Blog

  • Ten Education Issues to Watch at the Start of the School Year – The 74

    Ten Education Issues to Watch at the Start of the School Year – The 74


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

    One big budget bill and 181 executive orders into the Trump administration, one thing is clear for those of us checking our crystal balls ahead of the school year.

    There is a big difference between policy change aligned to winning an election and disruption for the sake of chaos.

    The three-sentence email sent on June 30 that froze billions of dollars of funding across the education continuum in Republican and Democratic counties around the country the night before the funding was anticipated begs the overarching question facing those working in education:

    To state the obvious, the review of the federal funding could have been announced and conducted ahead of the date funds are normally made available, and the disruption could have been minimized.

    Instead, leaders on the right and the left had to write letters, file lawsuits, and respond to panicking constituents to move money Congress had already approved to be spent.

    “The education formula funding included in the FY2025 Continuing Resolution Act supports critical programs that so many rely on. The programs are ones that enjoy longstanding, bipartisan support,” said Republican U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito from West Virginia.

    Many leaders on both sides of the aisle, including Superintendent Mo Green, a Democrat, are hoping for “a return to the predictable, reliable federal partnership that our schools need to serve students effectively.”

    That remains aspirational as the federal Department of Education begins to be dismantled, more responsibility is handed off to states, and local and state education agencies have to find ways to work with multiple federal agencies moving forward.

    Recently at the summer convening of the National Governors Association, when Colorado Gov. Jared Polis asked U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon for clearer communication, she said, “No guarantees from me that we’ll eliminate all the communication gaps that do happen.”

    Our top 10 issues are not the ones featuring most prominently in the news cycle right now.

    DEI continues to be in the news, and in case you missed it, over the summer EdNC published perspectives on DEI by a policymaker, a former superintendent, and an educator.

    Cellphones and AI in classrooms also continue to be highlighted in the media.

    And we know there are many, many other issues you care about, including WNC recovery, literacy, youth wellbeing, learning differences, community schools, school safety, vaccines and school health, school performance and the portfolio model, LGBTQ+ youth, the health of teacher and principal pipelines, STEM, arts and education, and more.

    As we head back to school, the EdNC team will continue to cover all of those issues, but here are the top 10 issues we think will frame this school year.

    Access to education, opportunity, and the American dream

    1. Access to education for immigrants without legal status

    For more than 40 years, students without legal status to be in the country have been allowed to attend public schools free of charge in districts across the United States, and over time that has included access to early education and postsecondary opportunities.

    Federal case law cites reasons for this decision, including:

    • Not wanting to penalize children for their presence in the country;
    • Recognizing that many students will remain in the country, some becoming lawful residents or citizens;
    • Not perpetuating “a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime;” and
    • Concluding that “whatever savings might be achieved by denying these children an education, they are wholly insubstantial in light of the costs involved to these children, the State, and the Nation.”

    The 74 recently reported, “From cradle to career, President Donald Trump has launched a comprehensive campaign to close off education to undocumented immigrants, undercutting, advocates say, the very reason many came to the United States: for a chance at a better life.”

    Immigrants without legal status have had access to Head Start since a 1998 interpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).

    “Head Start is the federally funded, comprehensive preschool program designed to meet the emotional, social, health, nutritional, and psychological needs of children aged 3 to 5 and their families,” according to the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

    “The Early Head Start program — established in 1994 — is the companion program created to address the same needs of children birth to age 3, expectant mothers, and their families,” says the DHHS website.

    On July 10, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said via press release, “Head Start is reserved for American citizens from now on.”

    “For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    The policy shift, says the release, aligns with “recent Executive Orders by President Trump, including Executive Order 14218 of February 19, 2025, ‘Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,’ prioritizing legal compliance and the protection of public benefits for eligible Americans.”

    An HHS impact analysis finds, “These figures point to approximately 500,000 children under the age of 5 in poverty who have an unauthorized parent or are unauthorized themselves. Combining this estimate with an estimate that Head Start programs serve approximately 26% of the potentially eligible population, we anticipate that approximately 115,000 Head Start children and families could be impacted, or about 16% of total cumulative enrollment in Head Start programs in FY 2024.”

    Also on July 10, “The U.S. Department of Education today announced it will end taxpayer subsidization of illegal aliens in career, technical, and adult education programs.”

    The department says that postsecondary education programs — “including adult education programs authorized under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, postsecondary career and technical education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, and other programs when used to fund postsecondary learning opportunities” — also constitute “federal public benefits” subject to citizenship verification requirements.

    “This policy shift threatens to undermine community development, workforce readiness, and economic mobility across the nation,” says a statement issued by The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, an alliance of American college and university leaders. “Many of the named programs are a central component of the nation’s community colleges and provide access for continuing and returning adult learners.”

    In 1988 — after the U.S. Supreme Court decision that safeguarded access to K-12 but before the 1996 law that expanded access beyond elementary and secondary education — Dallas Herring, beloved and known as the father of North Carolina’s community college system, wrote, “The twentieth century, by every standard of assessment, in the long view of history, must be considered one of the most remarkable in the experience of mankind. It is especially significant in education, for the opportunity to study and to learn has been extended during these times to almost all of the people everywhere in America. Total education is becoming a possibility as the people respond to the challenge of universal opportunity in education. The door, at last, is open.”

    Herring also wrote — as the dawn of not just a new century approached but of a new millennium — that “it was clear that the open door is not enough.”

    As the open door begins to close, Herring reminds us what is at stake. “Education of the masses of humanity, not only as economic beings, but especially as human beings, will be essential to the achievement of peace and prosperity,” he wrote.

    Data from the Census Bureau population estimates indicate that the nation’s population growth rate in 2023-24 was driven mostly by immigration.

    Twenty states and the District of Columbia have filed suit. North Carolina is not one of the 20.

    2. Pathways to work are more important than ever

    It is almost impossible these days to have a conversation about community colleges, postsecondary access, or attainment without the word pathways coming up.

    Sometimes leaders are talking about “guided pathways,” which is a college-wide approach to student success. Nationally, that work had been shifting from an outcomes approach to an access approach.

    A much anticipated book to be published by Harvard Education Press in August, “More Essential Than Ever: Community College Pathways to Educational and Career Success,” promises guidance for college leaders and state policymakers.

    The cliff notes, according to the authors: “Community colleges today will need to make concerted efforts to strengthen pathways to post-completion success in employment and further education and thus ensure that students’ investment of effort, time, and money pays off.”

    “Seamless pathways” often refer to agreements between community college and four-year colleges and universities that improve transfer and graduation rates by improving the student experience.

    In 24 states, more than 200 community colleges now offer four-year degrees. North Carolina is not one of them, and a recent essay says, “The debate over who and where bachelor’s degrees should be offered is too often driven by institutional priorities and policies set in the past…. Community colleges can play a central role in helping graduates achieve a bachelor’s degree. States and all colleges should support these low-cost, high-value degree pathways.”

    But, both across the nation and our state, it is the pathways for students to enlist, enroll, or employ so they have access to a family-sustaining living wage that is the focus for many leaders, organizations, and initiatives.

    And, in North Carolina, it is these pathways that are critically important to the state’s attainment goal.

    Citing the 4.6 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who are neither enrolled in school nor working a job, the National Governors Association (NGA) is focusing this year on getting students ready for jobs.

    In partnership with NGA, America Achieves recently launched its Good Jobs Economy initiative, designed to “build a prosperous, competitive nation where everyone has clear pathways to good jobs, employers access the talent they need, and Americans at large scale can reach and stay in the middle class.”

    Lumina Foundation recently announced a new initiative called “FutureReady States” with the goal of increasing access to education and credential training that “pays off in the labor market.”

    StriveTogether — a national network with the goal of having 4 million more youth in the United States on a path to economic opportunity by 2030 — has an impact fund that identifies opportunities to improve the experiences of students in high school to set them on a path to college and careers.

    Much of this leadership at both the national and state level focuses on different experiences that expedite that pathway for students who want to go from high school or community college graduation straight into the workforce.

    It is in this work where terms like work-based learning, apprenticeships, internships, co-ops, and credentials of value; approaches like graduation from high school in three years; and innovative initiatives like SparkNC and the NC Works website come in.

    In keeping with this trend, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is implementing a new approach to measuring success through its Survey of Community College Outcomes, “which broadens the definition of community college student success to include not only degree attainment, but also attainment of shorter-term credentials, such as certificates or industry licensures, successful transfer to a four-year institution, or persistence in enrollment beyond four years.”

    According to a press release from the N.C. Community College System, beginning in July 2026, the new Workforce Pell Grant program will allow eligible students to use federal financial aid for short-term, high-quality training programs — some as short as eight weeks depending on instructional hours and program design. These programs lead directly to jobs in high-demand fields like health care, engineering and advanced manufacturing, trades and transportation, and information technology, says the release.

    “This is a major step forward in making higher education more accessible and responsive to today’s workforce needs,” said Jeff Cox, president of the system.

    With a community college system that is 58 strong; a nationally watched model for funding community colleges called Propel; Boost, North Carolina’s accelerated college to career program; and a system whose leadership is in transition again, all eyes are on North Carolina.

    3. Exposing middle school students to college

    A May 2025 headline in the Associated Press asks, “Can middle schoolers handle college?”

    When students at Valle Crucis School (VCS) were displaced after Hurricane Helene, Caldwell Community College & Technical Institute stepped up to host Principal Bonnie Smith, her team, and 120 sixth through eighth grade students on the community college’s campus in Watauga County.

    President Mark Poarch said the middle school students were exposed through the experience to many positives and had the opportunity to learn more about college programs and how they connect to industries.

    “I think there are a lot of silver linings in having them on a college campus,” said Poarch. So many that the community college’s foundation guaranteed a scholarship for all current VCS middle school students.

    “It has brought new energy and new life to this campus unlike anything we’ve ever seen before,” said Poarch.

    In Haywood County, another model for exposing middle school students to college will launch in 2026-27.

    The innovative new middle school, developed in partnership with Haywood Community College, will be academically rigorous and led by Lori Fox, the principal of Haywood Early College. Under her leadership, the early college is among the best in the nation and an Apple Distinguished School.

    California has been leading the way with exposing middle school students to college, and the state is now pushing to create access for more students — not just high achievers. In that state, middle school students may enroll in one community college course each semester free of charge.

    Recent legislation back here in North Carolina requires all middle and high school students in public schools to have career development plans.

    And a recent report using North Carolina data explores a new measure of school quality called “high school readiness.”

    “As the name suggests, the basic idea is to capture how well a middle school prepares its students for the next stage of their education by quantifying its effects on high school grades — or to be more precise, ninth-grade grade-point averages,” says this article about the report.

    4. Local, state, and philanthropic funding for the safety net for students and families

    The different types of investments in pathways all share in common academic and/or social support for students.

    The expensive and expansive budget bill recently passed by Congress cuts through the federal safety net that many in North Carolina and across the nation rely on, placing more of the responsibility on local and state governments.

    An estimated 520,000 North Carolinians could lose their health insurance, according to this press release.

    “When we think about Medicaid, we typically think about health insurance,” says an article published in Forbes about the impact of the policy change on schools. “But Medicaid is also among the largest funding sources for K–12 public schools, providing an estimated $7.5 billion annually to pay for essential services for student learning and development.”

    Note that the above data is district data prior to Medicaid expansion in North Carolina.

    Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are “equally serious,” says Gov. Josh Stein. As many as 1.4 million North Carolinians — including 600,000 children — could lose food assistance. EdNC previously reported the impact of cuts to SNAP by county in North Carolina.

    According to reporting by the News & Observer, Stein also said, “the state has to be exceptionally conservative fiscally, meaning that we have to preserve the revenue sources we have to so that we can deal with issues like feeding hungry children, or ensuring that our health care system works for everybody.”

    Some counties are waiting to see how the state responds before they consider how to address the gap in federal support. Others counties, like Jackson County, are moving ahead with funding free schools meals for all for the school year.

    The advocacy of coalitions like School Meals for All NC has never been more important at every level of government.

    School choice and the funding of public education

    5. Wordsmithing school choice: Choice vs. fit, uniform vs. plural, quality vs. accountability, and the impact of churn

    Choice in the context of “school choice” is a political term. It’s not how parents talk or think. All over the world, parents use the word “fit” to describe how they select a school for their child.

    And fit is different for different parents. For some, it is about the teacher or the principal. For others, it is about attending school with kids from the neighborhood. For many, it is has to do with the type of educational experience the school provides.

    Public schools continue to provide more opportunities for fit than any other educational sector.

    In North Carolina, there are 115 school districts and 2,700 schools, including 208 charters, seven lab schools, three residential schools, and one regional school. Public schools offer an abundance of fit through the following types of school options: year-round, magnet, language immersion, single-sex, early college, career academies, virtual academies, community schools, alternative schools, and more.

    Check out how Buncombe County Schools is explaining why parents should choose public schools.

    EdNC continues to cover the inter-relationship of those two terms, and the choices parents are actually making to find the right fit for their students.

    We monitor enrollment across public schools, private schools, and homeschools. So far, even with school choice expansion fully funded, public school market share is holding steady at 84% — that’s 1,538,563 students.

    We track the data on private school vouchers, called Opportunity Scholarships in North Carolina. So far, since school choice expansion, it is estimated that more than 90% of the new applicants for vouchers were already attending private school.

    The data will be important moving forward in understanding parent choice and student fit, but there are broader trends to be aware of.

    In North Carolina, our state constitution mandates a “general and uniform system of free public schools.” In democracies around the world, according to the leading research on educational pluralism conducted by Ashley Rogers Berner at the John Hopkins School of Education, uniform isn’t the north star and states don’t exclusively deliver education. But where other countries build choice into their systems, they also build in quality control.

    Quality, not accountability, is the word of choice.

    The legislature has charged the recently established Office of Learning Research — led by Jeni Corn and part of the Collaboratory at UNC — to recommend a nationally standardized test for use in third and eighth grade by private and public schools for 2026-27. For more information, see section 3J.23 of this bill.

    A necessary first step, that in and of itself does not guarantee quality or accountability. EdNC joined a delegation from California that was in Boston looking at how the public schools there have more comprehensively partnered with religious schools, including in the areas of testing, professional development, and curriculum.

    Berner talks about why school choice isn’t enough, and why academic content needs to change and expectations need to increase regardless of setting.

    “To be blunt, a libertarian, let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom approach,” she says, is unlikely to move important data points at scale. She has interesting things to say about curriculum — think of the big bet Jackson County made on the Wit & Wisdom curriculum under the leadership of Superintendent Dana Ayers.

    Because fit matters to parents, with school choice comes more “churn,” sometimes also called “swirl.”

    “There are real, tangible impacts on a students’ learning and wellbeing at every churn — especially mid-year,” says a recent article titled, “School choice is great, but the churn it allows comes at a cost.” Researchers are calling for educational navigators, formal transfer windows, and better, more accessible information about schools for parents making the decisions.

    Ray Gronberg with the NC Tribune first reported on how the race between Phil Berger and Sam Page will feature key differences in school choice between Republican candidates.

    Berger favors what he calls “universal school choice.”

    Page’s website says he believes school “vouchers should be targeted to families who need them most.” That means, writes Gronberg, “income caps on school voucher eligibility to help working families, not the wealthy” and “policies to prevent private schools from inflating tuition due to vouchers.”

    6. The relationship between education spending and teacher pay

    Page also favors “raising teacher starting pay to $50,000 to keep North Carolina competitive,” which brings us to the relationship between education spending and teacher pay.

    As the wait for the Leandro decision on school funding continues, given the changes at the federal level and the impact of Hurricane Helene, there is going to be even more pressure on state appropriations for education unless and until Republicans come to a different meeting of the minds on tax policy.

    The N.C. Department of Public Instruction’s “Highlights” is our go-to source for information on education funding and budgets. North Carolina spent about $12.6 billion on public education in 2024-25, and almost 60% of that goes to instructional personnel and related services.

    Nationally, studies find that school spending is up, but teacher salaries are not.

    In 2024, the libertarian Reason Foundation published this report that found inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending had risen across the country — in every state except North Carolina. “North Carolina’s inflation-adjusted education revenue grew from $10,806 per student in 2002 to $10,790 per student in 2020, a −0.1% growth rate that ranked 50th in the U.S.,” says the report.

    Meanwhile, writes Chad Aldeman, an education analyst, “pay for other college-educated workers has risen steadily, leaving teachers behind.”

    One consequence is that teachers are increasingly being priced out of housing in their district, finds Aldeman, citing research by the National Council on Teacher Quality.

    BEST NC has advocated for teacher pay as well as advanced teaching roles that are already leading to higher pay for educators. Leah Sutton, who used to work for BEST NC, now leads the advanced teaching roles program for DPI.

    The Public School Forum of North Carolina has been convening a working group to study a weighted-student funding formula. While that organization’s leadership is in transition, the work is ongoing, led by Lauren Fox and Elizabeth Paul. A recent grant from the Kellogg Foundation — in addition to other funding — will support the study moving forward with the working group next scheduled to meet in September.

    The support of legislators continues to be important.

    In 2023, Senators Michael Lee, Amy Galey, and Lisa Barnes sponsored a bill that would convert North Carolina’s funding formula to a weighted student funding (WSF) model. In early 2025, Lee led a discussion about school funding at the Hunt Institute’s Holshouser Retreat.

    “This is an incredibly important issue for education in North Carolina,” Lee said to his fellow legislators. “We have to move forward to get something done, and that will require us to work in a bipartisan way with Superintendent Green and the governor.”

    Nationally, 41 states use student-based funding in their formula, and in some Republican states, more than $1 billion has been invested in the shift.

    This issue is not new: One of WestEd’s supporting reports in the Leandro case addressed cost adequacy, distribution, and alignment of funding. It’s more than five years old now, but you can find it here.

    7. The health of district fund balances

    The Local Government Commission — a commission within the state treasurer’s office — annually collects fund balance data for North Carolina’s 115 school districts. In an email to EdNC from the LGC back in 2020, fund balances were described as “a savings account that schools can use” if they have unanticipated expenses or opportunities.

    In Durham County Public Schools and Winston-Salem/Forsyth Public Schools, fund balances have been in the news as districts cope with accounting errors, highlighting the important of the CFO role.

    In western North Carolina, fund balances have been in the news as school districts rely on them to make ends meet given the decline in local revenue from the loss of tourism.

    An interesting realization emerging from Hurricane Helene is that community colleges don’t have fund balances — which is a different problem.

    Last year, EdNC published a 10-year look at fund balances for school districts.

    Here is updated data through June 30, 2024, which is before both the Sept. 30, 2024 end of federal funding for COVID and Hurricane Helene. We are anxiously waiting to see the hit on fund balances that we anticipate in the June 30, 2025 data, which will likely be ready in early 2026.

    The state of messaging and advocacy

    In these polarized, politicized times, both messaging and advocacy are changing across party lines.

    When school choice expansion was announced in spring 2023, then-Gov. Roy Cooper reacted by declaring a state of emergency for public education. By January, he had iterated his language, declaring 2024 the year of public schools. He visited more than 60 child care centers, schools, community colleges, and businesses to highlight public education statewide.

    The N.C. School Boards Association launched this “public education matters” website.

    Higher Ed Works changed its name to Public Ed Works and launched a billboard campaign for teacher pay.

    Parents for Educational Freedom in NC (PEFNC) recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, including a fireside chat with Secretary McMahon. Their website links to this school choice website to help parents navigate, and PEFNC now has a team of 13 parent liaisons, including some who speak Spanish.

    Charter schools are having to navigate being both public schools and part of the school choice movement.

    A poll by The Carolina Journal in January 2025 found that 55.2% of those surveyed were dissatisfied with the quality of K-12 education students receive in local public schools, and it also found that 56.8% of those surveyed were comfortable sending their students to local public schools.

    Now draft pillars of Superintendent Mo Green’s strategic plan will include “Celebrate Why Public Education is the Best Choice” and “Galvanize Champions to Fully Invest In and Support Public Education.”

    What’s the right mix of messaging, advocacy, and lobbying across all lines of difference to ensure adequate funding and continuous improvement at all schools for all students?

    Sen. Kevin Corbin, R-Macon, tells constituents, “I can promise you what you won’t get. You won’t get things you don’t ask for.”

    Cross-partisan strategies addressing the following key elements continue to hold promise at the local, state, and federal level, according to the Aspen Institute:

    • Challenges and solutions must be easy to communicate and appeal to a broad base,
    • Solutions are responsive to local context and garner local support,
    • Parents, teachers, the business community, or politicians in higher office are willing to provide political cover for policymakers,
    • Both sides can walk away claiming a win — even if each side’s “win” is different, and
    • Using the media as an accelerant.

    This year, we are paying close attention to how three important constituencies talk to the public and talk to policymakers: educators, business leaders, and parents.

    8. From grass roots to grass tops, educators are finding different ways to lean in

    Here are some examples of how educators at the local and state level are finding different ways to lean in to advocate with both the public and policymakers.

    On Aug. 20, 2025, North Carolina’s educator-in-chief, Superintendent Green, will launch his strategic plan for public education, including community members, leaders, parents, and educators.

    The North Carolina Principal of the Year Network is dedicated to showcasing the exemplary work occurring within North Carolina’s public schools, fostering a culture of excellence, and advocating for the advancement of school leaders and public education across the state. Their strategy is working: They have a new website, host regional trainings, and POY Elena Ashburn is now senior advisor for education policy to Gov. Stein.

    In early 2024, the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE) released a strategic plan whose first priority is “Grow Our Union.” The organization’s goal is to have 30,000 members by 2030.

    A principal in Madison County is circulating a proposal for teacher-storytellers to help us “better understand the state of every school system in WNC and eventually the state.”

    9. Will business leaders come together and align on issues that matter?

    When I was growing up, it seemed to me like business leaders — think Hugh McColl, Eddie Crutchfield, Rolfe Neill — had a bat line to both the governor and legislative leadership.

    At the young age of 90, McColl recently said if he worries about something, it is about education.

    The NC Chamber plays a critical role in education and workforce advocacy.

    BEST NC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition of business leaders committed to improving the education system through policy and advocacy.

    The North Carolina Business Committee for Education (NCBCE) — a nonprofit that operates out of the office of the governor — works to make the critical connection between North Carolina employers and school districts through work-based learning.

    The Public School Forum of North Carolina hosted a summit and continues to convene and inform business executives about the future of public education.

    Nationally, the Business Roundtable is an association of more than 200 CEOs. Jim Goodnight, their website says, “spearheaded the creation of a national Business Roundtable report calling on business leaders to support and advocate for efforts to improve early learning and third-grade reading proficiency. In North Carolina, he rallied a group of CEOs to the cause.”

    What if these leaders and organizations worked together, stood together more?

    An example exists in philanthropy. Invest Early NC is an early childhood funders collaborative focused on outcomes for children and families prenatal to age 8 so children are healthy, safe, nurtured, learning, and ready to succeed by the end of third grade. The collaborative has adopted a bipartisan approach with public-private partnerships, lifting community voice to inform decision-making. The collaborative has staff, conducted a statewide landscape analysis, collectively weighs in on issues, and is now beginning to develop a 10-year plan.

    This state loves being #1 for business. Longer term, we need to strive to be #1 for students and workers for that trend to hold.

    10. This era for parent rights is complicated for students

    No doubt we are living in a political era that values parents’ rights.

    “Parents are the most natural protectors of their children. Yet many states and school districts have enacted policies that imply students need protection from their parents,” said Secretary McMahon. “These states and school districts have turned the concept of privacy on its head –prioritizing the privileges of government officials over the rights of parents and wellbeing of families. Going forward, the correct application of FERPA will be to empower all parents to protect their children from the radical ideologies that have taken over many schools.”

    For students, it’s more complicated than the politics.

    Schooling is compulsory in North Carolina, and teachers stand in loco parentis, or in the place of parents, for the 1,025 hours that children are in our public classrooms each year.

    But our students spend the other 7,735 hours of their year outside the classroom and the school.

    In data from 2015-23, you can see that one in 100 children in North Carolina now experience substantiated abuse or neglect by their parents, guardians, or caretakers.

    And, in 2024, North Carolina’s chronic absenteeism rate was 25%, up from 15% in 2018.

    The Hechinger Report finds, “Absenteeism cuts across economic lines. Students from both low- and high-income families are often absent as are high-achieving students.”

    North Carolina law urges and requires consideration of what is in the best interests of the child, prioritizing child wellbeing, safety, and development.

    Ensuring their best interests has historically required a comprehensive approach across all settings where they spend time — home, school, faith, and community — with teachers, parents, ministers, and community leaders all serving as checks on each other.

    This article first appeared on EdNC and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


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

    Source link

  • The PIEoneer Awards 2025: winners revealed

    The PIEoneer Awards 2025: winners revealed

    Winners across 21 categories were announced at a glamorous gala hosted at the historic Guildhall in London, with many more entrants recognised as highly commended for their outstanding achievements and contributions to global education over the past year.

    “It feels as though the quality of The PIEoneer Award entries improves every year, and 2025 has been no exception,” commented The PIE’s editor, Beth Kennedy.

    A distinguished judging panel – representing a wide range of expertise and international backgrounds – sought out individuals and organisations redefining excellence and driving progress in global education.

    “We, and our panel of judges, were truly blown away by this year’s finalists. It’s been another challenging year for the international education sector, but their hard work, innovation and drive to make life better for international students has been truly inspiring – a sign that our community is set to thrive for many years to come,” continued Kennedy.

    In keeping with its commitment to sustainability, The PIE once again rolled out the green carpet, encouraging attendees to wear pre-loved outfits and showcase eco-friendly glamour.

    This year, the Sustainability international impact award went to the International Education Sustainability Group (IESG) with QS Quacquarelli Symonds and the University of Exeter highly commended for their Future17 SDG Challenge.

    The coveted PIEoneer of the year award recognised EasyTransfer for its efforts in simplifying global tuition payments for over 800,000 students in
    more than 170 countries.

    Each year, The PIE recognises an individual for their Outstanding contribution to the industry and this year Keith Segal, president and CEO at Guard.me, was recognised for his work in international education over the last three decades.

    It’s been another challenging year for the international education sector, but their hard work, innovation and drive to make life better for international students has been truly inspiring
    Beth Kennedy, The PIE

    The full list of winners and highly commended for the 2024 PIEoneer Awards are:

    • Business school of the year: UC Business School, New Zealand
      Highly commended: Leicester Castle Business School (LCBS), De Montfort University, United Kingdom
    • Championing diversity, equity and inclusion award: Jusoor, Global
      Highly commended: Edward Consulting, Nigeria
    • Digital innovation of the year – learning: Seenaryo, United Kingdom
      Highly commended: My Speaking Score – Real-Time TOEFL® Speaking Insights, Canada
    • Digital innovation of the year – student recruitment: VisaMonk – AI Powered Visa Interview Prep Platform, India
      Highly commended: Platty – Innovative Online Government Student Management Platform, Australia & Gyanberry – AI Powered Medical Admissions Platform, United Arab Emirates
    • Emerging leader of the year: Bimpe Femi-Oyewo, Nigeria
      Highly commended: Ricardo Tavares, United Kingdom
    • Employability international impact award: Virtual Internships, United Kingdom
      Highly commended: Wayble, Canada & PeopleCert / PeopleCert Accredited Academic Partner Program, United Kingdom
    • Excellence in data and insight: Beyond enrolment: Tracking international graduate outcome data, Netherlands
      Highly commended: Voyage’s Social Source, Australia
    • International alum of the year: Adityakumar Shrimali, India, London College of Fashion, University of the Arts, London and International Students House, London, United Kingdom
      Highly commended: Chenai Dunduru, Zimbabwe, Torrens University, Australia
    • International student recruitment organisation of the year: Keystone Education Group, Global
      Highly commended: NCUK, United Kingdom
    • Language training provider of the year: Discover English, Australia
      Highly commended: International House Yangon-Mandalay, Myanmar
    • Marketing campaign of the year: FPT University, Vietnam, STEM education in the age AI
      Highly commended: Queen’s University Belfast & PingPong Digital, United Kingdom, Bridging Research & Reputation: Queen’s Inspiring Experts Campaign in China
    • Membership organisation of the year: AIRC: The Association of International Enrollment Management, United States
      Highly commended: AIEA, United States
    • Outstanding contribution to the industry: Keith Segal, Guard.me, Canada
    • PIEoneer of the year: EasyTransfer, United Kingdom
      Highly commended: Global Seal of Biliteracy, United States
    • Progressive education delivery award: Kruu Edutech Private Limited, India & Global Cities, Inc., a Program of Bloomberg Philanthropies, United States
      Highly commended: Real Madrid Global Sports Management, Summer Discovery, United States
    • Public / Private partnership of the year: ISDC, Jain University, GOAL Guyana and SQA, ISDC, United Kingdom, GOAL – Guyana Online Academy of Learning, Guyana
      Highly commended: International student higher education recruitment, marketing and admissions support, Kaplan International, United Kingdom, Arizona State University, United States & University of Greenwich and Studiosity – A multi-year partnership, Studiosity, United Kingdom, University of Greenwich, United Kingdom
    • Secondary school international innovation: USAP Community School, Zimbabwe
      Highly commended: German European School Singapore (GESS), Singapore
    • Student support award: IES Abroad, United States
      Highly commended: KI Student Grief Network and Mindfulness-based Resilience, United Kingdom & Shorelight – The Shorelight Center for Academic Success (CAS), United States
    • Study abroad and exchange experience of the year: Coventry University Immersive Telepresence In Theatre (Romeo and Juliet Online), United Kingdom
      Highly commended: Think Pacific, United Kingdom
    • Sustainability international impact award: International Education Sustainability Group (IESG), Global
      Highly commended: Future17 SDG Challenge by QS Quacquarelli Symonds and the University of Exeter, Global
    • The Charlene Allen award for inspirational leadership: Kris Holloway, United States & Sonya Singh, India
      Highly commended: Miri Firth, United Kingdom

    The PIEoneer Awards will return to the Guildhall in September 2026 for its 10th anniversary.

    Source link

  • Pause for REFlection: Time to review the role of generative AI in REF2029

    Pause for REFlection: Time to review the role of generative AI in REF2029

    Author:
    Nick Hillman

    Published:

    • This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Richard Watermeyer (Professor of Higher Education and Co-Director of the Centre for Higher Education at the University of Bristol), Tom Crick (Professor of Digital Policy at Swansea University) and Lawrie Phipps (Professor of Digital Leadership at the University of Chester and Senior Research Lead at Jisc).
    • On Tuesday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment will be hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a webinar on students’ cost of living with TechnologyOne – for more information on booking a free place, see here.

    For as long as there has been national research assessment exercises (REF, RAE or otherwise), there have been efforts to improve the way with which research is evaluated and Quality Related (QR) research funding consequently distributed. Where REF2014 stands out for its introduction of impact as a measure of what counts as research excellence, for REF2029, it has been all about research culture. Though where impact has become an integral dimension of the REF, the installation of research culture (into a far weightier environment or as has been proposed People, Culture and Environment (PCE) statement) as a criterion of excellence appears far less assured, especially when set against a three-month extension to REF2029 plans. 

    A temporary pause on proceedings has been announced by Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s Minister for Science, as a means to ensure that the REF provides ‘a credible assessment of quality’. The corollary of such is that the hitherto proposed formula (many parts of which remain formally undeclared – much to the frustration of universities’ REF personnel and indeed researchers) is not quite fit for purpose, and certainly not so if the REF is to ‘support the government’s economic and social missions’. Thus, it may transpire that research culture is ultimately downplayed or omitted from the REF. For some, this volte face, if it materialises, may be greeted with relief; a pragmatic step-back from the jaws of an accountability regime that has become excessively complex, costly and inefficient (if not even estranged from the core business of evaluating and then funding so-called ‘excellent’ research) and despite proclamations at the conclusion of its every instalment, that next time it will be less burdensome.   

    While the potential backtrack on research culture and potential abandonment of PCE statements will be focused on to explain the REF’s most recent hiatus, these may be only cameos to discussion of its wider credibility and utility; a discussion which appears to be reaching apotheosis, not least given the financial difficulties endemic to the UK sector, which the REF, with its substantial cost, is counted as further exacerbating. Moreover, as we are finding in our current research, the REF may have entered a period not limited to incremental reform and tinkering at the edges but wholesale revision; and this as a consequence of higher education’s seemingly unstoppable colonisation by artificial intelligence. 

    With recent funding from Research England, we have undertaken to consult with research leaders and specialist REF personnel embedded across 17 UK HEIs – including large, research-intensive institutions and those historically with a more modest REF footprint, to gain an understanding of existing views of and practices in the adoption of generative AI tools for REF purposes. While our study has thrown up multiple views as to the utility and efficacy of using generative AI tools for REF purposes, it has nonetheless revealed broad consensus that the REF will inevitably become more AI-infused and enabled, if not ultimately, if it is to survive, entirely automated. The use of generative AI for purposes of narrative generation, evidence reconnaissance, and scoring of core REF components (research outputs and impact case studies) have all been mooted as potential applications with significant cost and labour-saving affordances and applications which might also get closer to ongoing, real-time assessments of research quality, unrestricted to seven-year assessment cycles. Yet the use of generative AI has also been (often strongly) cautioned against for the myriad ways with which it is implicated and engendered with bias and inaccuracy (as a ‘black box’ tool) and can itself be gamed in multiple ways, for instance in ‘adversarial white text’. This is coupled with wider ongoing scientific and technical considerations regarding transparency, provenance and reproducibility. Some even interpret its use as antithetical to the terms of responsible research evaluation set out by collectives like CoARA and COPE.

    Notwithstanding, such various objections, we are witnessing these tools being used extensively (if in many settings tacitly and tentatively) by academics and professional services staff involved in REF preparations. We are also being presented with a view that the use of GenAI tools by REF panels in four years’ time is a fait accompli, especially given the speed by which the tools are being innovated. It may even be that GenAI tools could be purposed in ways that circumvent the challenges of human judgement, the current pause intimates, in the evaluation of research culture. Moreover, if the credibility and integrity of the REF ultimately rests in its capacity to demonstrate excellence via alignment with Government missions (particularly ‘R&D for growth’), then we are already seeing evidence of how AI technologies can achieve this.

    While arguments have been previously made that the REF offers good value for (public) money, the immediate joint contexts of severe financial hardship for the sector; ambivalence as to the organisational credibility of the REF as currently proposed; and the attractiveness of AI solutions may produce a new calculation. This is a calculation, however, which the sector must own, and transparently and honestly. It should not be wholly outsourced, and especially not to one of a small number of dominant technology vendors. A period of review must attend not only to the constituent parts of the REF but how these are actioned and responded to. A guidebook for GenAI use in the REF is exigent and this must place consistent practice at its heart. The current and likely escalating impact of Generative AI on the REF cannot be overlooked if it is to be claimed as a credible assessment of quality. The question then remains: is three months enough? 

    Notes

    • The REF-AI study is due to report in January 2026. It is a research collaboration between the universities of Bristol and Swansea and Jisc.
    • With generous thanks to Professor Huw Morris (UCL IoE) for his input into earlier drafts of this article.

    Source link

  • If we are going to build AI literacy into every level of learning, we must be able to measure it

    If we are going to build AI literacy into every level of learning, we must be able to measure it

    Everywhere you look, someone is telling students and workers to “learn AI.” 

    It’s become the go-to advice for staying employable, relevant and prepared for the future. But here’s the problem: While definitions of artificial intelligence literacy are starting to emerge, we still lack a consistent, measurable framework to know whether someone is truly ready to use AI effectively and responsibly. 

    And that is becoming a serious issue for education and workforce systems already being reshaped by AI. Schools and colleges are redesigning their entire curriculums. Companies are rewriting job descriptions. States are launching AI-focused initiatives.  

    Yet we’re missing a foundational step: agreeing not only on what we mean by AI literacy, but on how we assess it in practice. 

    Two major recent developments underscore why this step matters, and why it is important that we find a way to take it before urging students to use AI. First, the U.S. Department of Education released its proposed priorities for advancing AI in education, guidance that will ultimately shape how federal grants will support K-12 and higher education. For the first time, we now have a proposed federal definition of AI literacy: the technical knowledge, durable skills and future-ready attitudes required to thrive in a world influenced by AI. Such literacy will enable learners to engage and create with, manage and design AI, while critically evaluating its benefits, risks and implications. 

    Second, we now have the White House’s American AI Action Plan, a broader national strategy aimed at strengthening the country’s leadership in artificial intelligence. Education and workforce development are central to the plan. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education. 

    What both efforts share is a recognition that AI is not just a technological shift, it’s a human one. In many ways, the most important AI literacy skills are not about AI itself, but about the human capacities needed to use AI wisely. 

    Sadly, the consequences of shallow AI education are already visible in workplaces. Some 55 percent of managers believe their employees are AI-proficient, while only 43 percent of employees share that confidence, according to the 2025 ETS Human Progress Report.  

    One can say that the same perception gap exists between school administrators and teachers. The disconnect creates risks for organizations and reveals how assumptions about AI literacy can diverge sharply from reality. 

    But if we’re going to build AI literacy into every level of learning, we have to ask the harder question: How do we both determine when someone is truly AI literate and assess it in ways that are fair, useful and scalable? 

    AI literacy may be new, but we don’t have to start from scratch to measure it. We’ve tackled challenges like this before, moving beyond check-the-box tests in digital literacy to capture deeper, real-world skills. Building on those lessons will help define and measure this next evolution of 21st-century skills. 

    Right now, we often treat AI literacy as a binary: You either “have it” or you don’t. But real AI literacy and readiness is more nuanced. It includes understanding how AI works, being able to use it effectively in real-world settings and knowing when to trust it. It includes writing effective prompts, spotting bias, asking hard questions and applying judgment. 

    This isn’t just about teaching coding or issuing a certificate. It’s about making sure that students, educators and workers can collaborate in and navigate a world in which AI is increasingly involved in how we learn, hire, communicate and make decisions.  

    Without a way to measure AI literacy, we can’t identify who needs support. We can’t track progress. And we risk letting a new kind of unfairness take root, in which some communities build real capacity with AI and others are left with shallow exposure and no feedback. 

    Related: To employers, AI skills aren’t just for tech majors anymore 

    What can education leaders do right now to address this issue? I have a few ideas.  

    First, we need a working definition of AI literacy that goes beyond tool usage. The Department of Education’s proposed definition is a good start, combining technical fluency, applied reasoning and ethical awareness.  

    Second, assessments of AI literacy should be integrated into curriculum design. Schools and colleges incorporating AI into coursework need clear definitions of proficiency. TeachAI’s AI Literacy Framework for Primary and Secondary Education is a great resource. 

    Third, AI proficiency must be defined and measured consistently, or we risk a mismatched state of literacy. Without consistent measurements and standards, one district may see AI literacy as just using ChatGPT, while another defines it far more broadly, leaving students unevenly ready for the next generation of jobs. 

    To prepare for an AI-driven future, defining and measuring AI literacy must be a priority. Every student will be graduating into a world in which AI literacy is essential. Human resources leaders confirmed in the 2025 ETS Human Progress Report that the No. 1 skill employers are demanding today is AI literacy. Without measurement, we risk building the future on assumptions, not readiness.  

    And that’s too shaky a foundation for the stakes ahead. 

    Amit Sevak is CEO of ETS, the largest private educational assessment organization in the world. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about AI literacy was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • AI can be a great equalizer, but it remains out of reach for millions of Americans; the Universal Service Fund can expand access

    AI can be a great equalizer, but it remains out of reach for millions of Americans; the Universal Service Fund can expand access

    In an age defined by digital transformation, access to reliable, high-speed internet is not a luxury; it is the bedrock of opportunity. It impacts the school classroom, the doctor’s office, the town square and the job market.

    As we stand on the cusp of a workforce revolution driven by the “arrival technology” of artificial intelligence, high-speed internet access has become the critical determinant of our nation’s economic future. Yet, for millions of Americans, this essential connection remains out of reach.

    This digital divide is a persistent crisis that deepens societal inequities, and we must rally around one of the most effective tools we have to combat it: the Universal Service Fund. The USF is a long-standing national commitment built on a foundation of bipartisan support and born from the principle that every American, regardless of their location or income, deserves access to communications services.

    Without this essential program, over 54 million students, 16,000 healthcare providers and 7.5 million high-need subscribers would lose internet service that connects classrooms, rural communities (including their hospitals) and libraries to the internet.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    The discussion about the future of USF has reached a critical juncture: Which communities will have access to USF, how it will be funded and whether equitable access to connectivity will continue to be a priority will soon be decided.

    Earlier this year, the Supreme Court found the USF’s infrastructure to be constitutional — and a backbone for access and opportunity in this country. Congress recently took a significant next step by relaunching a bicameral, bipartisan working group devoted to overhauling the fund. Now they are actively seeking input from stakeholders on how to best modernize this vital program for the future, and they need our input.

    I’m urging everyone who cares about digital equity to make their voices heard. The window for our input in support of this vital connectivity infrastructure is open through September 15.

    While Universal Service may appear as only a small fee on our monthly phone bills, its impact is monumental. The fund powers critical programs that form a lifeline for our nation’s most vital institutions and vulnerable populations. The USF helps thousands of schools and libraries obtain affordable internet — including the school I founded in downtown Brooklyn. For students in rural towns, the E-Rate program, funded by the USF, allows access to the same online educational resources as those available to students in major cities. In schools all over the country, the USF helps foster digital literacy, supports coding clubs and enables students to complete homework online.

    By wiring our classrooms and libraries, we are investing in the next generation of innovators.

    The coming waves of technological change — including the widespread adoption of AI — threaten to make the digital divide an unbridgeable economic chasm. Those on the wrong side of this divide experienced profound disadvantages during the pandemic. To get connected, students at my school ended up doing homework in fast-food parking lots. Entire communities lost vital connections to knowledge and opportunity when libraries closed.

    But that was just a preview of the digital struggle. This time, we have to fight to protect the future of this investment in our nation’s vital infrastructure to ensure that the rising wave of AI jobs, opportunities and tools is accessible to all.

    AI is rapidly becoming a fundamental tool for the American workforce and in the classroom. AI tools require robust bandwidth to process data, connect to cloud platforms and function effectively.

    The student of tomorrow will rely on AI as a personalized tutor that enhances teacher-led classroom instruction, explains complex concepts and supports their homework. AI will also power the future of work for farmers, mechanics and engineers.

    Related: Getting kids online by making internet affordable

    Without access to AI, entire communities and segments of the workforce will be locked out. We will create a new class of “AI have-nots,” unable to leverage the technology designed to propel our economy forward.

    The ability to participate in this new economy, to upskill and reskill for the jobs of tomorrow, is entirely dependent on the one thing the USF is designed to provide: reliable connectivity.

    The USF is also critical for rural health care by supporting providers’ internet access and making telehealth available in many communities. It makes internet service affordable for low-income households through its Lifeline program and the Connect America Fund, which promotes the construction of broadband infrastructure in rural areas.

    The USF is more than a funding mechanism; it is a statement of our values and a strategic economic necessity. It reflects our collective agreement that a child’s future shouldn’t be limited by their school’s internet connection, that a patient’s health outcome shouldn’t depend on their zip code and that every American worker deserves the ability to harness new technology for their career.

    With Congress actively debating the future of the fund, now is the time to rally. We must engage in this process, call on our policymakers to champion a modernized and sustainably funded USF and recognize it not as a cost, but as an essential investment in a prosperous, competitive and flourishing America.

    Erin Mote is the CEO and founder of InnovateEDU, a nonprofit that aims to catalyze education transformation by bridging gaps in data, policy, practice and research.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about the Universal Service Fund was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Trump’s War on Reality

    Higher Education Inquirer : Trump’s War on Reality

    The second Trump administration has unleashed a coordinated assault on reality itself—an effort that extends far beyond policy disagreements into the realm of deliberate gaslighting. Agency by agency, Trump’s lieutenants are reshaping facts, science, and language to consolidate power. Many of these figures, despite their populist rhetoric, come from elite universities, corporate boardrooms, or dynastic wealth. Their campaign is not just about dismantling government—it’s about erasing the ground truth that ordinary people rely on.

    Department of State → Department of War

    One of the starkest shifts has been renaming the State Department the “Department of War.” This rhetorical change signals the administration’s embrace of permanent conflict as strategy. Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Princeton graduate and former hedge fund executive, embodies the contradiction: Ivy League polish combined with cable-news bravado. Under his watch, diplomacy is downgraded, alliances undermined, and propaganda elevated to policy.

    Department of Defense

    The Pentagon has been retooled into a megaphone for Trump’s narrative that America is perpetually under siege. Despite the promise of “America First,” decisions consistently empower China and Russia by destabilizing traditional alliances. The irony: many of the architects of this policy cut their teeth at elite think tanks funded by the same defense contractors now profiting from chaos.

    Department of Education

    Trump’s appointees have doubled down on dismantling federal oversight, echoing the administration’s hostility to “woke indoctrination.” Yet the leaders spearheading this push often come from private prep schools and elite universities themselves. They know the value of credentialism for their own children, while stripping protections and opportunities from working families.

    Department of Justice

    Justice has been weaponized into a tool of disinformation. Elite law school alumni now run campaigns against “deep state” prosecutors, while simultaneously eroding safeguards against corruption. The result is a justice system where truth is malleable, determined not by evidence but by loyalty.

    Department of Health and Human Services

    Public health has been subsumed into culture war theatrics. Scientific consensus on climate, vaccines, and long-term health research is dismissed as partisan propaganda. Yet many of the leaders driving this narrative hail from institutions like Harvard and Stanford, where they once benefited from cutting-edge science, they now ridicule.

    Environmental Protection Agency

    The EPA has become the Environmental Pollution Agency, rolling back rules while gaslighting the public with claims of “cleaner air than ever.” Appointees often come directly from corporate law firms representing Big Oil and Big Coal, cloaking extractive capitalism in the language of freedom.

    Department of Labor

    Workers are told they are winning even as wages stagnate and union protections collapse. The elites orchestrating this rollback frequently hold MBAs from Wharton or Harvard Business School. They speak the language of “opportunity” while overseeing the erosion of worker rights and benefits.

    Department of Homeland Security

    Reality itself is policed here, where dissent is rebranded as domestic extremism. Elite operatives with ties to intelligence contractors enforce surveillance on ordinary Americans, while elite families enjoy immunity from scrutiny.

    The Elite Architecture of Gaslighting

    What unites these agencies is not just Trump’s directives, but the pedigree of the people carrying them out. Far from being the populist outsiders they claim to be, many hail from Ivy League schools, white-shoe law firms, or Fortune 500 boardrooms. They weaponize their privilege to convince the public that up is down, war is peace and lies are truth.

    The war on reality is not a sideshow—it is the central project of this administration. For elites, it is a way to entrench their power. For the rest of us, it means living in a hall of mirrors where truth is constantly rewritten, and democracy itself hangs in the balance.

    Sources

    • New York Times, Trump’s Cabinet and Their Elite Connections

    • Washington Post, How Trump Loyalists Are Reshaping Federal Agencies

    • Politico, The Ivy League Populists of Trump’s Inner Circle

    • ProPublica, Trump Administration’s Conflicts of Interest

    • Brookings Institution, Trump’s Assault on the Administrative State

    • Center for American Progress, Gaslighting the Public: Trump’s War on Facts

    Source link

  • Sledgehammers, screwdrivers, and primary legislation

    Sledgehammers, screwdrivers, and primary legislation

    There might well be a new Higher Education Bill on the way.

    But it wouldn’t be a grand vision for the future of the sector, or a radical change to the way the government controls it.

    It would be an exercise in tidying up and optimising the rats’ nest of legislation and regulation that currently governs higher education in England. Changes will be minor and focused on efficiency – more a screwdriver than a sledgehammer. This approach was foreshadowed by the Behan review, which recommended that:

    Government and the OfS further consider the legislative powers and tools required to enable the OfS to effectively regulate.

    In this respect it might be similar to higher education related bills in recent years: the 2024 Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, the 2022 Skills and Post-16 Education Act, and the 2023 Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limit) Act were all screwdriver-esque, making changes to existing legislation rather than breaking new ground.

    This will be my testimony

    The last sledgehammer bill was the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act (HERA) – but even laws as long and unwieldy as that have to modify the legislative landscape in order to keep things running smoothly. It made modifications to the 1986 Education (no 2) Act, the 1988 Education Reform Act, the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, the and 2004 Higher Education Act, plus many other minor and consequential amendments to all kinds of other law.

    Some of this is at a surface level – if you create a new organisation like OfS or UKRI you need to change or make references to make sure it can use existing powers or is exempt from existing safeguards. Some of it is deeper and more profound – fee increases were made under the powers in the 2004 Act until these were repealed in 2018 by secondary legislation linked to HERA. And, when the time comes to use the funding method described in the 2023 Act, this situation will change again at the stroke of a pen.

    It’s generally considered better parliamentary practice to use primary legislation (as in, bills that become acts) to modify other primary legislation – it can be done using secondary legislation (statutory instruments) but this tends to look like the government is trying to hide something. Witness, for example, the partial repeal of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which very nearly made Toby Young at the Free Speech Union need to change his trousers.

    Dog’s breakfast

    I’m not the first to say this, but HERA is an absolute bin fire of an act. It is long, unwieldy, maddeningly unclear, and occasionally self-contradictory. A lot of what is contained in the bill no longer applies to the way higher education is regulated in practice. Indeed, there are a number of ways in which the Office for Students does not comply with the law.

    My favourite example of this is section 38, which requires the Office for Students to monitor the availability and use of arrangements for students to transfer between providers. OfS is meant to report on the conclusions it has drawn from this monitoring annually – it doesn’t. It decided to stop doing this during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, and have never bothered to start again despite how interested the government now are in people doing stackable credit bearing modules via the lifelong learning entitlement.

    So, given this, one thing a new bill could do would be to reinforce section 38, requiring the annual collection and publication of data relating to student transfers, and empowering OfS to do any other things (via an expansion of condition F2) it may need to do to make credit transfer between registered higher education providers as simple and as painless as possible.

    Similarly there are bits of HERA that are now clearly never going to be used. Asking OfS to regulate student unions is now generally seen as a non-starter, and it never really was viable. So Sections 69B, A5, and A6 (as inserted by the freedom of speech bill) probably need to go)

    What else?

    The messiness around academic quality and standards in HERA has been well documented, and this was even before the demission of the designated quality body and the slightly questionable position of the Behan review regarding OfS permanently taking on the old role.

    If this is what is to happen, it seems silly (as Behan noted) to have all of the fine-grained documentation about the duties and responsibilities of a designated body that will likely never exist again on the statute book. The references to the DQB should be removed.

    However, part of the point of the DQB was to ensure that the sector itself (including students) had more of a role in setting and maintaining academic standards, and that quality assurance would meet international standards, so it would be reasonable to hope that the opportunity would be taken to put these points into law directly. We need a new clause requiring OfS to comply with international standards, to more regularly review quality and standards on a cyclical as well as a needs-based basis, and to include the views of staff and students within quality reviews. It may be reasonable to note that OfS may choose to appoint a body itself to discharge these very specialised responsibilities.

    Behan also recommended that the appointment of the chief executive officer should be a matter for OfS board rather than ministers, and that an appointed chief executive should be able to get on with appointing their own executive team rather than having two directors appointed for them by ministers. This is the way most other arms-length bodies operate, and would do a lot to make the OfS look more independent of government.

    Currently HERA requires that the Secretary of State appoints (as per Schedule 1 2 (1) of HERA) the chief executive, the Director for Fair Access and Participation (currently John Blake), and the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom (currently Arif Ahmed). The DFAP rule is a hangover from the days of the Office for Fair Access, and the DFSAF comes from the ministerial overreach that characterised the debates around freedom of speech. New legislation should modify schedule one of HERA to make it easier for the OfS to appoint (and manage) its own senior team.

    Money matters

    Is there a chance that a new higher education bill could deal with the enormous financial strain both students and providers are under?

    The uprating of the family income thresholds for access to maintenance loans is long overdue, to the extent that the total amount paid out as maintenance loans and the average amount paid out per student is forecast to drop even as the number of UK domiciled undergraduate students increases. These thresholds can be increased using a statutory instrument – amending part 6 of the 2011 Education (Student Support) Regulations – but this has never happened.

    It would be good to build a requirement to increase these thresholds by inflation each year into primary legislation, and perhaps take the opportunity to rethink the operation of the current system in parliament. Writing the regulations anew would clear up the mess that is the 2011 regulations and allow for a one off above inflation boost so that the rules do the job they were originally intended to under the scrutiny of parliament.

    While we are at it, HERA requires (via a last minute intervention from Jo Johnson – remember him?) that even inflationary increases to fee levels are voted on in parliament, a situation that allowed for Michelle Donelan’s damaging “fee freeze” that, arguably, is the main contributing factor to the current financial crisis.

    So let’s put a requirement to maintain the real-terms value of fees into primary legislation, via an amendment to the new (per credit) rules in the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act, ideally before these are implemented into HERA (something that needs to happen quite soon).

    Access planning

    What OfS does around access and participation is largely constrained by how the Office for Fair Access worked before HERA: institutions prepare an access and participation plan, this is assessed by the OfS, and only those with a qualifying plan are allowed to charge the higher fee limit.

    In practice the requirement to submit an access plan is placed on providers in the Approved (Fee Cap) registration category only (so a big chunk of the sector is not required to do very much on access except via means related to outcome metrics in condition B3). The current push to collaborate regionally and work with schools to raise aspirations and standards there is, arguably, in breach of section 36 of HERA (the freedom to decide not to work regionally and with schools isn’t one of the three carveouts in subsection 1, but the institutional autonomy duty is not exclusive).

    What OfS wants to do, what may or may not actually work, and what ministers might like to see do not always align, and what was once an uncontested boon (attracting underrepresented groups into higher education) has become deeply problematised in contemporary political discourse. What would be useful would be to loosen the constraints placed on OfS access and participation work in HERA, but to set out clear duties (rather than specified methods) on the face of the bill.

    Legislation saves the nation

    There are clearly more short, sensible, things the government could do in a screwdriver style higher education bill. I would hope that the legislation could start in the House of Lords – allowing the knowledge and expertise of peers to shape the parameters of debate in the Commons stages.

    But it would be a brave government that publishes a higher education bill (of whatever sort) that isn’t able to offer some kind of a response to the financial troubles faced by the sector. While there are issues with current legislation, even a bill that does a lot of good leaves ministers open to the accusation that they are just tinkering around the edges. A screwdriver bill might make sense, but the need for a sledgehammer remains acute.

    Source link

  • Parents Sued LAUSD Over Remote Learning. How the Settlement Will Benefit Students – The 74

    Parents Sued LAUSD Over Remote Learning. How the Settlement Will Benefit Students – The 74


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

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    More than 250,000 students in Los Angeles Unified will be eligible for extra tutoring, summer school and other academic help after the district settled a class-action lawsuit alleging that its remote learning practices during the pandemic were discriminatory.

    The settlement, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, was announced Wednesday by the law firm representing families who said their children fell disastrously behind during the Covid-related school shutdown in 2020-21.

    “After five years of tireless advocacy on behalf of LAUSD students and families, we are proud to have secured a historic settlement that ensures students receive the resources they need to thrive,” said Edward Hillenbrand, a partner at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis. “This critical support will help pave the way for lasting educational equity.”

    Los Angeles Unified had no comment on the case because the settlement has yet to be approved by the court. A hearing is set for December, although the settlement goes into effect immediately.

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, Los Angeles and nearly every other school district in California closed for in-person learning from March 2020 through fall 2021. Students attended classes virtually, and most fell behind academically. Test scores statewide plummeted after schools reopened. Chronic absenteeism soared.

    In fall 2020, a group of families whose children were languishing during remote learning sued Los Angeles Unified, saying the district wasn’t doing enough to ensure students were receiving an adequate education.

    One parent, Akela Wroten Jr., said that his second-grade daughter was behind before the pandemic and became even more lost during remote learning. She struggled with reading and never got the extra attention she needed because teachers weren’t assessing her progress.

    Another parent, Vicenta Martinez, said her daughter didn’t get any instruction in spring 2020, in part because she never received logon information for remote instruction and the school never followed up. When she finally did access remote classes, the lessons were short and teachers offered little feedback.

    “LAUSD’s remote learning plan fails to provide students with even a basic education and is not preparing them to succeed,” the lawsuit alleged.

    The suit singled out an agreement between the district and its teachers union that said teachers would only be required to work four hours a day, wouldn’t have to give tests and weren’t required to deliver live lessons — their lessons could be asynchronous, or recorded beforehand. In addition, the agreement said the district wouldn’t evaluate or monitor teachers during that time.

    United Teachers Los Angeles supports the settlement, saying it provides more assistance for students while leaving teachers’ “hard-won contractual rights” intact and avoiding “unwarranted judicial interference” in the district.

    The union also noted that student test scores have recovered significantly since the pandemic..

    The plaintiffs argued that the district’s policies discriminated against low-income, Black, Latino, disabled and English learner students, because those were the students least likely to have adequate support to succeed in remote learning. Those student groups also comprise the vast majority of students in the district, the nation’s second-largest.

    The settlement requires the district to offer a host of academic support, including summer school and after-school tutoring, to the 250,000 students who were enrolled in L.A. Unified during the pandemic and are still with the district. Among those students, 100,000 who are performing below grade level will be eligible for 45 hours of one-on-one tutoring every year through 2028.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


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

    Source link

  • What’s Next for Concussion and CTE Research?

    What’s Next for Concussion and CTE Research?

    The Higher Education Inquirer is calling on both the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to explain the suspension of the Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium, the largest concussion study in U.S. history. Since 2014, CARE has sought to illuminate the effects of concussion and repetitive head impact exposure (HIE) on student-athletes and military service members.

    A Decade of Groundbreaking Work

    Funded through an initial $30 million “Grand Alliance,” CARE enrolled more than 53,000 athletes and cadets and tracked over 5,500 diagnosed concussions across more than two dozen universities and four service academies. Its successive phases—CARE 1.0 (acute effects), CARE 2.0 (cumulative impacts), and CARE-SALTOS Integrated (long-term outcomes)—provided unprecedented insights into how concussions affect recovery, cognition, mood, sleep, and overall well-being.

    The CARE study generated more than 90 peer-reviewed publications, influencing safety protocols, athletic training practices, and public health debates in both NCAA settings and the U.S. military.

    CTE and the Need for Decades-Long Research

    The suspension comes at a critical moment. Concerns about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)—a degenerative brain disease linked to repetitive head trauma—are rising. Because CTE’s symptoms often surface decades after injuries, researchers emphasize that only long-term, continuous studies can reveal who develops CTE and why.

    Pausing or dismantling CARE risks losing continuity in precisely the kind of data needed to connect the dots between adolescent or collegiate injuries and late-life neurodegenerative conditions.

    Collateral Damage: Workers Left Behind

    The disruption of CARE has already produced casualties beyond lost data. At the University of Michigan, one of the leading CARE sites, about two dozen research workers were abruptly laid off. Without union protections, they had little recourse. This underscores how fragile large research consortia can be—dependent not only on grants and institutional goodwill, but also on a workforce often treated as disposable.

    These layoffs raise troubling questions: If the workers who made CARE possible are discarded without warning, what does that say about the broader commitment to athlete and cadet safety?

    Outstanding Questions for NCAA and DoD

    The Higher Education Inquirer is pressing for answers:

    • Why was CARE suspended? Was this due to funding shortfalls, shifting priorities, or political pressure?

    • Will existing data remain accessible? The CARE Consortium has been a vital contributor to the Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research (FITBIR) database.

    • What about the workforce? Why were employees terminated without protections, and what obligations do the NCAA, DoD, and participating universities have to them?

    • What is the long-term plan for concussion research? Without decades-long studies, the risks of CTE and other late-life conditions will remain poorly understood.

    Big Loss for Athletes

    If CARE is permanently suspended, the consequences will extend far beyond academia. Athletes and cadets will lose a vital source of protection, science will lose irreplaceable data, and workers will continue to bear the costs of institutional indifference.

    The Higher Education Inquirer urges the NCAA and DoD to clarify CARE’s future and recommit to the kind of decades-long research that brain science demands. Anything less is a betrayal—to athletes, to service members, and to the very workers who made this research possible.

    Sources

    • NCAA. NCAA-DOD Grand Alliance: CARE Consortium. ncaa.org

    • CARE Consortium. About the Consortium. careconsortium.net

    • NCAA. NCAA and Department of Defense expand concussion study with $22.5 million. (October 31, 2018). ncaa.org

    • U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. Research Supporting a Lifetime of Brain Injury. mrdc.health.mil

    • NIH. Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium (CARE) Study Data. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    Source link

  • Kamehameha Schools’ Admission Policies May Face Legal Challenge – The 74

    Kamehameha Schools’ Admission Policies May Face Legal Challenge – The 74


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

    A conservative mainland group whose lawsuit against Harvard University ended affirmative action in college admissions is now building support in Hawaiʻi to take on Kamehameha Schools’ policies that give preference to Native Hawaiian students.

    Students for Fair Admissions, based in Virginia, recently launched the website KamehamehaNotFair.org. It says that the admission preference “is so strong that it is essentially impossible for a non-Native Hawaiian student to be admitted to Kamehameha.”

    “We believe that focus on ancestry, rather than merit or need, is neither fair nor legal, and we are committed to ending Kamehameha’s unlawful admissions policies in court,” the website says.

    Kamehameha’s Board of Trustees and CEO Jack Wong said in a written statement that the school expected the policy would be challenged. The institution — a private school established through the estate of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop to educate Hawaiians — successfully defended its admission policy in a series of lawsuits in the early 2000s. The trustees and Wong promised to do so again.

    “We are confident that our policy aligns with established law, and we will prevail,” the statement said.

    The campaign also drew criticism from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, established in the late 1970s for the betterment of Native Hawaiians. OHA’s Board of Trustees called it an “attack on the right of Native Hawaiians to care for our own, on our own terms.”

    “These attacks are not new — but they are escalating,” the trustees said in a written statement. “They aim to dismantle the hard-won protections that enable our people to heal, rise, and chart our future.”

    Several groups have tried and failed in the past to overturn Kamehameha’s admissions policy. Federal courts, siding with Kamehameha, have ruled that giving preference to Native Hawaiians helps alleviate historical injustices they faced after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893.

    In the 2006 decision upholding Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel pointed to longstanding challenges Native Hawaiian students have faced in schools. 

    “It is clear that a manifest imbalance exists in the K-12 educational arena in the state of Hawaiʻi, with Native Hawaiians falling at the bottom of the spectrum in almost all areas of educational progress and success,” Judge Susan Graber wrote in the majority opinion. 

    These disparities persist. Just over a third of Native Hawaiian students in public schools were proficient in reading in 2024, compared to 52% of students statewide. Less than a quarter of Native Hawaiian students were proficient in math.

    The state education department has also fallen short of providing families with adequate access to Hawaiian language immersion programs, according to two lawsuits filed against the department this summer. The Hawaiian immersion programs are open to all students, not just those of Hawaiian ancestry.  

    Moses Haia III, a lawyer and former director of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., said that improving outcomes for Hawaiian students is Kamehameha’s primary reason for existing. He said this new challenge appears to be based on ignorance of Hawaiʻi’s history.

    “Ultimately, what I see is these people being uneducated,” Haia said of the mainland group. “Not knowing the history of Hawaiʻi, not knowing the reasons for Kamehameha’s existence, and just once again trying to push Hawaiians into this box… and wanting to be on top.”

    Past Challenges 

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that private schools can’t discriminate based on race in a case called Runyon v. McCrary, which involved Black school students trying to gain admission to private schools that had yet to integrate non-white students.

    An anonymous student sued Kamehameha in 2003, invoking the 1976 ruling and alleging that the school’s policy of giving preference to Hawaiian children was discriminatory. The case eventually landed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    A majority of the appeals court judges sided with Kamehameha. They used a part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination in the workplace as a legal framework for looking at the admissions policy.

    Judge Graber wrote that a preference for Native Hawaiian students “serves a legitimate remedial purpose by addressing the socioeconomic and educational disadvantages facing Native Hawaiians, producing Native Hawaiian leadership for community involvement, and revitalizing Native Hawaiian culture, thereby remedying current manifest imbalances resulting from the influx of western civilization.”

    But it was a narrow victory for Kamehameha, an 8-to-7 vote. Dissenting judges wrote that admitting mostly Hawaiian students didn’t create a diverse student body; others said that the policy was clearly discriminatory.

    The anonymous student appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But Kamehameha entered a $7 million settlement with the student and their mother before the court decided whether to take up the case.

    While the settlement safeguarded the admission policy from a ruling by the nation’s highest court it also meant lawyers punted the issue.

    Another group of anonymous students challenged the admissions policy a few years later and again took that case to the Supreme Court. But the court declined to take up that case in 2011.

    Students for Fair Admissions previously brought two landmark cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, arguing that the two schools’ race-conscious admissions policies discriminated against Asian American and white applicants. The Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that colleges cannot use race as a factor in their admissions, although the decision didn’t specify what this could mean for K-12 schools.

    Last fall, the number of Black students enrolled at both universities fell, although some researchers cautioned that colleges might not see the full impact of the Supreme Court ruling until a few admissions cycles have passed. 

    The challenge to Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policies comes amid national pushback on efforts to promote diversity in schools. In February, the U.S. Department of Education said any colleges and K-12 schools using race-based practices in hiring and admissions could lose federal funding, although a court subsequently prevented the department from enforcing those requirements. 

    Kamehameha receives no funding from the federal government, according to its tax filings. The school, which is the state’s largest private landowner, has assets valued at about $15 billion.

    This story was originally published on Honolulu Civil Beat.


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

    Source link