Category: Featured

  • How Osteopathic Medical Schools Make a Community Impact

    How Osteopathic Medical Schools Make a Community Impact

    Home » Careers in Healthcare » Training Future Physicians and Serving Communities: How Osteopathic Medical Schools Make an Impact

    Across America, communities are struggling with a critical shortage of doctors. One Pennsylvania city, working with osteopathic medical schools, may have found a solution.

    In Scranton, PA, an innovative partnership is offering a multifaceted approach where it’s needed most, providing quality care to underserved patients, training the next generation of physicians, and supporting the regional healthcare workforce.

    Last summer, nine passionate medical students from two osteopathic colleges helped launch the Northeast Pennsylvania Clinical Education Consortium (NEPCEC). Today, that effort has grown into a powerful partnership between three osteopathic medical schools, the City of Scranton, Lackawanna College, and local healthcare organizations.

    “It’s been a pleasure to work with our partnering physicians and healthcare providers to help build an osteopathic physician training network in Northeastern Pennsylvania,” said Frank Kolucki, M.D., Commonwealth Health System physician & NEPCEC medical director. “The students…have been eagerly engaged in their training and have brought an excitement and enthusiasm that is very refreshing and exciting to witness.”

    NEPCEC offers something rare: a clear path from clinical training to residency in underserved areas, where new doctors, especially family-practice doctors with community ties, are urgently needed. Through this program, students from the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (PCOM), Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine, and New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine are gaining hands-on experience. 

    “We have long seen the value of purposeful community partnerships at Lackawanna College, and the NEPCEC is an opportunity that continues to be a natural fit for us, our students, and the community,” said Dr. Jill Murray, president and chief innovation officer of Lackawanna College. “This program has established a clear pathway for our osteopathic medical students to learn, grow, and build relationships within our community that will help them establish a strong footing for future careers in our region.”

    “One of the first things I noticed about Scranton was its small-town atmosphere, where people are always ready to lend a helping hand,” said Camryn Butera, third-year PCOM student rotating in Scranton. “I’ve seen healthcare staff consistently go above and beyond for their patients. Every attending physician has taken the time to work with me one-on-one, not only to teach their specialty but also to offer mentorship, life advice, and even recommendations for great local spots. When I first arrived, I was admittedly nervous about moving from a big city to a smaller town, but Scranton has truly offered the best of both worlds.”

    Expanding access to community-based care

    This kind of community-based clinical education is central to osteopathic medical training. A key part of that training happens outside major hospitals, in places like Scranton, that most resemble where the average American receives their healthcare, and where doctors are often in short supply.

    “This program provided the opportunity to participate actively in primary patient care, reemphasizing my passion and commitment to becoming a family physician,” said C. Veronica Ruiz, fourth-year PCOM student, Scranton Core Clinical Campus. “I am very grateful to the outstanding healthcare teams for allowing me a safe space to learn and grow as a future family doctor.”

    Programs like NEPCEC are a win-win. Students get high-quality training, and communities get the physicians they so urgently need. We believe that clinical education partnerships like these have the potential to meet challenges nationwide.

    The impact is growing. We are working with Congress to pass the Community Training, Education, and Access for Medical Students (Community TEAMS) Act, H.R. 3885, legislation that would expand programs like the NEPCEC, giving more medical students the chance to train where they’re most needed and help close the gap in healthcare access, bringing the osteopathic philosophy of whole-person, community-based care to more patients across the country.

    Source link

  • Examining the Debt and Earnings of “Professional” Programs (Robert Kelchen)

    Examining the Debt and Earnings of “Professional” Programs (Robert Kelchen)

    Negotiated rulemaking, in which the federal government convenes representatives of affected parties before implementing major policy changes, is one of the wonkier topics in higher education. (I cannot recommend enough Rebecca Natow’s book on the topic.) Negotiated rulemaking has been in the news quite a bit lately as the Department of Education works to implement changes to federal student loan borrowing limits passed in this summer’s budget reconciliation law.

    Since 2006, students attending graduate and professional programs have been able to borrow up to the cost of attendance. But the reconciliation law limited graduate programs to $100,000 and professional programs to $200,000, setting off negotiations on which programs counted as “professional” (and thus received higher loan limits). The Department of Education started with ten programs and the list eventually went to eleven with the addition of clinical psychology.

    In this short post, I take a look at the debt and earnings of these programs that meet ED’s definition of “professional,” along with a few other programs that could be considered professional but were not.

    Data and Methods

    I used program-level College Scorecard data, focusing on debt data from 2019 and five-year earnings data from 2020. (These are the most recent data points available, as the Scorecard has not been meaningfully updated during the second Trump administration. Five-year earnings get students in health fields beyond medical residencies. I pulled all doctoral/first professional fields from the data by four-digit Classification of Instructional Programs codes, as well as master’s degrees in theology to meet the listed criteria.

    Nine of the eleven programs had enough graduates with debt and earnings to report data; osteopathic medicine and podiatry did not. There were five other fields of study with at least 14 programs reporting data: education, educational administration, rehabilitation, nursing, and business administration. All of these clearly prepare people for employment in a profession, but are not currently recognized as “professional.”

    Key takeaways

    Below is a summary table of debt and earnings for professional programs, including the number of programs above the $100,000 (graduate) and $200,000 (professional) thresholds. Dentistry, pharmacy, and medicine have a sizable share of programs above the $100,000 threshold, while law (the largest field) has only four of 195 programs over $200,000. Theology is the only one of the nine “professional” programs with sufficient data that has higher five-year earnings than debt, suggesting that students in other programs may have a hard time accessing the private market to fill the gap between $200,000 and the full cost of attendance.

    On the other hand, four of the five programs not included as “professional” have higher earnings than debt, with nursing and educational administration being the only programs with sufficient data that had debt levels below 60% of earnings. More than one-third of rehabilitation programs had debt over the new $100,000 cap, while few programs in other fields had that high of a debt level. (Education looks pretty good now, doesn’t it?)

    I expect the debate over what counts as “professional” to end up in courts and to possibly make its way into a future budget reconciliation bill (about the only way Congress passes legislation at this point). Until then, I will be hoping for newer and more granular data about affected programs.

    Source link

  • New test tubes or shiny buildings? The choice facing policymakers when it comes to funding research

    New test tubes or shiny buildings? The choice facing policymakers when it comes to funding research

    Let me start with a vignette. Back in 2017, we published a brilliant award-winning report on TRAC written by a young intern. This looked specifically at cross-subsidies in universities from Teaching (international students) to Research.

    Back then, there was no clear cross subsidy towards home students, as they (more than) paid for themselves due to £9,000 fees. But the subsidy from international students towards research was large, as it remains today.

    We held a launch event at the LSE for the paper. This remains seared on my mind for, instead of being impartial, the eminent professor in the Chair attacked our young intern for having the temerity to publicise the split in resources for teaching and research.

    His (widely shared) view was that, at an institution like the LSE, research informs teaching and teaching informs research, so policy makers should not look too closely under the bonnet but instead let universities spend their resources as they see fit.

    The interesting part of this story is that the person who asked us to write the report was the LSE’s own Director of Research. He was frustrated that his colleagues seemed not to understand the financial flows in their own institution.

    A second reason why we should shine a spotlight on how universities work is that teaching and research are now split down the middle when it comes to political oversight:

    • we have one Minister for teaching and another for research;
    • we have one Whitehall Department for teaching and another for research; and
    • we have one regulator / funder for teaching and another for research.

    We might prefer it if it were not so, but it is naïve to think substantial cross-subsidies within institutions fit as naturally with these arrangements as they did with the arrangements in place back at the turn of the millennium, when TRAC was first mooted.

    In our 2017 report, we showed that, according to TRAC, only 73% of research costs were recovered. On revisiting the issue in another report three years later, we found cost recovery had fallen to 69%. Today, as the KCL report shows, the number is just 66%.

    In other words, during a decade when politicians have exalted the power of R&D to transform Britain, the level of cost recovery has been falling at almost 1 percentage point a year.

    However, what has changed over time is that this is now fairly well understood. For example, TRAC data were heavily used to show the sector’s challenges in both the Universities UK Blueprint and the recent Post-16 Education and Skills white paper.

    Let me focus on that white paper for a second. It is a slightly odd document, where you can see the joins between the three Secretaries of State (for Education, Work and Pensions and Science, Innovation and Technology) who share responsibility for it.

    In particular, the white paper recommits to improving cost recovery for research while simultaneously looking for new ways to crack down on the international students who currently provide big cross-subsidise for research.

    The end result, as the white paper itself admits, is likely to be less research:

    We will work with the sector and other funders to address the cost recovery of research. … We recognise that this may result in funding a lower volume of research but at a more sustainable level.

    While some research-intensive institutions may celebrate this concentration, it does not feel like we have talked enough about the consequences in terms of what it could mean:

    • for research capacity in each region;
    • for the pipeline of new researchers; and
    • for the likelihood of missing out on new discoveries that may otherwise happen.

    In other words, what we have in the white paper is the perhaps inevitable result of giving the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, Lord Vallance, the additional role of champion for the ‘Oxford-Cambridge corridor’.

    So far, I have assumed the TRAC numbers are accurate, yet we all know they are rough – or worse. A 10-year old piece on TRAC in Times Higher Education quotes one university finance director as saying: ‘if you put garbage [data] in, you will get garbage out.’

    In preparation for this session, I spoke to one academic at a research-intensive university, who even argued: ‘TRAC is a piece of fiction to conceal how much teaching subsidises research.’

    He went on to explain that your contract might say 40% of time should be on Teaching and 40% on Research (with 20% for admin): ‘If you spend 60% on Research and 20% on Teaching, you would be in violation of contract so no one will admit to it.’

    A second academic I contacted was similarly scathing:

    ‘I think it is a classic case of looking for a lost wedding ring under the lamppost, even when you lost it a mile away. Universities obviously have an incentive to say that teaching UK students and doing research is more expensive, because they hope to get more money from the government. That is why TRAC does not lead to better business models – the stuff is known to be suspect.’

    Such criticisms may explain why I have only ever been able to find one university that has followed the logic of their own TRAC numbers by refusing to take on any major new research projects (and even they only had the ban in force temporarily).

    The lesson I take from all this is that TRAC is useful, but not enough. Some sort of calculation needs to occur to inform policy makers, funders and managers. But TRAC is not the slam dunk that people sometimes like to think it is because:

    1. the process is neither liked nor trusted by those it measures;
    2. institutions do not respond to what the data say, so look guilty of crying wolf; and
    3. every sector in search of public money does its own calculations, so the fact that TRAC exists and shows a substantial shortfall in the full economic costs of research and, increasingly, teaching home students too does not automatically give higher education institutions a leg up over other areas of when lobbying the Government.

    Finally, TRAC is meant to help politicians understand the world but I think we also need to recall the motivations of political leaders. When I was in Whitehall, we struggled to persuade the Treasury to move towards full economic costing. They caricatured it as buying new test tubes when the alternative was shiny new buildings. In the end, politicians in hard hats cannot go to topping-out ceremonies for new test tubes.

    Source link

  • Regis University Partners with Collegis Education to Modernize IT Infrastructure and Strengthen Denver’s Higher Ed Innovation Footprint

    Regis University Partners with Collegis Education to Modernize IT Infrastructure and Strengthen Denver’s Higher Ed Innovation Footprint

    Multi-year collaboration to strengthen cybersecurity, streamline systems, and drive operational innovation across campus.

    DENVER, Colo. — [November 11, 2025]Regis University today announced a new five-year partnership with Collegis Education, a nationally recognized provider of higher education technology and data solutions, to modernize and strengthen the university’s IT infrastructure. The collaboration marks a major step in Regis’ ongoing digital transformation strategy, designed to enhance cybersecurity, improve data integration, and deliver more efficient, 24/7 technology services across campus.

    In the fall of 2023, Regis launched a comprehensive assessment of its IT infrastructure. The results made clear that gaps in existing systems limited the university’s ability to serve students, faculty, and staff efficiently. Addressing these challenges required reimagining how technology services are delivered to ensure systems are reliable, responsive, and aligned with the needs of a modern learning environment.

    “Technology is foundational to how we teach, learn, and work, and this partnership represents a major investment in Regis University’s future,” said Stephanie Morris, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Regis University. “Partnering with Collegis allows us to modernize our IT operations, strengthen security, and provide a more unified and responsive experience for our community, all while maintaining our commitment to operational excellence and fiscal responsibility.”

    Regis selected Collegis through a competitive RFP process, following staff recommendations based on prior positive experiences with the company at other institutions. Throughout the evaluation, Collegis distinguished itself by demonstrating a deep understanding of universities’ operational complexities and by recognizing the central role technology plays in supporting teaching, learning, and student success. 

    As part of the partnership, Collegis will help Regis integrate core systems, including Colleague, Salesforce, and Workday, to create a more seamless experience for students, faculty, and staff.  This will allow Regis to improve efficiencies, access diverse levels of expertise, provide 24/7 service availability, and improve system integrations. 

    The collaboration will provide Regis with access to a broad range of higher education IT expertise and scalable resources. Collegis’ team will collaborate closely with Regis leadership to deliver high-performing systems, improved uptime and reliability, and integrated data systems that strengthen university operations and inform decision-making.

    “We are proud to partner with Regis University, an institution with a deep commitment to innovation and service,” said Kim Fahey, CEO of Collegis Education. “Our role is to help Regis leverage technology to empower its mission to support a secure, connected, and efficient digital ecosystem that enhances the student experience and strengthens institutional resilience.”

    Under the agreement, Collegis will assume management of day-to-day IT infrastructure operations, while Regis will continue to oversee technology strategy and governance. Faculty, staff, and students will continue to access support through familiar channels—including the online self-service portal and ITS help desk—with the added benefit of 24/7 availability and expanded system monitoring.

    The transition will take place over the coming year, with listening sessions and open forums held throughout the process to ensure transparency, collaboration, and feedback from the Regis community.

    “Partnership success is realized when operational excellence, trust, and shared purpose combine to deliver reliable technology services; improved faculty, staff, and student experiences; and measurable value to the university’s mission,” said Morris. “With Collegis as a strategic partner, we will be able to evolve to meet changing institutional needs and empower our faculty to teach, our students to learn, and our community to thrive.”

    About Regis University

    Established in 1877, Regis University is a premier, globally engaged institution of higher learning in the Jesuit tradition that prepares leaders to live productive lives of faith, meaning and service. Regis University, one of 27 Jesuit universities in the nation, has two campus locations in the Denver metro area and extensive online program offerings with more than 6,000 enrolled students. It is a federally designated Hispanic-Serving Institution. For more information, visit www.regis.edu.

    About Collegis Education

    As a mission-oriented, tech-enabled services provider, Collegis Education partners with higher education institutions to help align operations to drive transformative impact across the entire student lifecycle. With over 25 years as an industry pioneer, Collegis has proven how to leverage data, technology, and talent to optimize institutions’ business processes that enhance the student experience. With strategic expertise that rivals the leading consultancies, a full suite of proven service lines —including marketing, enrollment, retention, IT —and its world-class Connected Core® data platform, Collegis helps its partners drive impact and generate revenue, growth, and innovation. Learn more at CollegisEducation.com or via LinkedIn.

    Media Contacts:

    Collegis Education

    Alyssa Miller

    [email protected]

    973-615-1292

    Regis University

    Sheryl Tirol

    [email protected]

    Source link

  • Are you storing toxic waste in your home or car?

    Are you storing toxic waste in your home or car?

    Los Angeles, California has one of the largest economies in the world. It also has the largest concentration of electric vehicles in the United States. Los Angeles is my hometown and the same place where recent wildfires burned whole neighborhoods to the ground.

    With the fires came the destruction of thousands of lithium-ion batteries in cars, electronics and kitchen appliances.

    The fires started on 7 January 2025, and ended 24 days later. In October of 2025, police arrested a man from the state of Florida for starting the fire, but it was the near perfect environmental conditions that caused the fires to grow fast and move quickly. These fires are thought to have caused an estimated economic loss of between $28 billion and $53.8 billion, and have destroyed upwards of 16,000 structures.

    The fires wreaked havoc on my local community for an entire month. Just miles from my house, I witnessed the destruction these fires caused. Entire residential street blocks lined not with houses, but with rubble. I saw people milling about in front of houses, and I watched one woman stare with a stone-cold look on her face at the remains of a house burned to ashes.

    My family and many others were lucky we were far enough from the fires that we didn’t suffer any loss. Still, even those who didn’t lose their homes suffered from poor air quality.

    “Our business was down 75% immediately after the fires,” said Leila Jersualem, a local business owner. “Because soccer is an outdoor activity, air quality was a frequent concern voiced by our families.”

    Chemicals complicate cleanup.

    The fires also caused the release of many chemicals into the air. One of the most dangerous chemical transmitters, it turns out, are lithium-ion batteries that release toxic gases when burned and can explode when lit on fire.

    Due to this, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had to safely remove more than a thousand burnt lithium-ion batteries from homes and vehicles, among other places.

    A schoolmate I interviewed at the time lived in the Pacific Palisades area. He told me he couldn’t enter his house due to toxic chemical residue from these destroyed batteries and other substances. He also didn’t think he’d ever move back in because of the dangers from these chemicals, which find their way onto household items and surfaces. Months later, he has still not moved back in.

    Cleanup from the Los Angeles fires has become an arduous task. Chris Myers, a lithium-ion battery tech specialist for the EPA, told reporter Erin Stone in nonprofit news site LAist that to clean up the batteries special teams collect them in sealed containers and take them to places where they can be discharged into a saltwater brine solution that extracts any remaining energy.

    The batteries are then crushed, and sent to a recycler who salvages critical minerals.

    The dangers from batteries are global.

    Myers told Stone that the heat from fires can cause a “thermal runaway” — the heat gets so intense that it causes a chemical reaction that creates more heat. When this happens, the batteries can emit toxic chemicals harmful to people in the area, and the chemicals, such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen cyanide, can cause problems in the respiratory system.

    If a lithium-ion battery catches on fire, anyone within 25 meters has to evacuate and move out of the danger zone.

    Around the world, there were many incidents regarding the safety of lithium-ion batteries. In New York City, lithium-ion batteries were the leading cause of fire-related deaths in 2024. Additionally, lithium-ion batteries make up half of all garbage truck-related fires around the United States.

    One of the largest lithium battery storage and power plants caught on fire in Northern California in January 2025. The nonprofit news site Politico found that, in France, the number of fires at waste facilities caused by lithium batteries in common household items doubled between 2019 and 2023. In South Korea, more than 22 people were killed from a lithium battery explosion in a factory south of Seoul in June 2024.

    There are other problems with lithium ion batters. Conditions at lithium mines have raised some ethical questions, for example. In the U.S. state of Nevada, new lithium mines permitted by the Trump administration are preventing indigenous people from accessing sacred cultural areas, and raising fears of harm to drinking water and overall health of the local people.

    Do the benefits outweigh the danger?

    With all this danger, why are the batteries so prevalent in our homes? It is difficult to deny how useful they’ve been in humanity’s quest for clean energy.

    When comparing lithium-ion batteries to the internal combustion engine, we can see that over a car’s entire lifetime, ones with lithium-ion batteries will contribute less of a carbon footprint.

    It’s not far off to say that lithium-ion batteries have renovated our modern world.

    But even though there are many positives to using lithium-ion batteries, such as renewable energy, they’re only a small part of the actual solution and there are some alternatives.

    Vanadium flow batteries and sodium-ion batteries, for example, are considered viable alternatives to lithium-ion batteries. Sodium-ion batteries are faster to charge, and have a longer lifespan than lithium-ion batteries.

    Weighing alternatives

    The vanadium flow battery doesn’t decay and can contain the same level of recharge throughout the entire batteries’ lifetime. Also, unlike lithium batteries, vanadium flow batteries are non-flammable, making them much safer, especially in the event of fire.

    However, like lithium-ion batteries, they take significant resources to make, and their environmental and social impacts are high.

    When buying a car, getting a battery-powered car may be better for the environment, but consumers should be aware of the dangerous impacts of lithium-ion batteries.

    The effects of these batteries are felt everywhere, some good and some bad. The implications of them in the Los Angeles fires, however, raise questions on how safe they are to people and the environment.

    Further advancement of other parts of the climate solution must take place soon if we want to make a big impact in safer renewable energy.


    Questions to consider:

    1. What makes lithium-ion batteries dangerous?

    2. What alternatives to lithium-ion batteries are there for electric cars?

    3. What products do you use in your home that might contain a lithium-ion battery?

    Source link

  • 10 reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 ASAP

    10 reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 ASAP

    K-12 IT leaders are under pressure from all sides–rising cyberattacks, the end of Windows 10 support, and the need for powerful new learning tools.

    The good news: Windows 11 on Lenovo devices delivers more than an upgrade–it’s a smarter, safer foundation for digital learning in the age of AI.

    Delaying the move means greater risk, higher costs, and missed opportunities. With proven ROI, cutting-edge protection, and tools that empower both teachers and students, the case for Windows 11 is clear.

    There are 10 compelling reasons your district should make the move today.

    1. Harness AI-powered educational innovation with Copilot
    Windows 11 integrates Microsoft Copilot AI capabilities that transform teaching
    and learning. Teachers can leverage AI for lesson planning, content creation, and
    administrative tasks, while students benefit from enhanced collaboration tools
    and accessibility features.

    2. Combat the explosive rise in school cyberattacks
    The statistics are alarming: K-12 ransomware attacks increased 92 percent between 2022 and 2023, with human-operated ransomware attacks surging over 200 percent globally, according to the 2024 State of Ransomware in Education.

    3. Combat the explosive rise in school cyberattacks
    Time is critically short. Windows 10 support ended in October 2025, leaving schools running unsupported systems vulnerable to attacks and compliance violations. Starting migration planning immediately ensures adequate time for device inventory, compatibility testing, and smooth district-wide deployment.

    Find 7 more reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 here.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • What college leaders should know about the $100K H-1B visa fee

    What college leaders should know about the $100K H-1B visa fee

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

    President Donald Trump caught the higher education world by surprise on Sept. 19, when he signed a proclamation announcing a new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. Before the new policy, employers paid between $2,000 and $5,000 for new H-1B petitions, according to the American Immigration Council. 

    Colleges, especially large research universities, rely on H-1B visas to recruit foreign faculty, scholars and researchers. Stanford University, the University of Michigan and Columbia University all employed over 200 workers through H-1B visas in fiscal 2025. 

    The new fee could impede colleges’ ability to recruit those workers — potentially curtailing research, slowing scientific innovation and even leading to reduced course offerings for students, according to higher education experts. 

    “There’s no doubt that it will deter global talent that is not in the U.S.,” Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. “We lose the benefit of their skills, expertise and talent. It is not only a loss for them, it is just clearly a loss for campuses and other employers.”

    Higher education and legal experts are still trying to understand some elements of the new policy, such as if colleges and other employers can secure exemptions to the $100,000 fee for workers they’d like to sponsor. However, they shared insights about who the policy impacts, what could change in the future and how colleges can navigate this moment. 

    Which workers are impacted by the $100,000 fee? 

    When the Trump administration first rolled out the policy, confusion abounded about which types of workers would trigger the fee. That’s in part because U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick initially said the fee would be paid annually, according to Reuters

    But a day after the policy’s rollout, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt walked back Lutnick’s remarks and said on social media that it would be a one-time free for new petitions only. Since then, the Trump administration has provided guidance further narrowing the policy’s impact. 

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration and Services said in October that the fee would not apply to someone already in the U.S. that is requesting a change of status. According to Joshua Wildes, associate attorney at immigration law firm Wildes & Weinberg, that means that students on F-1 and J-1 visas may not be subject to the fee if they are in the U.S. and are seeking to switch to H-1B status. 

    However, they would have to stay within the U.S. until they secure H-1B status to avoid incurring the fee. 

    “They’re going to have to decide whether or not they are willing to stay put in the U.S.,” Wildes said. That could include forgoing traveling to see their families or taking vacation outside of the country, Wildes said. 

    Those who already have H-1B visas, however, can travel outside the U.S. and return without triggering the fee. 

    Even with the latest guidance, colleges are still reeling from the new policy, as it still applies to new petitions for workers who are outside of the U.S.

    No institution wants to pay the fee, “regardless of how small or big you are,” Wildes said. “The smaller ones that don’t have the funds, they simply cannot afford it. The bigger ones that do have the funds, they don’t want to do it because it’s a lot of money.”

    The guidance said the U.S. secretary for the Department of Homeland Security could grant exemptions to the fee for certain workers, though it added they will be “extraordinarily rare.” 

    To qualify, the secretary would have to determine a worker “is in the national interest,” doesn’t pose a security risk to the U.S. and that no American citizen is able to perform the role they would be brought in to fill. The secretary would also have to determine if requiring the new H-1B fee from the sponsoring employer would “significantly undermine” the nation’s interest.

    USCIS on Thursday referred Higher Ed Dive to the proclamation and existing guidance when asked for details about which workers would qualify for these exceptions. It added that those requests are handled by DHS and not USCIS. 

    Will the $100,000 fee stay in place for the higher education sector? 

    Source link

  • How tutors can support student thinking

    How tutors can support student thinking

    Key points:

    Consider the work of a personal trainer. They can explain and model a workout perfectly, but if the athlete isn’t the one doing the lifting, their muscles won’t grow. The same is true for student learning. If students only copy notes or nod along, their cognitive muscles won’t develop. Cognitive lift is the mental work students do to understand, apply, and explain academic content. It’s not about giving students harder problems or letting them struggle alone. It’s about creating space for them to reason and stretch their thinking.

    Research consistently shows that students learn more when they are actively engaged with the material, rather than passively observe. Learners often forget what they’ve “learned” if they only hear an explanation. That’s why great tutors don’t just explain material clearly–they get students to explain it clearly. 

    Tutoring, with its small group format, is the ideal space to encourage students’ cognitive lift. While direct instruction and clear explanations are essential at the right times in the learning process, tutorials offer a powerful opportunity for students to engage deeply and productively practice with support.

    The unique power of tutorials

    Small-group tutorials create conditions that are harder to foster in a full classroom. Having just a few students, tutors can track individual student thinking and adjust support quickly. Students gain more chances to voice reasoning, test ideas, and build confidence. Tutorials rely on strong relationships, and when students trust their tutor, they’re more willing to take risks, share half-formed thoughts, and learn from mistakes. 

    It’s easier to build space for every student to participate and shine in a tutorial than in a full class. Tutors can pivot when they notice students aren’t actively thinking. They may notice they’re overexplaining and can step back, shifting the cognitive responsibility back to the students. This environment gives each learner the opportunity to thrive through cognitive lift.

    What does cognitive lift look like?

    What does cognitive lift look like in practice? Picture two tutorials where students solve equations like they did in class. In the first, the tutor explains every step, pausing only to ask quick calculations like, “What’s 5 + 3?” The student might answer correctly, but solving isolated computations doesn’t mean they’re engaged with solving the equation.

    Now imagine a second tutorial. The tutor begins with, “Based on what you saw in class, where could we start?” The student tries a strategy, gets stuck, and the tutor follows up: “Why didn’t that work? What else could you try?” The student explains their reasoning, reflects on mistakes, and revises. Here, they do the mental heavy lifting–reaching a solution and building confidence in their ability to reason through challenges.

    The difference is the heart of cognitive lift. When tutors focus on students applying knowledge and explaining thinking, they foster longer-term learning. 

    Small shifts, big impact

    Building cognitive lift doesn’t require a complete overhaul. It comes from small shifts tutors can make in every session. The most powerful is moving from explaining to asking. Instead of “Let me show you,” tutors can try “How might we approach this?” or “What do you notice?” Tutoring using questions over explanations causes students to do more work and learn more.

    Scaffolds–temporary supports that help students access new learning–can support student thinking without taking over. Sentence stems and visuals guide thinking while keeping responsibility with the student. Simple moves like pausing for several seconds after questions (which tutors can count in their heads) and letting students discuss with a partner also create space for reasoning. 

    This can feel uncomfortable for tutors–resisting the urge to “rescue ” students too quickly can be emotionally challenging. But allowing students to wrestle with ideas while still feeling supported is where great learning happens and is the essence of cognitive lift.

    The goal of tutoring

    Tutors aren’t there to make learning easy–they’re there to create opportunities for students to think and build confidence in facing new challenges. Just like a personal trainer doesn’t lift the weights, tutors shouldn’t do the mental work for students. As athletes progress, they add weight and complete harder workouts. Their muscles strengthen as their trainer encourages them to persist through the effort. In the same way, as the academic work becomes more complex, students strengthen their abilities by wrestling with the challenge while tutors coach, encourage, and cheer.

    Success in a tutorial isn’t measured by quick answers, but by the thinking students practice. Cognitive lift builds independence, deepens understanding, and boosts persistence. It’s also a skill tutors develop, and with the right structures, even novices can foster it. Imagine tutorials where every learner has space to reason, take risks, and grow. When we let students do the thinking, we not only strengthen their skills, we show them we believe in their potential.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Divestment from Predatory Education Stocks: A Moral Imperative

    Higher Education Inquirer : Divestment from Predatory Education Stocks: A Moral Imperative

    Calls for divestment from exploitative industries have long been part of movements for social and economic justice—whether opposing apartheid, fossil fuels, or private prisons. Today, another sector demands moral scrutiny: the network of for-profit education corporations and student loan servicers that have turned higher learning into a site of mass indebtedness and despair. From predatory colleges to the companies that profit from collecting on student debt, the system functions as a pipeline of extraction. For those who believe education should serve the public good, the issue is not merely financial—it is moral.

    The Human Cost of Predatory Education

    For decades, for-profit college chains such as Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, the University of Phoenix, DeVry, and Capella targeted low-income students, veterans, single parents, and people of color with high-pressure marketing and promises of career advancement. These institutions, funded primarily through federal student aid, often charged premium tuition for substandard programs that left graduates worse off than when they began.

    When Corinthian and ITT Tech collapsed, they left hundreds of thousands of students with worthless credits and mountains of debt. But the collapse did not end the exploitation—it simply shifted it. The business model has re-emerged in online form through education technology and “online program management” (OPM) firms such as 2U, Coursera, and Academic Partnerships. These firms, in partnership with elite universities like Harvard, Yale, and USC, replicate the same dynamics of inflated costs, opaque contracts, and limited accountability.

    The Servicing of Debt as a Business Model

    Beyond the schools themselves, student loan servicers and collectors—Maximus, Sallie Mae, and Navient among them—have built immense profits from managing and pursuing student debt. Sallie Mae, once a government-sponsored enterprise, was privatized in the 2000s and evolved into a powerful lender and loan securitizer. Navient, its spinoff, became notorious for deceptive practices and aggressive collections that trapped borrowers in cycles of delinquency.

    Maximus, a major federal contractor, now services defaulted student loans on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. These companies profit directly from the misery of borrowers—many of whom are victims of predatory schools or structural inequality. Their incentive is not to liberate students from debt, but to sustain and expand it.

    The Role of Institutional Investors

    The complicity of institutional investors cannot be ignored. Pension funds, endowments, and major asset managers have consistently financed both for-profit colleges and loan servicers, even after repeated scandals and lawsuits. Public sector pension funds—ironically funded by educators—have held stock in Navient, Maximus, and large for-profit college operators. Endowments that pride themselves on ethical or ESG investing have too often overlooked education profiteering.

    Investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street collectively hold billions of dollars in these companies, stabilizing an industry that thrives on the financial vulnerability of students. To profit from predatory education is to participate, however indirectly, in the commodification of aspiration.

    Divestment as a Moral and Educational Act

    Divesting from predatory education companies and loan servicers is not just an act of conscience—it is an educational statement in itself. It affirms that learning should be a vehicle for liberation, not a mechanism of debt servitude. When universities, pension boards, and faith-based investors divest from corporations like Maximus, Navient, and 2U, they are reclaiming education’s moral purpose.

    The divestment movement offers a broader civic lesson: that profit and progress are not synonymous, and that investment must align with justice. Faith communities, student debt activists, and labor unions have made similar stands before—against apartheid, tobacco, and fossil fuels. The same principle applies here. An enterprise that depends on deception, coercion, and financial harm has no place in a socially responsible portfolio.

    A Call to Action

    Transparency is essential. Pension boards, university endowments, and foundations must disclose their holdings in for-profit education and student loan servicing companies. Independent investigations should assess the human consequences of these investments, particularly their disproportionate impact on women, veterans, and people of color.

    The next step is moral divestment. Educational institutions, public pension systems, and religious organizations should commit to withdrawing investments from predatory education stocks and debt servicers. Funds should be redirected to debt relief, community college programs, and initiatives that restore trust in education as a public good.

    The corporate education complex—spanning recruitment, instruction, lending, and collection—has monetized both hope and hardship. The time has come to sever public and institutional complicity in this cycle. Education should empower, not impoverish. Divestment is not merely symbolic—it is a declaration of values, a demand for accountability, and a reaffirmation of education’s original promise: to serve humanity rather than exploit it.


    Sources:

    • U.S. Department of Education, Borrower Defense to Repayment Reports

    • Senate HELP Committee, For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success (2012)

    • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) enforcement actions against Navient and Sallie Mae

    • The Century Foundation, Online Program Managers and the Public Interest

    • Student Borrower Protection Center, Profiting from Pain: The Financialization of the Student Debt Crisis

    • Higher Education Inquirer archives

    Source link

  • Trump Gutted ED’s Civil Rights Office. Could States Step Up?

    Trump Gutted ED’s Civil Rights Office. Could States Step Up?

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which is supposed to protect students from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, age and disability status, isn’t what it once was.

    The Trump administration laid off nearly half the staff in March, shuttered seven of its 12 regional offices, shifted the hollowed-out agency’s focus to new priorities (including keeping transgender women out of women’s sports) and then reportedly terminated more employees amid the ongoing shutdown.

    Philadelphia was among the cities that lost its OCR regional office in the first round of layoffs. Lindsey Williams, a Pennsylvania state senator who serves as minority chair of the Senate Education Committee, said the region’s cases now go to Atlanta, “where they may or may not be heard.”

    To fill this void, Williams, a Democrat, announced she will file legislation to establish an Office of Civil Rights within the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The bill has yet to be written, but Williams said she wants to “create new authorities for the Pennsylvania Department of Education to investigate and enforce federal civil rights violations.” She noted, “There may be opportunity as well to strengthen our state laws in this regard.”

    “We’re looking at all of it to see what we can do,” she said, “because we haven’t been here before.”

    Students facing discrimination across the country now have far fewer staff in the federal Education Department OCR who can respond to their complaints. The agency had a large backlog of cases even before President Trump retook office, and then it dismissed thousands of complaints in the spring. Some advocates have expressed particular concern about OCR’s current capacity to process complaints of disability discrimination.

    And those left at OCR appear to be applying a conservative interpretation of civil rights law that doesn’t recognize transgender students’ gender identity. The Trump-era OCR has actively targeted institutions for allowing trans women in women’s sports. It’s also focused on ending programs and practices that specifically benefit minorities, to the exclusion of whites.

    Civil rights advocates are calling for states to step up.

    “We cannot stop what is happening at the federal level,” Williams said. “There’s plenty of lawsuits that are trying … but, in the meantime, what do we as a state do?”

    One of those ongoing suits, filed by the Victim Rights Law Center and two parents in April, alleges that shrinking OCR harms students from protected classes. It argues that the federal OCR cuts left “a hollowed-out organization incapable of performing its statutorily mandated functions,” adding that “without judicial intervention, the system will exist in name only.” But that intervention may not work in students’ favor—judges have issued preliminary injunctions, but the Supreme Court has, so far, allowed the Education Department layoffs to continue.

    Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center and a Pennsylvania resident, said, “States need to be picking up some of the slack.”

    “If more states with Democratic leaders started to propose such offices or legislation or money, it would likely create a bigger conversation,” Chestnut said.

    He noted that during the Obama administration, the federal government sued North Carolina over its controversial law banning trans people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity. But that’s not something the Trump administration would do. Chestnut said some states are now saying—and more should be saying—“OK, you won’t do your job, so we’ll do your job for you.”

    Beth Gellman-Beer, who was director of the Philadelphia regional office of the federal OCR before the Trump administration laid her off, said she doesn’t know of other states creating a new state-level agency like the one that’s been proposed in Pennsylvania. Even there, Republicans control the state Senate, and the legislation isn’t certain to pass. She said other state legislatures “should be really thinking about this and taking immediate steps to build out some kind of civil rights unit to help students in their state.”

    Some states already have their own agencies that protect civil rights in higher ed, Gellman-Beer said, including the existing Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. But she said these entities “are traditionally severely understaffed and don’t have the resources and relied heavily on OCR.”

    Chad Dion Lassiter, executive director of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, agreed with Gellman-Beer’s assessment of commissions like his. Lassiter said he feels “sheer exuberance” over the proposed legislation—which he said would be even greater if the new Office of Civil Rights were created in his agency.

    “Give us 20 additional staff and we’ll do the work,” Lassiter said. Ideally, 15 would be investigators in his agency’s education division and five would be attorneys, he said.

    “Each state that has a human relations commission should have an educational component,” he said. “Fund these commissions.”

    Gellman-Beer said the only true fix is to restore a federal OCR—because even if some states do step up, students’ rights will be contingent on where they live.

    “It used to be, under the model prior to this administration, that the promise for equal educational opportunity was across the board,” she said.

    Unequal Rights Across States

    For a student going before a state-level OCR in a state that doesn’t recognize their identity, the process could be as fruitless as seeking help from the Trump-era federal OCR. The Movement Advancement Project, which advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, says 27 states have laws banning trans students from participating in sports matching their gender identity. Such laws don’t all affect postsecondary students, but they often do, the organization said.

    Nicholas Hite, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBTQ+ people in court, said the federal OCR was supposed to provide a single, consistent application of federal legal protections. Now, he said, “that just isn’t happening—they’re just refusing to do it.”

    “If we’re relying on states to be the enforcement mechanism, we’ve created this patchwork where each state is going to take their own approach,” Hite said.

    Universities in states with laws recognizing trans students’ rights have to decide whether to comply with those laws or with the Trump administration’s approach. The administration, using massive cuts to federal research funding, forced concessions from the University of Pennsylvania for allowing a trans woman to compete in women’s sports. But Scott Lewis—a co-founder of the Association of Title IX Administrators and managing partner of TNG Consulting, which advises higher ed institutions on civil rights issues—said so far he’s seen blue-state universities handling discrimination complaints like they did before Trump retook office.

    Lassiter, of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, said, “It’s important for people to know you still have protections under the state.” But protections for trans students can be unclear.

    His agency enforces state laws protecting students against discrimination based on gender identity, but wouldn’t directly answer whether that means it would order a university to allow a trans woman to play on a woman’s sports team. Lassiter said his agency avoids “cultural wars.”

    Students facing discrimination of all sorts can still sue under federal civil rights law in lieu of seeking help from the federal OCR or any state version of that agency. But personal lawsuits can be expensive.

    Williams, the Pennsylvania state senator, noted that lawsuits may also not wrap up by the time a student graduates. Gellman-Beer, the former federal OCR employee, said they also often lead to individual remedies for a victim, rather than “systemic interventions to make sure that the problem doesn’t occur again for other students.” That was the kind of broad solution the federal OCR could achieve, she said.

    Hite welcomed people whose rights are being infringed, or who are concerned about others’ rights, to reach out to Lambda Legal. He noted the federal OCR did much of its work through negotiating with universities to fix issues, rather than pursuing litigation. If the federal OCR is no longer doing these negotiations, the burden is placed on students and parents to sue to uphold their own rights—while an added cost of litigation is also placed on universities, he said.

    Lewis said that if the Trump administration continues its trajectory, people who don’t feel they’re being served at the federal level will go to the state level.

    “If the federal government won’t do it,” he said, “the states are going to be left to do it.”

    Source link