause for hope is that we describe a pedagogical issue, something we can influence by the ways we design and teach courses. We have the agency and the ability to foster quality learning, especially in our current era. Below, we explore the three cognitive moves of concentric thinking—prioritization, translation, and analogy—and show how low stakes, informal writing assignments can leverage these moves to enhance teaching and learning in the AI era.
Concentric Thinking
At the core of our model are three interrelated cognitive moves that writing facilitates: prioritization, translation, and analogy. These moves align with the ways experts organize and apply knowledge in their fields.
Prioritize Information: Before students can write effectively, they must learn to identify and rank key ideas from their readings, lectures, or discussions. For instance, in a history course, an informal writing prompt might ask students to select the most significant event in a unit on the Civil Rights Movement and justify their choice. This exercise encourages students to engage critically with the material, distinguishing central ideas from supporting details.
Translate Understanding: Translation involves reframing complex concepts into accessible language. This step not only reinforces comprehension but also prepares students to communicate ideas effectively to diverse audiences. In a biology course, students might write a brief explanation of DNA replication as if they were explaining it to a high school student. By simplifying the concept, they deepen their own understanding.
Analogize Insights: Drawing connections between course material and real-world problems fosters higher-order thinking. For example, in a sociology course, students could write about how current debates on economic inequality mirror historical patterns of social stratification. Analogical thinking helps students see the broader relevance of their studies and prepares them to apply knowledge in new contexts.
These moves are recursive, building on one another as students progress from informal reflections to more formal assignments. By designing prompts that scaffold these moves, teachers can help students develop the habits of mind necessary for disciplinary expertise.
Low-Stakes Informal Writing in the Classoom
Informal writing assignments, also known as “writing-to-learn,” are versatile tools that can be adapted to any discipline. Here are a few examples of how concentric thinking can be fostered through writing tasks that focus more on learning than evaluation:
Pre-Class Reflections: Before class, students might write a short response prioritizing the most compelling argument from the assigned reading. These reflections can be used to structure class discussions, ensuring that students engage with the material in meaningful ways.
In-Class Exercises: During class, students could work in pairs to translate a challenging concept into simple terms, then share their explanations with the group. This collaborative exercise reinforces understanding while fostering communication skills.
Post-Class Applications: After a lecture, students might be tasked with writing a brief analogy connecting the day’s topic to a real-world issue. For example, in an environmental science course, students could relate concepts of ecosystem balance to urban planning challenges.
Such assignments require minimal grading and can be formatively assessed for students’ learning journeys. The focus remains on developing students’ critical thinking and cognitive flexibility rather than correctness or adherence to conventions.
Writing as a Lifelong Pathway Towards Expertise
In an era where AI-generated text can mimic expertise without truly embodying it, writing as concentric thinking offers an irreplaceable cognitive pathway for developing genuine mastery. Expertise, as cognitive science shows, is not about merely accumulating knowledge; it involves organizing and integrating information into deeply connected schemas that can be applied across contexts. Writing fosters this process by requiring students to prioritize significant ideas, translate complex concepts into accessible language, and analogize insights to new or interdisciplinary challenges.
The informal writing we assign act as low-stakes opportunities for students to engage in deliberate practice. These prompts scaffold the connections between prior knowledge and new content, providing essential practice in disciplinary thinking. Through iterative feedback—designed not only to identify gaps but to guide deeper reflection—students gradually shift from surface-level memorization to a nuanced understanding of course material. Formative feedback serves as a bridge, helping students navigate challenges and transform their understanding of difficult concepts.
Furthermore, the interplay between formative and summative assessments underscores the relevance of writing to developing expertise. When students revisit their informal writing during the organizational phase of a major assignment, they engage in an essential process of synthesizing their learning. By integrating informal writing with final assignments, teachers provide a cohesive learning arc that fosters not just task completion but a deep understanding of disciplinary methods and epistemologies.
AI may offer polished outputs, but it cannot replicate the intellectual journey students undertake as they engage with course content, assigned readings, and other learning experiences with writing as the vehicle. The metacognitive insights gained through concentric thinking—prioritizing, translating, and analogizing—equip students with a level of expertise that transcends what any AI can generate. These skills are not only critical for academic success but also for navigating the complex, information-saturated world beyond the classroom.
As educators, we hold the tools to design writing processes that cultivate authentic learning and expertise. By reframing writing as a dynamic scaffold for inquiry rather than a static product, we prepare our students to think critically, synthesize knowledge, and apply their learning in meaningful ways. In this, we not only preserve the value of writing in higher education but also ensure that our students emerge as confident, capably generative (pun once again intended) of new knowledge.
Suzanne Hudd is an Emeritus Professor of Sociology who also served as Director of the Writing Across the Curriculum program at Quinnipiac University.
Robert A. Smart is a former Dean of Arts & Sciences at QU, Professor Emeritus of English, and resident of the great state of Maine.
Andrew W. Delohery is the associate vice president of retention and academic success at Quinnipiac University, where he has also teaches courses in First Year Writing and the First-Year Seminar.
JT Torres is the Director of the Houston H. Harte Center for Teaching and Learning at Washington & Lee University.
This week on the podcast Nottingham Trent VC Edward Peck has been confirmed as the government’s candidate for Chair of OfS. But what does his focus on “quality improvement” and engagement with governing bodies mean for the regulator’s approach—and how will his skepticism of government bailouts impact struggling institutions?
Meanwhile, as the Employment Rights Bill sees significant amendments, we unpack what proposed changes to zero-hours contracts and industrial action rules could mean for universities and students. And with the policy spotlight shifting from “knowledge” to “skills,” we’re asking—where do universities fit into the UK’s economic vision?
With Brooke Storer-Church, CEO at GuildHE, Neil Mackenzie, CEO at Leeds Beckett Students’ Union, David Kernohan, Deputy Editor at Wonkhe and hosted by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.
On the first Sunday in July, Ipswich runs a free music festival at Christchurch Park.
It’s a great experience for Ipswich – it’s one of few times in a year where the town is full and busy.
Anyone from an Ipswich secondary school will likely have fond memories – meeting their friends on Hippie Hill – seeing multiple people you know all at once, getting into mosh pits, going on the Booster. The list goes on.
But despite my advocacy for Ipswich, I once found myself anxious to attend. Earlier in my apprenticeship, I had difficult experiences at work with a frequent performer at this festival.
This is something which, nearly six years after the ordeal ended, I am still coming to terms with.
Something which has helped me a great deal is the idea of exposure therapy. This is the act of revisiting certain ideas and places from a new reference point.
The intent is that it neutralises any bad associations with an idea or place by creating new associations. Over time, more neutral or even good experiences will outnumber the bad ones.
It’s like treating grief as a ball in a jar, where the jar grows around the ball over time. The pain is still there when the ball hits the jar, though the ball is much less likely to hit the expanding insides of the jar.
Along these lines, I approached the 2024 Ipswich Music Day with a fresh perspective. Seeing the band in the programme made me reflect on the rhetoric around being an apprentice and how it’s positioned alongside other options.
No alternative
I would argue that apprenticeships are not an alternative to university, at least not in all cases. Whilst it is a clear-cut alternative in some cases, such as advanced apprenticeships, it is more complex for Higher and Degree apprenticeships.
In these cases, it is debatable – on the one hand, these apprentices can attain qualifications at the equivalent level of a degree without attending a university.
In others, such as in my own personal experience, going to university was a core part of my experience – my qualification was a degree accredited by a university.
Gaining an academic education is what drew me to my degree apprenticeship, along with the opportunity to meet other students and experience (and create) a stimulating academic environment with them.
The difference in my case was that I wanted to apply what I had learned much more immediately and meaningfully – doing this would allow the knowledge to be retained more easily for me.
Maybe my experience is not universal – I can’t claim to know what other students’ experience has been like.
Nevertheless, I did my best to gain a fulfilling student experience, which was easier to achieve when I lived locally.
Whilst I did attend the university Film Society and meet up with friends, I did not have the “full” experience – I wasn’t living away from home, and I didn’t have as much free time to study and discover my interests. This is because much of the free time was consumed by a full-time job.
On paper, it does appear to be mostly work with some study release thrown in. This only accounts for the official contact hours, respectively from the employer and the university. To do well as a degree apprentice, you need to be willing to invest time in serious, self-paced academic study outside of the allotted contact hours. From my experience, this was as much as the time I spent at work.
If people who have chosen these options with the express intention of not going to university realise that they have to go to one, then they’re going to dislike the experience or drop out altogether.
Therefore, a contradiction presents itself:
Why is an option promoted as an “alternative to university” when half of it involves going to university?
The common resolution to this contradiction for policymakers and marketers is to just diminish or hide the role of the university as much as possible.
Then, the purpose of the apprenticeship is perceived as solely a means of gaining employment, rather than for its educational merit – university, within this paradigm, is viewed as a distraction or an obstacle to be traversed in order to accomplish solely career-focussed success
But the problem with the approach is disengagement, both socially and academically.
Making the most of it
For me, making the most of the educational aspects of the apprenticeship is as important as making the most of the position of employment.
The goal of an apprenticeship is to start from nothing and to gain experience in a given domain – my own experience shows that the creation of a virtuous cycle of learning is essential in gaining this experience:
The root of the contradiction is a separation between the experience of studying for a degree and the other aspects of university education. These other aspects are often overlooked, of which I have some first-hand experience.
When I have made genuine efforts to engage with every aspect of the experience, I am told that I should have gone to university full-time or that I am spending too much time focussed on academics at the expense of my professional work.
Seeing the band in the Ipswich Music Day programme made me reflect on an approach to resolve the contradiction of promoting degree apprenticeships to people who don’t want to go to university. This solution arguably comes from a change in definitions.
The band defines itself on their website as being “alt-rock”. Alternative rock is a broad genre of rock defined by the fact it is influenced from a diversity of independent music genres.
It is defined as an alternative to forms of rock that were becoming mainstream, such as arena rock – it is a different approach to the common genre of rock. Alt rock is not an alternative to rock as a whole – jazz and classical music are not considered “Alt Rock” for this reason.
We can see that alt-rock doesn’t describe a genre separate from rock. Its approach is different, with alt-rock defining a range of heterophonic subgenres.
Likewise, it can be argued that we should consider arguing for “alt-uni”. This terminology would reflect the fact that degree apprenticeships are alternative to the mainstream of full-time university education, but are not an alternative to university as a whole.
It’s still uni
Arguably, degree apprentices bring a range of learning approaches and knowledge to universities, such as through their professional training.
When I have previously suggested this idea, some argued that “alt-degree” would be a better term, as it focuses on the approach to the degree rather than the university.
But I believe the approach to a degree should be the same for all students, and this expectation contributes to the challenges of completing a degree apprenticeship.
The definition of what this alternative approach would constitute may vary amongst apprentices. Some debate is definitely due, though I would say that the following are important to the definition of alt-uni:
Every second of university experience matters – an apprenticeship is finite, and we have less time than full-time students. This means careful evaluation of the experience to get the best outcome, academically and socially
We can immediately and meaningfully apply both academic and professional work to improve the world
There is the need to establish new precedents over accommodation, socialisation and engagement with university [youth] culture
We can provide positive role models for studentship unencumbered by student debt, as a means of encouraging the reduction of student debt to ensure that the best options are available for all types of student
We approach university similarly to students on scholarship. We have effectively been given a scholarship that covers our full loans. I would argue that apprenticeships should seek scholars across the university to inspire each other
We cannot socialise as much as other students, but socialisation with them is valuable. This is especially true for apprentices of school-leaver age
Degree apprenticeships are not an alternative to university when a university education is involved.
Instead, just as alt-rock is not an alternative to rock, they should be conceived as an alternative approach to university (“alt-uni”).
This approach necessarily requires intentionality, balancing a university life with professional work. Done right, it will create a more inclusive, experience-rich education that values both theory and practice.
A long time ago, in a land far, far away from where I sit in Swansea, King Kumaragupta I established a monastery as a centre for higher learning. The monastery was in Nalanda, in modern-day India, and the year was something like 427 CE.
Nalanda was already a holy site: it had been visited by Siddhartha Gautama – who you might know better as Buddha – and was the birthplace of one of his disciples. By 427 CE there had for some 700 years been a stupa at the site, containing the remains of Sariputta, the disciple. Mahavira, a significant character in Jainism, had lived there. It was a place of pilgrimage.
Roy Lowe and Yoshihito Yasuhara’s 2016 work, The origins of higher learning, contains a good discussion on Nalanda, on which this blog draws. The monastery was active between 427 and the twelfth century CE, so it had about 700 years of existence, and overlapped the creation of the first European universities and the Islamic centre of learning based upon mosques and libraries.
Nalanda attracted scholars from many countries and regions – Lowe and Yasuhara report Persia, Tibet, Chia, Korea, Indonesia and Mongolia. (Their book highlights just how mobile scholars – and their ideas – were in the ancient world. It’s well worth a read.) From two of the Chinese scholars, Hiuen Tsang (who spent three years at Nalanda) and I Tsing (who, emulating Hiuen Tsang, spent ten years there), we can find out about life and learning at Nalanda.
It seems that Nalanda was organised on a collegiate basis – that is, residential, with tutors supervising students’ learning. At its height there were about 1,500 tutors and 8,000 students, which is a very Oxbridge ratio.
To gain admission, a student had to answers questions posed by the gatekeeper; apparently only one third of those who sought entry were successful. A high degree of literacy was expected of applicants: they must be familiar with core Buddhist texts and philosophical writings, although there was no religious belief bar to study.
Kumara Gupta I and subsequent rules had granted Nalanda a substantial income, from the produce of over 200 villages. This income supported the tutors and scholars: there were no tuition fees, and no requirement for students to undertake any task other than learning, discussion and contemplation.
The site was about the size of the City of London; there were ten temples, eight monastic buildings – which served as colleges – and over 600 individual study-bedrooms. But don’t think modern rooms with ensuite – this means space for a bed, and niches in the walls for a light and a bookshelf. The library was in three buildings, one of which was nine stories high; it is estimated that it held several hundred thousand texts; and copies were given to scholars who left for elsewhere.
Nalanda was governed by an assembly which took all major decisions, including those relating to admission, allocation of study-bedrooms, and students discipline. (Nalanda’s authority over its members seems to have been like that of a medieval European university.) There was a clepsydra, which regulated the times for eating and bathing.
The curriculum is known to have included study of Buddhist texts, and other subjects such as medicine and magic. Amartya Sen identified the subjects as including “medicine, public health, architecture, sculpture and astronomy… religion, literature, law and linguistics.” It is clear that Nalanda was a site for secular learning, not simply religious instruction. There was a tall tower for astronomy.
And, wonderfully, it seems that Nalanda spawned other institutions of higher learning. Gopala, who came to power in the region in the 700s, after a century in which there had been a power vacuum and much strife, founded several institutions which formed, with Nalanda, a network. These were at Odantapura, Vikramshila, Somapura and Jaggadala. Lowe and Yasuhara speculate that this could be thought of as a federal organisation: tutors and scholars were able, and indeed were encouraged, to move freely between them; it was a single project to enhance learning.
Nalanda is now simply ruins, although a modern university was established near the site in 2010, and in the 1960s there was what was regarded as a new university on the site. It says so on a postcard, which, as we know, never lie.
Here’s a jigsaw of the postcard, which is from a 1960s tourist pack of several of the site and the temple. It is unsent, and the pack had been held together by a rusty staple whose disintegration enabled me to scan this one without damaging the others.
It’s been a whirlwind week at the Department of Education, and some career staffers are anguished over its bleak, uncertain future.
On Monday, the Senate confirmed Linda McMahon as the new secretary of education, and shortly afterward, she released a memo laying out department personnel’s “final mission”: “the elimination of bureaucratic bloat here at the Department of Education.”
The next day, department leaders scheduled a meeting to announce a major reduction in force, which current staffers say is rumored to include layoffs of nearly 50 percent of the workforce—but the meeting was canceled at the last minute, according to a department employee.
Then, on Wednesday, media outlets, citing sources in the administration, reported that President Trump would sign an executive order to abolish the Education Department as soon as Thursday, sending frenzied staffers scrambling to prepare.
When White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Thursday morning on X that Trump wouldn’t be signing the order that day after all, one staffer said it felt like cruel misdirection.
“It’s definitely feeling like whiplash,” they said. “Folks had steeled themselves for today … Everyone seems ready to rip off the Band-Aid, and the delay feels like a game to torture people.”
Several current department employees, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on background and on the condition of anonymity, offered a chaotic picture of upheaval and uncertainty within the department, with staff scrambling to prepare for the dissolution of their offices, even as the administration’s plans and timeline remain unclear.
One current employee told Inside Higher Ed that McMahon’s memo announcing the administration’s plan to downsize the department was “insulting and antagonizing.”
“The notion that we should be honored to undertake this ‘final mission’ is absurd,” they said. “It’s basically saying, ‘You should thank us for firing you.’”
One career staffer who’s been with the department for more than a decade said most employees are anxiously waiting for the other shoe to drop. Over the past few weeks, they said, anger and indignation have turned to heartbreak.
“Reality is sinking in everywhere … Folks are seriously depressed,” they said. “And yet, working to advance the goals of this administration may actually be worse than not having a job.”
‘Slash and Burn’
Trump has advocated for eliminating the 45-year-old Education Department since the early days of his campaign. When he nominated McMahon as secretary, he said he hoped she would “put herself out of a job.” Still, many department employees were taken aback by the sudden escalation.
The longtime staffer said that when Trump was inaugurated, they anticipated some serious changes at the department. But the speed and wantonness of the move to abolish it has surprised them.
“I foolishly believed they’d try to take a studied approach to any changes, consult with seasoned career staffers with institutional knowledge and expertise,” they said. “Instead it’s slash and burn.”
Last week, the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management directed all federal agencies to prepare for “large-scale reductions in force” and the elimination of “non-statutorily mandated functions,” which could be a precursor to the Trump administration’s plans to heavily reduce the head count at Education Department as much as possible without congressional approval.
A draft of Trump’s forthcoming executive order, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, includes a two-paragraph guideline for winding down department activity and little else. James Kvaal, who served as under secretary of education under President Joe Biden, said the absence of a plan is revealing and concerning.
“[The document] reflects a lack of clarity within the Trump administration about what they’re trying to do, or even disagreement among certain elements,” Kvaal said.
Department staffers are concerned about the administration’s strategy for implementing its ambitious spending cuts. One employee who spoke with Inside Higher Ed was placed on administrative leave last month and said their experience was “chaotic and haphazard.” The staffer said cuts to programs, contracts and personnel have been largely left up to a small group of young Department of Government Efficiency employees, whose approach has been “like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what they can get away with.”
They said that if the Trump administration’s approach to cuts at the department so far is any indication how they will handle plans to gut the department, it could exacerbate the impact on students and educational institutions.
“Nobody is going to know what’s happening, which means zero accountability,” they said. “It’s going to be a mess.”
DOGE has already canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in department contracts, including some that are essential to the operation of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. And sources within the department say that hundreds of Federal Student Aid staff have either taken a buyout or been placed on leave.
A current department employee who specializes in higher education said they fear that the department’s closure—or the major cuts that precipitate it—will have a devastating impact on the sector, and on affordability and access in particular.
“There’s going to be a huge setback in the progress we’ve made even just in terms of who gets to go to college,” they said. “Universities are being put on such a high alert on every front … it’s a wholesale attack on the sector.”
Kvaal said that even under Biden, the department in general—and the student aid office in particular—were severely understaffed, a problem that he has said contributed to the bungled rollout of the new FAFSA last year. He added that further reductions could hobble agencies’ capacity to perform essential duties like student loan and aid disbursement.
“The department was thinly staffed even prior to these cuts, and as a result it was difficult to run programs smoothly and deliver benefits that students needed,” he said. “If there are, in fact, hundreds of people leaving FSA, that could put our progress with FAFSA at risk and upend our efforts to prevent student loan defaults. If nothing else, asking senior managers to focus on nudging their staff out the door and preparing for legislation that will never come is a real distraction.”
Both Kvaal and current employees are concerned that when the Trump administration does release concrete plans for distributing the department’s responsibilities, they will welcome the private sector into administering services like student loans and financial aid.
“It seems like the longer-term goal here would be to privatize the FSA, like they’re doing with Social Security,” one staffer said. “That’s a mess waiting to happen and would take way longer than four years. In the interim, the damage could be enormous.”
A draft executive order obtained Thursday by Inside Higher Ed directs the newly confirmed education secretary, Linda McMahon, to “take all necessary steps” to return authority over education to the states and facilitate closure of the Department of Education “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”
If signed, the order—which has been rumored for weeks but is not yet official—would be the first step in carrying out the president’s controversial campaign promise to abolish the 45-year-old department, which he believes is unconstitutional and has grown too large.
Several media outlets reported Wednesday night that Trump would sign the order as soon as Thursday, but shortly after the news circulated, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X, “President Trump is NOT signing an Executive Order on the Department of Education today” and called the reports “fake news.”
Still, the reports set off a wave of comments from advocates and analysts. Liberals warned that shutting down the Education Department would be devastating for families and students, while conservatives backed Trump’s plan and said the draft order was key to cleaning up the agency.
McMahon, who took office Monday and will spearhead the closure effort, is supportive of overhauling the agency. She told department staff earlier this week to prepare for a “momentous final mission” to eliminate “bureaucratic bloat” and return education to the states.
Although vague, the secretary’s memo and the draft executive order give policy experts some idea of what could come next.
At the very least, they expect to see a major reduction in staff and a diminished federal role in education; some of that work is already underway. The agency has slashed millions in contracts and grants as well as fired dozens of employees. A larger reduction in force is also in the works, fueling concerns among department staff.
“There is probably not going to be anything in [the order] that isn’t already happening, largely,” said Kelly McManus, vice president of higher education at Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic group. “The secretary’s final mission was clear … so I’m not particularly worked up about the EO specifically, because I don’t think it’s going to fundamentally change that.”
Abolishing the department would require an act of Congress, which McManus said the draft order appears to acknowledge. She and other experts say any effort to close the department will be lengthy and complicated.
“This is not a flip-on, flip-off situation here,” she said. “Practically, there will have to be a process … You cannot shut the doors tomorrow and be done.”
The 416-word draft order gives little detail as to what the “steps” of dismantling the department are or what would happen to certain congressionally mandated programs such as the Pell Grant, the student loan system or the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. However, the document does say that any funds allocated by the department should comply with federal law, including Trump’s previous orders on diversity, equity and inclusion and transgender athletes—both of which have been caught up in court.
Neither Trump nor McMahon has so far offered any plan outlining how closing the department would work, though some conservative plans recommend moving the Office for Federal Student Aid to the Treasury and sending the Office for Civil Rights to the Justice Department.
More than 4,000 people currently work for the department, which was created in 1979 and now has a $80 billion discretionary budget. Each year, the agency issues about $100 billion in student loans and doles out more than $30 billion in Pell Grants.
Shutting down the department isn’t popular with voters, recent surveys have found. One recent opinion poll found that 61 percent of all respondents “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed the idea of eliminating the department. Another showed that up to 72 percent either opposed the plan or weren’t sure how they felt. That number was 49 percent among Republicans.
Minimizing a D.C. ‘Footprint’
Trump has signaled for months, if not years, that he wants to shut down the Education Department, and many analysts have already taken a position on the issue.
To Michael Brickman, an adjunct fellow at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, nothing about the draft was a surprise. Like McManus, he noted that much of what the order directs McMahon to do is already underway.
Brickman expects the next steps will focus on finding new and “better” ways to maintain the department’s core functions as required under law with “less funding, less staff and possibly in conjunction with other agencies.”
“I don’t think anybody’s talking about cutting major programs,” he said, referencing financial aid services like the Pell Grant and disability protection acts like IDEA. “So the question will be, what is required under law? What can Congress change? And how can the department streamline things to minimize the footprint in D.C.?”
Shutting down the Education Department likely would be disruptive for colleges and students, advocates say.
J. David Ake/Getty Images
McManus stressed that it will be important to protect these core functions, especially the ones related to higher ed, saying it doesn’t make sense to send them back to the states.
“What is most important is that those core statutory functions have the people, capacity and expertise to be able to do effective oversight of how taxpayer dollars are being spent,” she said. “We are significantly less concerned about where those people sit, as long as there is the ability to safeguard taxpayer investments and to make sure that programs that are statutorily required and that have had long bipartisan support, like Pell Grants, are being effectively implemented.”
In Brickman’s view, some of the department’s regulatory operations, like analyzing and creating reports on grant or contract applicants and managing third-party accreditors, are simply “make-work.” By hiring hundreds of staff members to execute these tasks, he said, the department pulls tax dollars from local governments and then forces those same communities to spend more writing grant proposals to get it back.
“There’s just a lot of work and churn that evidence shows does not lead to improved student outcomes,” he said.
But when asked what the Trump administration has done to convince stakeholders he not only intends to tear down the department but also build it back up again, Brickman didn’t directly answer the question. Instead, he referenced actions of the Biden administration.
“The Biden administration broke the entire Federal Student Aid system on purpose … They were trying to illegally turn the trillion-plus-dollar portfolio from a loan program into a grant program,” he said. “That is not what the Trump administration is doing. The Trump administration has tried to improve these programs and make them actually work again.”
Although what Biden did was “unfortunate,” Brickman said, it also creates an opportunity.
“This mess isn’t being created; it’s being responded to,” he said. “I hope institutions that may be predisposed to oppose anything coming from the Trump administration will welcome this as the end of a failed experiment that just put more restrictions on teaching and learning.”
Democrats Push Back
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers, student advocacy groups, civil rights organizations and left-leaning think tanks warn that Trump has no intention of rebuilding, only dismantling. The American Federation of Teachers, a key higher ed union, said the order is a government attempt to “abdicate its responsibility to all children, students and working families.”
Randi Weingarten, the union’s president, recognized in a statement Wednesday night that there are certainly ways the department could be more efficient, but she implied that’s not Trump’s goal.
“No one likes bureaucracy, and everyone’s in favor of more efficiency, so let’s find ways to accomplish that,” she said. “But don’t use a ‘war on woke’ to attack the children living in poverty and the children with disabilities, in order to pay for vouchers and tax cuts for billionaires.”
Senate Democrats criticized the pending executive order to abolish the Department of Education as a press conference Thursday.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images
Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, blasted the Trump administration’s plans at a press conference Thursday. She said that Trump and his unelected government efficiency czar Elon Musk “don’t know what it’s like to count on their local public school having the resources to get their kids a great education … And they don’t care to learn why. They want to break the department, break our government, and enrich themselves.”
To the American Association of University Professors, “dismantling the Department of Education would hasten us into a new dark age.”
Former Biden under secretary James Kvaal told Inside Higher Ed that the draft order should dispel any notion that Trump is not trying to shut down the department. But at the same time, he said, the GOP administration’s approach to doing so has been “schizophrenic” and “inconsistent.”
“It can’t be true that students of color and with disabilities will have their civil rights protected, but also the federal government is not going to be involved in those decisions,” he said.
But at the same time, Kvaal and others note that, ultimately, the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to actually close the Department of Education, making full abolishment more complicated than the president suggests.
Shuttering the agency would require 60 votes in the Senate as well as a majority in the House, as the department’s existence is written into statute. And with a 53-seat majority in the Senate, Republicans don’t currently have the votes unless some Democrats back the plan.
“[The Republicans] don’t have the votes to close the department, and they already plan to enforce their plans on DEI, so it’s not clear what the EO adds to that,” Kvaal said. “It’ll get sorted out in the courts.”
Katherine Knott and Liam Knox contributed to this report.
