Blog

Understanding academic dismissal from the student perspective
Personal life events impact students’ ability to meet academic expectations, which can result in academic dismissal, according to new research.

visualspace/E+/Getty Images
Around 40 million Americans have some college credit but no credential. While some of these students left higher education voluntarily, others left involuntarily due to academic dismissal, or repeated low academic achievement.

Recently published research from a Texas A&M University, San Antonio, faculty member seeks to understand how students who experienced academic dismissal fared and how institutions can support these learners as they return to college.

Author Ripsimé K. Bledsoe found a majority of learners experienced a major life event that contributed to their academic shortfall, including loss of a loved one or illness of self or others. Students who have returned to college after dismissal demonstrated greater self-awareness, help-seeking behaviors and understanding of how to achieve success.

The background: While students stop out for a variety of reasons—with recent studies pointing to the high costs of higher education as a major driver—academic challenges are a common factor. At many colleges, students whose cumulative grade point average falls below 2.0 are placed on academic probation, followed by academic dismissal if they make insufficient academic progress.

Previous research shows a gap in creating a model of academic dismissal reinstatement, one that has created challenges for institutions who want to assess readmission policies or create programs to address the issue, according to the report.

The present study uses community college student survey and interview data to understand the factors that influenced them to return to college and what assisted in this process.

Methodology

All students who participated in the study had left a two- or four-year college due to academic dismissal; re-enrolled at a large, urban community college; and were taking a Strategies for Student Success course. The survey includes 171 respondents from 13 course sections, and researchers conducted semistructured interviews with 11 of the respondents. Data was collected in fall 2018.

Students say: The survey results demonstrated that academic readiness from high school did not directly predict success in college, as a majority of students took key college preparatory coursework in high school, including AP classes or Algebra 2 or higher, and only 40 percent took developmental courses in college.

Further, almost half of students were “downward transfers,” with 45 percent admitted to a four-year college, and 41 percent attended a four-year institution at some point. Around 75 percent of students had enrolled in college within three months of completing high school or a GED, and half of respondents passed some type of first-year seminar.

The greatest share of students on academic dismissal (43 percent) appealed to return immediately after being placed on dismissal. One-third returned a year later or more time.

Two-thirds (67 percent) of dismissed students said a life-changing event was the strongest reason their grades dropped, including the death of someone close to them (26 percent), sickness (24 percent), the birth of a child (17 percent), moving away from home (11 percent), involvement in a violent experience (8 percent), loss of a job (7 percent) or spousal problems (6 percent).

Put in practice: In interviews, researchers identified five factors that affected students’ dismissal and could, conversely, impact academic momentum.
1. College readiness. For some students, transitioning to college contributed to their dismissal because the environment was more challenging and less structured. To combat this upon their return, students sought more structure and community to ensure academic achievement, including investing in study skills, note taking, time management and self-monitoring.
2. A critical incident. While many learners experienced dismissal following a challenging experience in their lives, academic dismissal provided a turning point, particularly for learners who spent their time away from college working, to reassess their goals and ambitions. The institution where study participants attended required learners to reflect on their experiences prior to re-enrolling, which also helped students’ self-evaluation. “Consequently, institutions with automatic reinstatement, loose structuring, or no policies at all, can potentially rob students of the critical impact of academic dismissal and an appeal process,” according to the report.
1. Effective teaching. Students said faculty interactions and support was one of the most important factors of success in the classroom upon their return. Faculty who created an atmosphere for active learning and participation were more engaging and effective. Students also identified their own learning strategies, including metacognition and self-regulation, as previous barriers to success and now a focus area.
2. Academic resilience. Learners who returned had motivational attributes including a strong growth mindset, clear goals, self-determination and sense of personal responsibility. Students also demonstrated resilience when they faced setbacks and found solutions for the obstacles in their way, including turning to peers, tutors or faculty members.
3. Supportive guidance. All participants in the study participated in specialized advising to guide them through the appeal process as well as help around course choices, loads and majors. These experiences were relational, not transactional, and helped affirm students’ help-seeking behaviors in positive ways, mitigating students’ feelings of confusion or like they must navigate higher ed on their own.
So what? While this study provides characteristics of students returning from academic dismissal, there is a need for more data around probation, time away after dismissal or forced withdrawals versus voluntary departure, according to the report.

College and university leaders should also consider their appeal process to create greater connections between students and staff or faculty, rather than an automatic reinstatement policy or a loose policy.

“Formulating a well-crafted, institution-specific policy provides a meaningful milestone for students to stop, seek support, and reassess,” Bledsoe wrote.

The study does not advocate for dismissal programs but does ask institutional leaders to create policies with more awareness of the different factors that impact academic success and to tie dismissal to support systems.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.
Source link
January 8, 2025
Universities aren’t entitled to autonomy. They have to earn it
By Edward Venning, Managing Partner at Six Ravens Consulting.

Not for the first time, an interventionist Secretary of State stands ready to help English universities. Not surprisingly, every item in her agenda – from regional engagement to business models – will place conditions of ‘wide-scale reform’ upon universities.

We should reasonably worry. Not because of Bridget Phillipson, but because we have traded away our self-determination for years.

The debate about autonomy has a certain monotheistic quality. Everyone agrees autonomy is the rock upon which knowledge is built, while vigorously sinning against it. Different governments tie finance to reform, as with Phillipson, or attempt the oxymoron of regulating academic freedom. Meanwhile, universities accept cash with strings attached from government, major donors and international students. Government generally cops the blame for this too, while we appeal to inalienable protections in the Higher Education Reform Act (HERA).

But autonomy is not absolute or inviolable. It is not determined by functional independence or private status. It is a behaviour. It comes from actively managing a complex web of power relationships and trade-offs while protecting our control over key functions. It is built through organisational design, concerned with incentives, accountability and dynamic relationship management. The more robustly we design, the less likely our autonomy will be tested.

As nations have found throughout history, autonomy is far from inalienable. Anton Muscatelli points out that this complex negotiation requires constant attention and re-calibration. It must be promoted through the active management of three forces:
- to comply with state direction and societal expectation;
- to conform with sector and industrial norms; and
- to copy each other’s strategies.
The three forces are not in themselves good or bad for autonomy. A minimal level of regulation protects the student interest. Good standards add value. Some strategies deserve emulation. They are forces for good to the extent to which we use them to improve our engagement with the world. These forces become toxic through neglect, uncritical or anticipatory compliance and inept execution.

And our approach to university autonomy could certainly do with an upgrade. The defensive case is given a thorough outing by James Tooley and John Drew, in Cry Freedom: The regulatory assault on institutional autonomy in England’s universities (2024). In this entertaining beasting of the Office for Students, they draw invidious comparisons between what the regulator is supposed to do and what it actually does. They devastate Susan Lapworth’s claim that institutional autonomy can be overridden. Only a lawyer might improve (or rebut) their analysis of regulatory overreach, even if the reader wonders what, short of class action, would induce DfE and OfS to accept their recommendations.

The sector shackles itself

Equally, a fair-minded judge would accept that the sector’s supine approach to autonomy undermines their case for change. Our surrender of autonomy to the state for money is part of a wider readiness to sell the pass in exchange for benefit.

No one can blame the government (or indeed any major industry or donor) for offering a Faustian pact. It is in their nature to seek control. Nor should universities be blamed for seeking patronage from the state, the market or indeed non-state actors. No one, as Jo Johnson recently argued in his report about the China question, would seriously suggest universities should disengage from the world. Instead, we need a robust, dynamic framework for engagement, exerting maximum self-determination in some areas while accepting constraints in others.

It is worth remembering that HERA busies itself with a single dimension of autonomy. This is founded on the precept of the ‘self-critical, cohesive community of scholars’. While of central importance, academic autonomy is one of four dimensions of autonomy recognised by the European University Association. The other three dimensions (organisational, financial and staffing) represent the soft underbelly of autonomy, absent the legitimacy of the academic.

We lack the toolkit to recognise and manage trade-offs across all four of the EUA’s dimensions. Regulatory interest in academic freedom is a clear-cut incursion on academic autonomy. The same is true of staff and student demands to end relationships with Israeli universities. Pressure on non-academic autonomy is often ostensibly internal. The University and College Union’s (UCU) Four Fights, #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have all successfully targeted the non-academic dimensions of autonomy. In fact, there is almost always a dynamic connection between internal and external forces. After all, the 1968 protests began with the right of male and female students to sleep together and ended by permanently altering university governance.

Away from the academic space, autonomy is lost in less obvious ways.

For example, universities cede considerable organisational autonomy through voluntary commitments to a wide range of charters, benchmarks and league tables. But each external assurance scheme concedes executive room for manoeuvre. Almost worse for a knowledge institution, they concede expertise to a third party. The schemes are regressive because they create a planning burden that small institutions cannot service. And the goalposts move without our input – all assurance schemes ratchet their criteria over time. Sometimes this means that compliance may seem tantamount to wishful thinking. Even critics get confused. At one point, the last government was simultaneously asking universities to leave some schemes (such as Stonewall’s famous Diversity Champions Programme and Athena Swan) and adopt others (such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism).

Ganging up

Autonomy can be defined as a type of managed interdependence. It is possible to collaborate with third parties and still maintain self-determination. Indeed, this may be the only way most universities can achieve the scale necessary to confront the most monumental tasks.

Active, relational autonomy is central to effective partnership with government, industry and civil society in complex, interconnected challenges. For example, some of the biggest bets in biotech and STEM have been made as joint ventures.

At the operational level, control over admissions and technology is rightly seen as foundational, and yet we are content for UCAS and Jisc to manage critical processes and infrastructure. Meanwhile, numerous universities have spent millions trying to build a proprietary full-stack online learning offer, while Silicon Valley spends billions on the same task. Arguably, our autonomy is weakest when we go it alone.

This will become increasingly pressing as stressed universities contemplate the possibility of forced merger. What mechanisms will sustain their autonomy, identity and distinctiveness in the arms of a bigger institution?

As shown by Gill Evans, much of the sector used to operate within much larger non-academic organisations, such as local government. Even the most autonomous parts of the sector were interdependent. The collegiate traditions of Oxford and Cambridge demonstrate how shared governance protects autonomy while enabling scale. Royal Charters were mostly awarded to institutions which were (then or subsequently) members of a bigger university. Group structures and formal partnerships between institutions provide varying degrees of freedom to their constituent parts, above a critical threshold of autonomy. These arrangements distribute risk and create safety in numbers, mitigating the hierarchy that makes some institutions more vulnerable than others.

Asserting autonomy

The sector needs more muscular collective action. Individual institutions struggle to resist pressure from regulators, funders and other stakeholders. A stronger sector voice could help establish red lines while engaging constructively with reform agendas.

As argued in my recent debate paper, the overall ability of the sector to exert its autonomy is low compared to other sectors. This has several solutions. We need to establish a strong, leadership body across the tertiary ecosystem, robustly managing the big picture on resource distribution and regulatory burden. We need more sophisticated uses of corporate form, not just the blunt instrument of M&A. But above all, we need to recover an assertive self-confidence.

Let’s be inspired by the private sector and our own history. The original English universities were guilds, muscular and monopolistic in behaviour. Commercial autonomy is not abstract or passive, nor does it derive in a mystical way from the capitalist impulse. It is a self-generating, assertive precondition for entering the market. If universities cannot make a positive case for self-determination, and are not inclined to exercise it, we cannot expect the government of the day – or anyone else – to respect our autonomy. Instead, we need dynamic, structured engagement with external and internal forces. Autonomy will be the result.
Source link
January 8, 2025
It’s time to decolonise the awarding gap
Universities and academics working towards racial justice and inclusion education focus their efforts on closing ethnicity awarding gaps, a measure of systematic inequality in student outcomes.

While addressing these inequalities are essential, the concept of the awarding gap itself — particularly when it relates to race — carries problematic assumptions that undermine the broader efforts to address systemic inequities.

Before going forward, It is important to acknowledge that decolonisation is a controversial concept in its own right. I write from the perspective of UK HE, where decolonisation is a commonly used term. My perspective is therefore through the lens of the coloniser, not the colonised, and informed primarily by the legacy of historical British colonial activity. The issues may differ in the context of colonial expansion by other European powers.

Many contemporary global conflicts are colonial in nature, so I also recognised that for many these issues represent lived experience and ongoing trauma. However, the language of decolonisation is widespread in contemporary HE, so I use this term while acknowledging its limitations and tensions.

The awarding gap explained

The awarding gap measures the disparity in first class and upper second class degree outcomes, typically expressed as the percentage difference between the groups. For example, if 75 per cent of white students and only 60 per cent of Asian students earn a first or a 2:1, the Asian awarding gap is 15 per cent. In the UK the global majority awarding gap is widespread and stubbornly persistent. At sector level, there is a 18.5 per cent Black awarding gap and 5.7 per cent Asian awarding gap, and progress on the issue is notoriously slow.

The awarding gap can have a significant impact on student futures. If employers require at least a 2:1 then there will be an inevitable bias against Black and Asian graduates in the workplace. Inequity in undergraduate degree outcomes also restricts access to postgraduate education, reinforcing the loss of global majority talent. Addressing the awarding gap is therefore essential not only for equity of student outcomes, but also for increasing diversity within HE and the graduate workforce.

The colonial origins of awarding gap language

While the awarding gap metric is crucial for highlighting disparities, it is also fraught with issues. The terminology used to describe racial disparities in HE, such as “BAME” (Black, Asian, and minority ethnic), is highly contested. The UK government has abandoned “BAME” in favour of more nuanced categories, and HE should do the same. I prefer the term “global majority students,” following Rosemary Campbell-Stephens, but acknowledge that even this term may be problematic.

The racial categories used in HE such as “Black” and “Asian,” also have deeply problematic origins that many may be unaware of. These can be traced back to the groundbreaking work on biological classification of Carl Linneas, who as well as classifying plants and animals proposed “scientific” groupings of humans along racial lines. His 1735 work ‘Systema naturae’ classified humans into Europaeus albus (European white), Americanus rubescens (American reddish), Asiaticus fuscus (Asian tawny) and Africanus niger (African black). These were placed into a racial hierarchy, with “Africanus niger” at the bottom.

These groupings were accompanied with highly offensive descriptions; Africanus niger was described as “lazy … sly, sluggish,” while Asiaticus fucus were considered “stern, haughty, greedy.” These categories, based on pseudoscientific ideas of race, underpinned centuries of discrimination and oppression. Although modern genetics has debunked the notion of biological races, HE institutions continue to use similar categories, perpetuating a colonial mindset.

Contemporary issues with the awarding gap

The contemporary use of these terms also creates significant issues both practically and philosophically. For instance, the term “Asian” in the UK awarding gap context as defined by the Office for Students refers to UK-born or educated students of Asian heritage, not international students from Asia. This exclusion of international students from the awarding gap is justified by linking the metric to home undergraduate tuition fees, but it also reflects a colonial mindset where non-UK students’ outcomes are disregarded, despite their financial contributions.

Within home student data, crude categorisation also causes issues. For instance, Chinese students have higher outcomes than Pakistani and Bangladeshi students, yet they are all grouped under “Asian” in many HE metrics (although some institutions have started to disaggregate this data). Similarly, the term “white” encompasses diverse groups, including Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities, who are among the most excluded from education in the UK but are aggregated into “white”. These administrative categories erase the nuances and intersections of race, culture, and socio-economic background, which may compromise the effectiveness of interventions.

The grouping inherent in the awarding gap model often reinforces deficit thinking, where students from underrepresented racial groups are viewed as lacking in some way. The assumption is that global majority students are underperforming, but we should also question whether it is white students that are systematically over-rewarded by HE institutions. While the language shift from “attainment gap” to “awarding gap” is a step towards acknowledging institutional bias, much more needs to be done.

A 2021 analysis of UK Access and Participation Plans found that most interventions focused on student finance or study skills support, rather than examining institutional processes like assessment and grading. This approach perpetuates the idea that the problem lies with the students, not the institutions.

Decolonising the awarding gap

To address these issues, I propose six strategies for decolonising the awarding gap:
1. Be critical of the metric itself: We need to question the construction of the awarding gap metric, particularly its use of crude categories and hierarchical assumptions. The current framework oversimplifies the complexities of race and ethnicity, leading to ineffective solutions.
2. Disaggregate data: Institutions should disaggregate ethnicity data into the most nuanced categories possible while maintaining statistical validity. Intersectional analysis should be incorporated to capture the full scope of students’ experiences and identities.
3. Move beyond “gap gazing”: Simply identifying the gap is not enough. We need a qualitative understanding of why these gaps exist, grounded in the lived experiences of students. And more importantly to act with urgency, not to wait for more data.
4. Avoid deficit models: Interventions should focus on changing university processes, pedagogies, and assessment methods to be more inclusive for all students, rather than assuming that certain groups are inherently deficient.
5. Involve students: Students must be integral to efforts to address the awarding gap. Institutions should work “with” students, not “for” them, ensuring that their voices are central in both understanding the gap and designing solutions.
6. Engage senior leaders: Institutional leaders must take an active role in addressing the awarding gap. This work cannot be seen as a box-ticking exercise; it requires a deep understanding of the issues and a commitment to systemic change.
The awarding gap, as currently constructed, is a flawed and crude tool for addressing racial disparities in HE. Its colonial underpinnings and reliance on outdated racial categories reinforce the very inequalities we aim to dismantle. To make meaningful progress towards racial justice in education, we must critically engage with the metrics we use and adopt more nuanced, inclusive approaches.

Only by decolonising the awarding gap can we begin to address the deep-seated inequities in HE and create a more just educational system for all.
Source link
January 8, 2025
2025 Higher Ed Disruptions | Collegis Education

The coming year promises to be transformative for higher education as institutions find new ways to manage enrollment targets, operating costs, and shifting student expectations. Several existing and emerging trends have the potential to alter the higher ed landscape as we know it in 2025.

Disruption isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It often leads to innovation and more efficient ways to meet the needs of students, faculty, and administrators. The good news is we have the tools and the know-how to address these challenges head-on. Institutions focused on building foundational capabilities in the coming months are best positioned to leverage technology effectively and position themselves for continued success.

Here are the trends I predict will significantly impact higher ed this year and what we can do to take advantage of them.

1. More Urgent Digital Transformation Plans
Institutions need access to valid, reliable, and meaningful data to operate effectively. Thousands of schools still rely on proprietary, on-premise student information systems (SIS) with fragmented data sources, which limits their ability to make data-enabled decisions. Given that migrating to cloud-based solutions can take 18+ months, it’s important for schools to start the process now. Although the process is difficult given the significant change management associated with large cloud migrations, it will enable them to operate more efficiently and compete more effectively. I anticipate we’ll see SIS cloud migrations at the top of the priority lists at many institutions.

2. Heightened Focus on Cybersecurity
Cyber attackers have targeted higher education for years because they know they are a rich source of student and institutional data and the digital infrastructures at most schools are outdated. Hackers continue to find new ways to access networks and data, especially as the number of connected devices and applications swells. Institutions need to stay vigilant to cyber threats while also complying with various data privacy laws. I count 18 states with privacy regulations in addition to U.S. federal and European Union requirements. It’s an extremely complex situation only made more difficult by the shortage of cybersecurity professionals, especially at smaller schools. In 2025, institutions will focus on automating network security protocols and finding outside resources to augment their security capabilities.

3. Expanded Use of Shared Services
Smaller schools need access to the same technology and technical expertise as larger schools, just on a reduced scale with a more limited budget. I anticipate that smaller schools will seek strategic partners to manage critical IT and other specialized services to support data access, reliability, and usability. It’s a smart way to reduce costs while maintaining essential day-to-day services, enhancing security protocols, and being prepared for technology advancements.

4. Continuation of Mergers and Acquisitions
Financial pressures and the threat of closures will continue to drive acquisitions of some smaller schools. Mergers create significant challenges to combine the data, applications, and systems of the two institutions. However, the benefits to both sides are worth it in streamlining operations, retaining existing students, and growing enrollment. Given the breadth and depth of our functional and technical expertise, we can help schools to navigate the challenges and drive positive results.

5. Adoption of Data-Enabled Technologies
As institutions embrace digital transformation, they build out the foundation needed to take advantage of data-enabled technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI). With the initial hype of AI behind us, I anticipate in 2025 that schools will start to deploy AI-enabled solutions that feed off rich data sources to personalize recruitment efforts, improve retention, invigorate online classes, and predict demand for course offerings, as a few examples.

6. Refinement of Enrollment and Retention Strategies
The declining number of high school graduates and international enrollments continues to intensify the effort to recruit and retain students. I expect to see schools expand how they leverage data to personalize recruitment campaigns, target secondary audiences (such as adult learners and transfer students), and nurture existing students. The success of this strategy relies heavily on having the right infrastructure in place to support centralized data access, emerging technologies, and analytic tools.

7. Shift to Career-Focused and Flexible Learning Opportunities
Like changing recruitment and retention methods, institutions will continue to adapt their academic programs to meet the evolving needs of the workforce. They will highlight outcomes based on data about job placement rates, alumni success stories, and collaborations with area businesses to illustrate tangible benefits. They will evaluate current course offerings and pivot when it makes sense to expand hybrid learning models, professional development programs, and skill-based credentials. This effort may involve launching new programs in high-demand fields, such as data science and cybersecurity, or retooling existing programs to incorporate emerging technologies.

8. Consolidation of Ed-tech Solution Providers
Many higher education software and service providers have discussed how they could combine forces to serve colleges and universities better. I think we’ll see M&A activity pick up over the next two years. These consolidations will further the need for institutions to standardize business processes and accelerate cloud migrations as legacy systems will eventually become unsupported.

I’m excited about the positive impact these eight trends might make in 2025. Higher education institutions that prioritize foundational improvements by aligning their data, technology, and talent are best suited to successfully address mounting challenges like demographic shifts and affordability concerns.

I can’t wait to see how schools that adopt AI and predictive analytics are able to improve decision-making and enhance student experiences. However, the real breakthrough will come from integrating systems and breaking down data silos. Institutions that invest in building these foundational capabilities will be better positioned to leverage emerging technologies, drive measurable outcomes, and fulfill their mission to support lifelong learners.

— Kim Fahey, CEO Collegis Education

Source link

January 7, 2025
Four Benefits of Attending InsightsEDU

Every year, EducationDynamics welcomes marketing, enrollment, admissions, and higher education leaders from across the nation for InsightsEDU—a higher education conference dedicated to uncovering emerging trends and innovative solutions that help colleges and universities enhance reputation and grow revenue. In 2025, InsightsEDU will be hosted in New Orleans, Louisiana at the Ritz Carlton from February 12-14, 2025.

With 40+ subject matter experts, and 38+ sessions, InsightsEDU is designed to equip attendees with the knowledge, tools, and strategies necessary to successfully engage the Modern Learner. Discover key benefits you will experience by attending InsightsEDU 2025.

Benefits of Attending a Higher Education Conference like InsightsEDU

1. Gain Timely Insights into the Modern Learner

There is no doubt that higher education is undergoing a shift. The Modern Learner, who increasingly values flexibility, personalization, and cost-effectiveness, is driving much of this transformation. This year’s conference theme, “The Era of the Modern Learner,” reflects this pivotal moment in education.

InsightsEDU will help higher education marketers adapt strategies to meet the needs of these students, by equipping them with practical insights on how Modern Learners interact with enrollment teams, make decisions, and engage with content. Understanding these dynamics will allow higher ed professionals to tailor marketing and enrollment strategies to better address the demands of today’s students, while demonstrating value and personalization.

2. Network with Fellow Institutional Leaders, Experts, and Professionals Nationwide

InsightsEDU is more than a learning opportunity; it is also an unparalleled networking opportunity for the higher education community. With over 100 colleges and universities represented, InsightsEDU brings together a diverse group of higher education professionals, including institutional leaders, marketers, admissions professionals, and experts from across the nation and even abroad.

Throughout the conference, attendees will experience everything from informative sessions and panels to networking events infused with New Orleans’ flair. These interactions will provide attendees with opportunities to build lasting connections with fellow professionals who share a commitment to advancing higher education initiatives. Additionally, attendees will be able to participate in discussion forums and stay connected to professional connections through the conference app, allowing attendees to stay engaged even after the conference ends.

3. Access Tailored Strategies for All Student Demographics

InsightsEDU is dedicated to helping professionals connect with today’s diverse student populations through targeted, practical strategies. For traditional students, attendees will explore ways to create personalized outreach and recruitment campaigns that highlight flexibility and value. Sessions focused on online students will uncover data-driven marketing methods and innovative enrollment strategies that address their desire for convenience and personalization. For graduate students, attendees will explore strategies that leverage career-focused messaging and a clear return on investment for advanced degrees.

Attendees will leave InsightsEDU equipped with powerful, actionable strategies tailored to the unique needs of various student demographics—empowering them to drive success and lead in a changing higher education landscape.

4. Experience Expert-Led Sessions Focused on Real-World Solutions

At InsightsEDU, attendees will engage with a stellar line-up of speakers covering the latest trends and challenges in higher education. Our conference agenda features 38+ sessions from industry experts, each with unique and data-backed perspectives on topics such as personalized digital marketing, enrollment management, and student success. With expert perspectives from organizations like Google, Meta, Reddit, EY Parthenon and more, attendees will learn how to apply the latest trends and technologies to enhance their approach. Additionally, attendees will gain exclusive insights to groundbreaking tools and data, including the latest Online College Students Report, giving them a first look at critical insights into today’s students.

Unlock the Future of Higher Education at InsightsEDU 2025

InsightsEDU 2025 is the must-attend conference for higher education professionals who are committed to staying ahead of the curve and driving impact within education. Don’t miss the opportunity to be a part of this innovative event, designed to provide you with strategies and insights for success in higher education.

We look forward to seeing you at InsightsEDU from February 12-14! Register today and secure your spot.

Source link

January 7, 2025
FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101

It is hard to imagine a legal claim that violates basic First Amendment principles more thoroughly than does President-elect Donald Trump’s lawsuit against veteran Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register.

His civil lawsuit arises from a poll published before the November 2024 election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris in the lead in Iowa. It seeks damages and a court order to prevent the newspaper from publishing any future “deceptive polls” that might “poison the electorate.”

Trying to punish newspapers for supposedly “false” reports is not a new phenomenon. Backlash to the Sedition Act of 1798, in which Congress criminalized “false” criticism of some politicians, laid the foundation of First Amendment doctrine. This lawsuit is just a new name for the same theory long rejected under the First Amendment.

Trump’s lawsuit, brought under an Iowa law against “consumer fraud,” violates long-standing constitutional principles. It’s also entirely meritless under the Iowa law.

Enlisting the courts to settle political grudges is directly at odds with the First Amendment’s protection for political speech.

The lawsuit is the very definition of a “SLAPP” suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment. And it’s part of a worrying trend of activists and officials using consumer fraud lawsuits to target political speech they don’t like.

FIRE opposes SLAPP suits and is representing Selzer in order to vindicate her — and your — First Amendment rights.

Every election has its outlier polls.

Election polling is core First Amendment activity. It asks people how they will vote and shares an opinion — an educated guess — predicting the likely outcome. Every presidential election cycle brings hundreds of polls, and every cycle has outliers giving false hope (or added anxiety) to supporters of a given candidate.

Selzer’s Iowa polls have long enjoyed “gold standard” status, accurately predicting Donald Trump’s victories in Iowa in 2016 and 2020. But despite using the same methodology as her previous polls, Selzer’s final 2024 poll, commissioned by the Register, was this cycle’s outlier, predicting a narrow Harris victory.

Selzer owned up to the margin between her poll and the eventual outcome of Trump comfortably winning Iowa. She acknowledged the “biggest miss of my career” and did what good pollsters do: She explained her methodology and publicly shared the poll’s crosstabs (results reported out by demographic and attitudinal subgroups), its questionnaire (with demographic information and weighted and unweighted responses), and her theories on the results, inviting others to offer theirs in turn.

A bogus ‘consumer fraud’ lawsuit

The post-election transparency Selzer provided wasn’t enough for Trump, despite his winning the presidency.

During a press conference last month, Trump theorized that the poll was fabricated entirely and pledged to “straighten out the press” because it was “almost as corrupt as our elections are.” That evening, he sued Selzer, her polling company, the Register, and the newspaper’s parent company, Gannett, claiming the poll’s publication violated Iowa’s consumer fraud statute.

This lawsuit uses an inapplicable state statute as a cudgel to force Selzer and the Register to waste time and money on lawyers to respond to the allegations. Enlisting the courts to settle political grudges is directly at odds with the First Amendment’s protection for political speech.

Trump’s calls to investigate pollster put First Amendment at risk

News

President-elect Donald Trump called for an investigation after Des Moines Register pollster Ann Selzer predicted just days before the election that he would lose Iowa by three points.

Read More

Start with the law. Consumer fraud laws target sellers who make false statements to get you to buy something. They’re about the scam artist who rolls back the odometer on a used car, not a newspaper poll or TV weather forecast that gets it wrong.

Just read the Iowa statute. Trump must identify a fraudulent or deceptive statement “in connection with the advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the solicitation of contributions for charitable purposes.” Selzer’s poll did not advertise or solicit anything, much less “consumer merchandise,” which Iowa law defines as that intended for “personal, family, or household uses.”

Trump’s complaint also argues Selzer engaged in “brazen election interference.” But publishing a poll doesn’t constitute “election interference.” Under Iowa law, election “interference” is conduct like submitting a “counterfeit official election ballot,” encouraging someone to vote when you know they legally cannot, or other forms of direct interference with the conduct of the election.

Conducting and publishing a poll is protected First Amendment speech. It has nothing to do with “election interference.”

The use of consumer fraud lawsuits collides with the First Amendment

The notion that officials can recast the electorate as “consumers” to punish political speech or news they don’t like is squarely at odds with the First Amendment — yet it’s a theory increasingly advanced by partisans on both the left and the right. From the left, there are calls to regulate “misinformation” on social issues and, from the right, calls to impose “accountability” on news media for their political commentary.

Consumer fraud statutes have no place in American politics, or in regulating the news. But it has become an increasingly popular tactic to use such laws in misguided efforts to police political speech. For example, a progressive nonprofit tried to use a Washington state consumer protection law in an unsuccessful lawsuit against Fox News over its COVID-19 commentary. And attorneys general on the right used the same “we’re just punishing falsehoods” theory to target progressive outlets. Right now, Texas is arguing in a federal appellate court that it can use the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act to punish political speech even if it is “literally true,” so long as officials think it’s misleading.

Any attempt — by Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else — to punish and chill reporting of unfavorable news is an affront to the First Amendment.

Attempts to prohibit purportedly false statements in politics are as old as the republic. In fact, our First Amendment tradition originated from colonial officials’ early attempts to use libel laws against the press.

America rejected this censorship after officials used the Sedition Act of 1798 to jail newspaper editors for publishing “false” and “malicious” criticisms of President John Adams. Thomas Jefferson pardoned and remitted the fines of those convicted, writing that he considered the Act “to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image.”

The Supreme Court has since described our experience with the Sedition Act as the event that “first crystallized a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment.” And it has held that government efforts to bar the publication of news reports are “the essence of censorship.”

Since then, courts have soundly and repeatedly rejected modern campaigns to regulate “false” speech because, under the First Amendment, “the citizenry, not the government, should be the monitor of falseness in the political arena.”

SLAPPs chill speech because lawyers are expensive and lawsuits are stressful

Even when a court dismisses a meritless lawsuit against a speaker, the person filing the lawsuit still “wins” because their critics must spend time and money on the legal process. As Trump once colorfully put it after losing a lawsuit: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

Some states have anti-SLAPP statutes that require a plaintiff suing over speech to show his case has merit. If he cannot, the plaintiff has to pay the defendant’s legal fees — discouraging plaintiffs from chilling speech through the cost of a lawsuit. But Iowa is not among those states.

So FIRE is stepping in to represent Selzer and her polling company, Selzer & Company, against this baseless suit. By providing pro bono support, we’re helping to remove the financial incentive of SLAPP suits — just as we’ve done when a wealthy Idaho landowner sued over criticism of his planned airstrip, when a reddit moderator was sued for criticizing a self-proclaimed scientist, and when a Pennsylvania lawmaker sued a graduate student for “racketeering.” (If you are a lawyer who wants to help provide pro bono support to people facing lawsuits for their speech, please join FIRE’s Legal Network.)

Any attempt — by Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else — to punish and chill reporting of unfavorable news is an affront to the First Amendment. Hearing an opinion or prediction that turns out to be “wrong” is the price of living in a free society. And no American should fear that their commentary on American elections should subject them to liability.

FIRE protects the First Amendment, whether it’s threatened by the president of the United States or your local mayor. And we do so for all Americans, whether you’re a conservative student unable to wear a “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt, a professor censored under Florida’s STOP WOKE Act, or a libertarian mother arrested for criticizing her city’s mayor.

If your First Amendment rights are threatened, contact FIRE.

Source link

January 7, 2025
FIRE to defend veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer in Trump lawsuit over outlier election poll

DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan. 7, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression announced today it will defend veteran Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer pro bono against a lawsuit from President-elect Donald Trump that threatens Americans’ First Amendment right to speak on core political issues.

“Punishing someone for their political prediction is about as unconstitutional as it gets,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “This is America. No one should be afraid to predict the outcome of an election. Whether it’s from a pollster, or you, or me, such political expression is fully and unequivocally protected by the First Amendment.”

EXPLAINER: FIGHTING TRUMP’S LAWSUIT IS FIRST AMENDMENT 101

Trump’s lawsuit stems from a poll Selzer published before the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa. The lawsuit, brought under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, is meritless and violates long-standing constitutional principles.

The claim distorts the purpose of consumer fraud laws, which target sellers who make false statements to get you to buy merchandise.

“Consumer fraud laws are about the scam artist who rolls back the odometer on a used car, not a newspaper pollster or TV meteorologist who misses a forecast,” said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick.

Trump’s suit seeks damages and a court order barring the newspaper from publishing any future “deceptive polls” that might “poison the electorate.” But Selzer and The Des Moines Register were completely transparent about how the poll was conducted. Selzer and the newspaper released the demographic breakdowns showing the results of the telephone survey and the weighting system. Selzer also released an analysis of how her methods might have contributed to missing the mark.

“I’ve spent my career researching what the people of Iowa are thinking about politics and leading issues of the day,” Selzer said. “My final poll of the 2024 general election missed the mark. The response to a mismatch between my final poll and the decisions Iowa voters made should be thoughtful analysis and introspection. I should be devoting my time to that and not to a vengeful lawsuit from someone with enormous power and assets.”

Selzer’s Iowa polls have long enjoyed “gold standard” status among pollsters. She correctly predicted Trump’s win in Iowa in 2016 and 2020 using the same methodology in her 2024 poll.

COURTESY PHOTOS OF J. ANN SELZER FOR MEDIA USE

“Donald Trump is abusing the legal system to punish speech he dislikes,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “If you have to pay lawyers and spend time in court to defend your free speech, then you don’t have free speech.”

America already rejected its experiment with making the government the arbiter of truth. President John Adams used the Sedition Act of 1798 to imprison political rivals for “false” political statements. Trump’s lawsuit is just a new spin on the same theory long rejected under the First Amendment.

The lawsuit fits the very definition of a “SLAPP” suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of harassing and imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment. As Trump once colorfully put it after losing a lawsuit: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

By providing pro bono support, FIRE is helping to remove the punishment-by-process incentive of SLAPP suits — just as we’ve done when a wealthy Idaho landowner sued over criticism of his planned airstrip, when a Pennsylvania lawmaker sued a graduate student for “racketeering,” and when an education center threatened to sue a small, autistic-led, nonprofit organization for criticizing the center’s use of electric shocks.

“Pollsters don’t always get it right,” said Fitzpatrick. “When the Chicago Tribune published its famously incorrect ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ headline, it was because the polls were off. Truman didn’t sue the newspaper. He laughed — his victory was enough. That’s how you handle missed predictions in a free society.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE defends free speech for all Americans, regardless of political ideology. We’ll defend your rights whether you’re a student barred from wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt, a professor censored under Florida’s STOP WOKE Act, or a mother arrested for criticizing your city’s mayor. If it’s protected, we’ll defend it. No throat-clearing, no apologies.

CONTACT:

Daniel Burnett, Senior Director of Communications, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

Source link

January 7, 2025
Biden Administration Releases Final Regulatory Agenda of Their Term
by CUPA-HR | January 7, 2025

On December 13, the Biden administration issued their Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda, which provides insights on regulatory and deregulatory activity under development across more than 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions. The Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the second agenda published this year, following the Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda released in July.

Given the upcoming change in administration, the Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the last that will be released by the Biden administration. The Trump administration will seek to change many regulatory priorities after taking office, meaning that regulations intended to be released after the Biden administration leaves office will change or be withdrawn altogether. As such, the regulations and target dates highlighted below are not final and subject to change once the Trump administration takes office.

Department of Labor

Heat Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings

The Biden administration’s regulatory agenda reminds interested stakeholders of the Department of Labor (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s notice of proposed rulemaking on heat injury and illness prevention measures for both indoor and outdoor work settings. The comment period is open through January 14, 2025.

If finalized, the rule would impact all workplace settings under OSHA’s jurisdiction where employees are exposed to heat indexes that equal or exceed 80 degrees, regardless of whether the work is performed in an indoor or outdoor setting. All covered employers would need to circulate heat injury and illness prevention plans (HIIPPs), implement measures for providing breaks and water to employees exposed to high heat, and train employees on heat-related risks and illness prevention, among other provisions.

Given the comment period’s closing date, the incoming Trump administration will be tasked with next steps for the heat rule upon taking office. Trump nominated Lori Chavez-DeRemer to serve as DOL secretary, where she will oversee future actions taken with respect to heat injury and illness regulations. While she has not publicly weighed in on the current proposal, she co-led a report during her time in Congress that recommended the creation of a federal heat standard for nonimmigrant agricultural workers. She is also from Oregon, which has already implemented its own state heat illness prevention standard. As such, she may be responsive to moving forward with a heat injury and illness rule if confirmed as DOL secretary, though what those regulations may include remains to be seen.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Recordkeeping Requirements for PWFA Charge-Related Records

The regulatory agenda includes a reminder that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to extend existing recordkeeping requirements under EEO law to include charges under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The NPRM was published on November 21, 2024, and the comment period runs through January 21, 2025.

The PWFA was signed into law in December 2022, and the EEOC subsequently finalized implementing regulations for the PWFA in April 2024. The lengthy regulations provide guidance to employers and workers on people covered under the law and regulations, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, and how to request reasonable accommodations.

According to the regulatory agenda, the new notice of proposed rulemaking sets out recordkeeping requirements for institutions of higher education relating to PWFA charges. The regulations do not require the creation of any records, but they do require that all covered entities (including higher ed institutions) maintain all employment and personnel records they make or keep in the regular course of business for a period of one year and all records relevant to a PWFA charge. These requirements are identical to the recordkeeping requirements related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) charges.

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting

In January 2025, the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and NASA anticipate releasing a final rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation on pay equity and transparency in federal contracting.

The joint agencies published a pay equity and transparency notice of proposed rulemaking in January 2024, in which the agencies propose to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement a government-wide policy that would:
1. prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”), and
2. require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose the compensation to be offered on job announcements (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).
Although the agencies are targeting January 2025 for release, the final rule has not yet been sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review prior to publication. All regulations are required to be reviewed by OIRA before they are published for the public, and review typically lasts 30-60 days after the regulation is received. Given the short time left, it appears unlikely that the rule will be published before the end of the Biden administration’s term. It is unknown if the Trump administration will move forward with this rule or seek to withdraw it.

Department of Homeland Security

Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program

The Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda shows that the Department of Homeland Security aimed for a December 2024 release of additional regulations to modernize the H-1B program. DHS met this timeline, publishing a final rule on December 18.

The final rule included several noteworthy provisions that addressed concerns raised by CUPA-HR in comments responding to the October 2023 proposed rule, including a modification of the definition and criteria for H-1B specialty occupations.

The rule also codifies DHS’s current policy to give deference to prior determinations when adjudicating petitions involving the same party and facts (known as the “deference policy”), eliminates the itinerary requirement in the Form I-129, expands the H-1B cap exemptions for nonprofit and governmental research organizations, enhances cap-gap protections for F-1 students transitioning to H-1B status, and strengthens the USCIS site-visit program.

The final rule takes effect on January 17, 2025, just days before the next presidential inauguration. While it is unclear if the incoming Trump administration will seek to modify or roll back the rule, the codification of key provisions, such as the deference policy, makes them more difficult to rescind without formal rulemaking.

Department of Education

Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or Ethnicity

Keeping with the date set in the Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) originally targeted December 2024 for the release of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and OCR’s enforcement responsibilities for cases involving discrimination based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. OCR is issuing this in response to a 2019 Trump executive order and a 2021 Biden executive order.

The proposed rulemaking has become a higher priority for OCR, given the recent political activity on campus related to the Israel-Hamas war and related scrutiny from Congressional Republicans of higher education’s response to protests on campus. OCR explains the need for this rulemaking by stating that they have “received complaints of harassment and assaults directed at Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other students based on their shared ancestry or ethnicity.”

OCR missed the December target date, and the rule has not yet been sent to OIRA for review prior to publication. Given the short amount of time the Biden administration has before the end of its term, it seems unlikely that this rule will be published before the Trump administration takes office. It is unknown if and how the Trump administration would move forward with regulations on the same issue, though they may seek to publish a proposal given the first Trump administration’s 2019 executive order on combatting antisemitism.

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams

In the Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda, OCR kept its rule to finalize Title IX requirements related to transgender students’ participation in athletic programs to its “long-term actions” list, but the Biden administration subsequently withdrew it on December 20, 2024, halting all efforts to finalize the rule.

As a reminder, the April 2023 proposed rule recommended language that would prohibit schools receiving federal funding from adopting or applying a one-size-fits-all ban on transgender student participation on teams consistent with their gender identity.

The Trump administration is likely to reverse the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations that expand protections to individuals facing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Trump and Republicans also spoke of bans on transgender women’s participation in women’s sports during the 2024 election campaign. As such, the Trump administration could choose to issue a separate Title IX rule regarding transgender students’ participation in athletic programs, though it remains to be seen if they will do so.

Looking Ahead

As mentioned above, the target dates and regulations themselves are likely to change once the Trump administration takes office. The public will not have insight into the anticipated regulatory and deregulatory activity under the Trump administration until the Spring 2025 Regulatory Agenda is released, which will likely be sometime in late spring or early summer 2025. CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of all relevant regulatory activity as it develops throughout the year.

Share This Article:
Source link
January 7, 2025
Deafening Silence on PIAAC | HESA

Last month, right around the time the blog was shutting down, the OECD released its report on the second iteration of the Programme for International Assessment for Adult Competencies (PIAAC), titled “Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?”. Think of it perhaps as PISA for grown-ups, providing a broadly useful cross-national comparison of basic cognitive skills which are key to labour market success and overall productivity. You are forgiven if you didn’t hear about it: its news impact was equivalent to the proverbial tree falling in a forest. Today, I will skim briefly over the results, but more importantly, ponder why this kind of data does not generate much news.

First administered in 2011, PIAAC consists of three parts: a test for literacy, numeracy, and what they call “adaptive problem solving” (this last one has changed a bit—in the previous iteration it was something called “problem-solving in technology-rich environments). The test scale for is from 0 to 500, and individuals are categorized as being in one of six “bands” (1 through 5, with 5 being the highest, and a “below 1,” which is the lowest). National scores across all three of these areas are highly correlated, which is to say that if country is at the top or bottom, or even in the middle on literacy, it’s almost certainly pretty close to the same rank order for numeracy and problem solving as well. National scores all cluster in the 200 to 300 range.

One of the interesting—and frankly somewhat terrifying—discoveries of PIAAC 2 is that literacy and numeracy scores are down in most of the OECD outside of northern Europe. Across all participating countries, literacy is down fifteen points, and numeracy by seven. Canada is about even in literacy and up slightly in numeracy—this is one trend it’s good to buck. The reason for this is somewhat mysterious—an aging population probably has something to do with it, because literacy and numeracy do start to fall off with age (scores peak in the 25-34 age bracket)—but I would be interested to see more work on the role of smart phones. Maybe it isn’t just teenagers whose brains are getting wrecked?

The overall findings actually aren’t that interesting. The OECD hasn’t repeated some of the analyses that made the first report so fascinating (results were a little too interesting, I guess), so what we get are some fairly broad banalities—scores rise with education levels, but also with parents’ education levels; employment rates and income rise with skills levels; there is broadly a lot of skill mis-match across all economies, and this is a Bad Thing (I am not sure it is anywhere near as bad as OECD assumes, but whatever). What remains interesting, once you read over all the report, are the subtle differences one picks up in the results from one country to another.

So, how does Canada do, you ask? Well, as Figure 1 shows, we are considered to be ahead of the OECD average, which is good so far as it goes. However, we’re not at the top. The head of the class across all measures are Finland, Japan, and Sweden, followed reasonably closely by the Netherlands and Norway. Canada is in a peloton behind that with a group including Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Estonia, the Flemish region of Belgium, and maybe England. This is basically Canada’s sweet spot in everything when it comes to education, skills, and research: good but not great, and it looks worse if you adjust for the amount of money we spend on this stuff.

Figure 1: Key PIAAC scores, Canada vs OECD, 2022-23

Canadian results can also be broken down by province, as in Figure 2, below. Results do not vary much across most of the country. Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec all cluster pretty tightly around the national average. British Columbia and Alberta are significantly above that average, while New Brunswick and Newfoundland are significantly below it. Partly, of course, this has to do with things you’d expect like provincial income, school policies, etc. But remember that this is across entire populations, not school leavers, and so internal immigration plays a role here too. Broadly speaking, New Brunswick and Newfoundland lose a lot of skills to places further west, while British Columbia and Alberta are big recipients of immigration from places further east (international migration tends to reduce average scores: language skills matter and taking the test in a non-native tongue tends to result in lower overall results).

Figure 2: Average PIAAC scores by province, 2022-23

Anyways, none of this is particularly surprising or perhaps even all that interesting. What I think is interesting is how differently this data release was handled from the one ten years ago. When the first PIAAC was released a decade ago, Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) published a 110-page analysis of the results (which I analyzed in two posts, one on Indigenous and immigrant populations, and another on Canadian results more broadly) and an additional 300(!)-page report lining up the PIAAC data with data on formal and informal adult learning. It was, all in all, pretty impressive. This time, CMEC published a one-pager which linked to a Statscan page which contains all of three charts and two infographics (fortunately, the OECD itself put out a 10-pager that is significantly better than anything domestic analysis). But I think all of this points to something pretty important, which is this:

Canadian governments no longer care about skills. At least not in the sense that PIAAC (or PISA for that matter) measures them.

What they care about instead are shortages of very particular types of skilled workers, specifically health professions and the construction trades (which together make up about 20% of the workforce). Provincial governments will throw any amount of money at training in these two sets of occupations because they are seen as bottlenecks in a couple of key sectors of the economy. They won’t think about the quality of the training being given or the organization of work in the sector (maybe we wouldn’t need to train as many people if the labour produced by such training was more productive?). God forbid. I mean that would be difficult. Complex. Requiring sustained expert dialogue between multiple stakeholders/partners. No, far easier just to crank out more graduates, by lowering standards if necessary (a truly North Korean strategy).

But actual transversal skills? The kind that make the whole economy (not just a politically sensitive 20%) more productive? I can’t name a single government in Canada that gives a rat’s hairy behind. They used to, twenty or thirty years ago. But then we started eating the future. Now, policy capacity around this kind of thing has atrophied to the point where literally no one cares when a big study like PIAAC comes out.

I don’t know why we bother, to be honest. If provincial governments and their ministries of education in particular (personified in this case by CMEC) can’t be arsed to care about something as basic as the skill level of the population, why spend millions collecting the data? Maybe just admit our profound mediocrity and move on.

Source link

January 7, 2025
Community colleges in the lurch after WIOA bill founders

A bipartisan effort to update the nation’s workforce development law is dead, depriving hundreds of community colleges of increased funds and opportunities to cut through the red tape surrounding short-term job training.

The Stronger Workforce for America Act would have given community colleges automatic eligibility to enter into training contracts with local workforce development offices, introduced a new federal grant and protected several existing programs from potential budget cuts in the new fiscal year.

The bill’s sponsors were hopeful that the bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act would pass Congress before the end of the year, as it was included in a wider spending package to fund the government. But when Republicans voiced opposition to the omnibus spending bill just over 24 hours before the government shutdown deadline, lawmakers reversed course. They instead passed a pared-down continuing resolution to fund the government through mid-March, and WIOA reauthorization didn’t make the cut.

Leaders on the House education and workforce committee had said the Stronger Workforce for America Act would create “transformative change” for the American workforce, pointing to how WIOA helps American workers keep pace with an ever-changing job market and gain high-demand skills. Reauthorizing WIOA was a top priority for Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who chaired the committee until December.

Members of the House and Senate education and workforce committees worked for the last two years to update the workforce bill, which expired in 2020. The House plan overwhelmingly passed last spring, and the Senate released a draft plan over the summer. The Senate bill didn’t move forward, but key lawmakers in the House and Senate reached a compromise in late November to update WIOA.

Groups like the National Association of Workforce Boards and the American Association of Community Colleges say the death of the Stronger Workforce act won’t kill their programs, but nonetheless they expressed concerns about how a lack of reauthorization makes their programs vulnerable. They are trying to remain hopeful that reauthorization will be a priority for this Congress.

“As the session waned, it was clear that getting a bill enacted in 2024 was going to be extremely difficult,” David Baime, senior vice president of government relations at AACC, said in a statement. “However, we are grateful for WIOA’s champions and very optimistic that a reauthorization will be enacted by the next Congress.”

Until then, Inside Higher Ed called Baime to talk about the bill and what it means for community colleges and short-term workforce training. Here are three key obstacles he said remain until WIOA gets an update.

Bureaucracy and Eligibility

One of the largest benefits for community colleges under the Stronger Workforce act was that their training programs would have automatically qualified for federal WIOA grants.

Currently, any training provider—be it a community college, an employer or a for-profit technical institution—must meet certain performance criteria in order to receive WIOA dollars. About $500 million is available for job training vouchers each year.

Often, colleges receive funds by entering a contract with a local workforce board. The process begins with local workforce development agencies identifying key trades or certifications that are in high demand among their community. Then the board picks an approved training provider and contracts with them to train a set number of workers.

But for years, jumping through the hoops required to make that eligibility list kept many underresourced community colleges from receiving those contracts and federal funds.

“The bureaucratic nature of WIOA has made for some presidents not being as engaged as they might be,” Baime said. “In these cases, they just don’t find it worthwhile to invest a lot of time in their local workforce boards.”

The WIOA update would have cut down that red tape.

Increased Funds

But even if community colleges did automatically qualify, Baime said, the funding set aside specifically for training programs is limited, and competition with other providers like for-profit technical institutions and employers is steep.

“In fact, a lot more money for training goes to our students through Pell than through WIOA,” Baime explained.

Since 2020, the Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grant program has provided dedicated funding for training programs at community colleges. Most recently, the Labor Department awarded $65 million to 18 colleges. Through five rounds of funding, more than 200 colleges have received a total $265 million.

But the grant program was never formally authorized. That means there is no mandate requiring Congress to set aside a certain amount of funds each year, and the grant depends entirely on advocacy from specific lawmakers.

The WIOA update would have authorized the grant, providing statutory protection for the funds.

“SCCTG is a really important program for us. The program relies upon a tested model of community colleges working directly with businesses, in coordination with the federal workforce system. It’s not funded at the level we would like, but it reflects an appropriate prioritization of the role that community colleges play in job training,” Baime said.

A few other, less direct funding increases were also lost when the legislation died. For example, one policy would have required 50 percent of all WIOA funds to be spent on training rather than administrative fees, leading local workforce boards to invest more in contracts with outside providers.

Another would have specified that historically broad H1-B grants, which use the revenue from skills-based visas to train American workers, must be used to upskill individuals forced out of their current roles by innovations like AI. Workers would have received up to $5,000 through that change.

“We think a voucher that size may be an attractive inducement for dislocated workers to receive training at community colleges,” Baime said.

Future Vulnerability

Finally, for community colleges, a key concern is how the incoming Congress and Trump administration will approach WIOA, especially now that legislation has failed.

Republicans in Congress have made it clear they want to “substantially reduce funding,” so Baime fears that WIOA funding of all types could face serious cuts.

The SCCTG, for example, which has historically been advocated for by Democrats, may no longer get a budget line at all.

“The importance of workforce education is appreciated by lawmakers across the Hill,” he explained. “But we certainly would have rather gotten that bipartisan, bicameral demonstration of support by being part of this bill and enacted into statute going into the [fiscal year 2026] appropriations process.”

Source link

January 7, 2025