Blog

  • Innovative K-12 staffing strategies are feeling the brunt of federal funding cuts

    Innovative K-12 staffing strategies are feeling the brunt of federal funding cuts

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

    Many schools and higher education partnerships that support the teacher pipeline are starting to feel the brunt of a $600 million cut in “divisive” teacher training grants announced Feb. 17 by the U.S. Department of Education.

    The cost-cutting measures by the Education Department are part of a broader effort throughout the federal government initiated by the Trump administration. The initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, reported this week that the Education Department is leading among other federal agencies for the most savings in total funding cuts. 

    Two of the most common federal grant programs impacted so far are the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant, said Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. AACTE has been surveying its members to gauge the grant slashing effort’s reach.

    Though the Education Department did not specify which teacher training grants programs were being cut, the agency said in its announcement that the reductions are targeting funds to institutions and nonprofits that were using training materials on topics such as critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion. The department added that “many of these grants included teacher and staff recruiting strategies implicitly and explicitly based on race.”

    At American University in Washington, D.C., for instance, a Teacher Quality Partnership Program grant allowed the university to help paraprofessionals at Friendship Charter Public Schools earn a master’s degree in early childhood or special education, “which there is a real need for,” said Holcomb-McCoy, who previously served as dean of American University’s School of Education. 

    The multiyear federal grant — which covered the private university’s tuition for about 15 teacher candidates to get credentialed, Holcomb-McCoy said — was written to benefit Friendship Charter Public Schools, as well as to address special educator shortages throughout the city.. That funding was “essentially cut.” 

    “We talk about teacher shortages of special education, teacher shortages in subjects such as science and math and technology,” Holcomb-McCoy said. “Cutting these grants essentially is cutting off the pipeline for many aspiring educators to get into the profession, and it’s not helping us. It’s hurting K-12 districts in many ways.”

    The grant also noted that it’s important to have a diverse representation of special education teachers trained in inclusive practices in Washington, D.C., schools, Holcomb-McCoy said. “The impact that that has on students with special needs is huge, and to stop that pipeline of people who aspire to work in that space is devastating to school districts and to communities and families.”

    AACTE estimates that about 31 Supporting Effective Educator Development grants and as many as 75 Teacher Quality Partnership Program grants were recently canceled nationwide. The association is providing support to its members and plans to help them first appeal their cases to the Education Department. 

    AACTE is also exploring potential litigation options, Holcomb-McCoy said.

    A hit to diversifying the teacher workforce

    Many of the applications for federal grants that were cut were written to align with priorities related to diversity set by former presidential administrations. As a result, Holcomb-McCoy said, a lot of those grant programs intentionally sought to address issues over diversity, equity and inclusion.

    Still, diversity in the teacher workforce has been a longstanding issue, she said. As the student population becomes more diverse, the hope has been to hire and keep teachers who are representative of their students. 

    Source link

  • UK-Egypt mission sparks new era of higher education partnerships

    UK-Egypt mission sparks new era of higher education partnerships

    From 16-18 February 2025, a high-level delegation from the UK visited Egyptian universities: Ain Shams University, and European Universities in Egypt (EUE); with a planned visit to New Cairo Technological University, to explore possible collaborations between the two countries.

    “Over the course of three enriching days, the education team in Egypt led a higher education mission that was launched in the New Administrative Capital, under the patronage of the Minister of Higher Education through the Supreme Council of Universities and the Egyptian Bureau for Cultural and Educational Affairs in London in collaboration with the British Council in Egypt, and the support of the British Embassy,” Heba ElZein, director of education at the British Council in Egypt told The PIE.

    The delegation comprised representatives from prestigious UK universities, including Sheffield Hallam University, Loughborough University, the University of Essex, the University of East Anglia, the University of Exeter, and the University of Chester.

    Universities UK International representatives were also in attendance, with Anouf El-Daher, policy officer for Africa and Middle East at UUKi, presenting at the British Embassy in Cairo and British Council Egypt, highlighting the value of international collaboration and the potential for long-term, mutually beneficial, EU-Egypt education relationships.

    “Over three days, we visited higher education institutions across Egypt, gaining valuable insights into the local landscape and exploring opportunities for deeper collaboration. This mission allowed us to engage with key stakeholders, understand the evolving higher education landscape in Egypt, and witness the impact of UK-Egypt partnerships firsthand,” a LinkedIn post from UUKi read.

    Over the course of three enriching days, the education team in Egypt led a higher education mission that was launched in the New Administrative Capital
    Heba ElZein, British Council

    The mission offered numerous networking opportunities, as well as joint meetings for Egyptian universities wishing to cooperate and discuss opportunities with their British counterparts.

    The delegation’s primary focus was to foster academic exchange, establish international university branch campus opportunities, and strengthen research collaborations. One of the most significant outcomes of the visit was the signing of multiple Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) between UK and Egyptian universities.

    During that high-profile participation, three MoUs were signed between the University of Essex and Ain Shams University, the University of East Anglia and Ain Shams University, and the University of Sheffield Hallam and the British University in Egypt.

    These agreements are expected to facilitate joint programs, faculty exchanges, and shared research initiatives in the coming years.

    Students in Egypt show a strong interest in TNE as the UK-affiliated programs offer tuition fees from £800 to £13,500, depending on the partnership model. And due to economic and currency challenges, Egyptians are increasingly likely to opt to study in Egypt on a TNE model, as well as inbound students to the country, primarily from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, and Iraq.

    Thus, with a population of around 111 million, and a youthful median age of 24.3, Egypt leads the MENA region in TNE enrolments with 27,865 students in 2022-2023, making it the 5th largest UK TNE host country globally.

    Egypt has emerged as a leading host of UK transnational education students in the MENA region, and the UK remains Egypt’s largest partner in higher education.

    This delegation’s visit is part of a broader initiative to further deepen these ties and provide Egyptian students with greater access to high-quality British education.

    Source link

  • Top female district leaders share do’s and don’ts of climbing the professional ladder in 2025

    Top female district leaders share do’s and don’ts of climbing the professional ladder in 2025

    Key points:

    Professional growth is often at the top of New Year’s Resolution lists. As educators and education leaders plan for the year ahead, we asked some of the nation’s top female school district leaders to give fellow women educators the do’s and don’ts of climbing the professional ladder. Here’s what they said.

    Do: Believe in yourself.

    Though women make up 76 percent of teachers in K-12 school settings, just a small percentage of women hold the most senior role in a district. But the climb to leadership isn’t an easy one; women in educational leadership report a range of biases–from interpersonal slights to structural inequities–that make it difficult to attain and persist in top positions.

    Professional groups like Women Leading Ed are working to change that by highlighting long standing gender gaps and calling for policies and practices to improve conditions at all levels. Female education leaders are also working to rewrite the narrative around what’s possible for women educators and encouraging their peers.

    Among those education leaders is Shanie Keelean, deputy superintendent of Rush-Henrietta Central School District in New York. When asked to share advice to her peers, she said, “You just have to continually push yourself forward and believe in yourself. So very often women, if they don’t check all the boxes, they decide not to go for something. And you don’t have to check all the boxes. Nobody knows everything in every job. You learn things as you go. Passion and energy go a long way in being really committed.”

    Nerlande Anselme, superintendent of Rome City School District in New York, agreed: “We have directors in this field, we have coordinators in this field, we have psychologists who are doing amazing work, but they will dim themselves and figure that they cannot get to the top. Don’t dim your light.”

    Don’t: Keep your career goals a secret.

    When you decide to pursue a leadership position, don’t keep it a secret. While it may feel “taboo” to announce your intentions or desires, it’s actually an important first step to achieving a leadership role, said Kathleen Skeals, superintendent of North Colonie Central School District in New York.

    “Once people know you’re interested, then people start to mentor you and help you grow into the next step in your career,” Skeals said.

    Kyla Johnson-Trammell, superintendent of Oakland Unified School District in California, echoed: “Make your curiosity and your ambition known. You’ll be pleasantly surprised how that will be received by many of the folks that you work for.”

    Do: Find a strong mentor.

    A strong mentor can make all the difference in the climb to the top, leaders agreed.

    “Seek out a leader you respect and ask for a time where you could have a conversation about exploring some possibilities and what the future might bring to you,” said Mary-Anne Sheppard, executive director of leadership development for Norwalk Public Schools in Connecticut.

    It’s especially helpful to connect with someone in a position that you want to be in, said Melanie Kay-Wyatt, superintendent of Alexandria City Public Schools in Virginia. “Find someone who’s in the role you want to be in, who has a similar work ethic and a life that you have, so they can help you,” she said.

    Don’t: Be afraid to ask questions.

    “Start asking a lot of questions,” said Keelean. She suggested shadowing a mentor for a day or asking for their help in creating a career map or plan.

    And don’t be afraid to take risks, added Johnson-Trammell. “Could you get me 15 minutes with the superintendent or the chief academic officer?”

    Do: Build your skill set and network.

    “Increase your impact by developing relational skills and leadership skills,” said Rachel Alex, executive director of leadership development of Aldine Independent School District in Texas.

    And cultivate a network, said Heather Sanchez, chief of schools for Bellevue School District in Washington. “We can’t do it alone. Find that network, cultivate that network.”

    Don’t: Give up.

    “People are always going to tell you no, but that does not stop you,” said Kimberley James. “Continue to live beyond the noise and the distractions and stay focused on what it is that you want to accomplish for our students.”

    “I would say to any woman aspiring to any level of leadership that first of all, never sell yourself short,” said Sanchez. “You have it in you.”

    Interviews were conducted as part of the Visionary Voices video series. Responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Study permit caps not to blame for Ontario college funding crisis

    Study permit caps not to blame for Ontario college funding crisis

    Educators in Ontario are setting the record straight about the cause of the province’s college funding crisis – the blame for which, they say, falls squarely on the Ontario provincial government.  

    “We currently see a wave of Ontario college program closures/suspensions sweeping across all of Ontario’s 24 colleges… This is just the tip of the iceberg and there will be many more to follow,” school educator and former college administrator David Deveau wrote in a letter to government officials.  

    “This letter aims to correct the media’s false assertion that these program suspensions are a direct result of the federal government’s restrictions on international student visa approvals and identify the actual reason for this alarming trend across the Ontario college system,” he continued.  

    The letter, which has been widely shared by sector stakeholders, lays the blame for Ontario’s college crisis on decades of underfunding from the provincial government, exacerbated by a 10% tuition fee reduction and freeze in 2019.  

    “Ontario’s higher education sector is in crisis due to chronic underfunding, tuition freezes, and a reliance on international student tuition as a financial lifeline,” said Chris Busch, senior international officer at the University of Windsor.  

    In 2001/02, Ontario’s colleges received 52.5% of their revenue from public funding, the second lowest of any province, according to Canada’s statistics agency.  

    By 2019/20, this figure had dropped to 32%, by far the lowest proportion across Canada’s provinces and territories, which, on average, provided 69% of college funding that year.   

    “Colleges and universities have had to attract talent from abroad, increasingly enrolling international student to help fill the funding gap,” said Vinitha Gengatharan, assistant VP of global engagement at York University.  

    This is particularly evident at the college level, where institutions have seen international student enrolment of 30-60%, compared to universities where it ranges from 10-20%, added Gengatharan.

    Educators across Ontario’s college and university sector have spoken out in support of Deveau’s letter, calling for a long-term commitment to stable and adequate funding from the provincial government.  

    In recent weeks, Ontario’s 24 public colleges have made the headlines for sweeping budget cuts, course closures and staff layoffs.  

    Stakeholders have raised additional concerns about increased class sizes and deferred maintenance and tech upgrades eroding the quality of education and the student experience for all learners, including Ontarians, Busch maintained.  

    This week, Algonquin College announced the closure of its campus in Perth, Ontario, alongside the cancellation of 10 programs and the suspension of 31, citing “unprecedented financial challenges”.  

    It follows Sheridan and St. Lawrence colleges announcing course suspensions with associated layoffs, and Mohawk College cutting 20% of admin jobs.  

    The ability of Ontario’s universities to fulfil their mission – providing high-quality education, driving research, and fuelling the economy with talent – is at significant risk under current conditions
    Chris Busch, University of Windsor

    “What is currently happening within our colleges is a downward spiral that will hurt Ontarians, the labour market, and our economies in the end,” wrote Deveau, adding that it was especially important to be strong in the face of externally imposed tariffs from the Trump administration.  

    In the letter, Deveau said the tuition freeze – which continues to this day – is akin to a “chokehold suffocating the life out of the college system” that is eliminating vital programs, restricting career choices of Ontarians and “jeopardising the province’s economic future”. 

    He raised attention to the “domino effect” of program closures impacting students’ career prospects, faculty layoffs and damaging local economies.  

    “The ability of Ontario’s universities to fulfil their mission – providing high-quality education, driving research, and fuelling the economy with talent – is at significant risk under current conditions,” said Busch.  

    In March 2023, the Ontario government itself published a Blue-Ribbon Report recognising the need to increase direct provincial support for colleges and universities, “providing for both more money per student and more students” and raising tuition fees.

    Last year, the Ontario government injected $1.3 billion into colleges and universities over three years to stabilise the sector’s finances, though critics are demanding systemic funding changes rather than “stop-gap” and “gimmicky” proposals, said Deveau.  

    Nationwide, Canada’s colleges were dealt another blow when the IRCC announced its new PGWP eligibility criteria, which stakeholders warned risked “decimating” Canada’s college sector.

    It is feared that more Ontario colleges will face cuts before the province’s 2025 budget, expected in April.  

    The PIE News reached out to the Ontario government but is yet to hear back.

    Source link

  • Cheating matters but redrawing assessment “matters most”

    Cheating matters but redrawing assessment “matters most”

    Conversations over students using artificial intelligence to cheat on their exams are masking wider discussions about how to improve assessment, a leading professor has argued.

    Phillip Dawson, co-director of the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning at Deakin University in Australia, argued that “validity matters more than cheating,” adding that “cheating and AI have really taken over the assessment debate.”

    Speaking at the conference of the U.K.’s Quality Assurance Agency, he said, “Cheating and all that matters. But assessing what we mean to assess is the thing that matters the most. That’s really what validity is … We need to address it, but cheating is not necessarily the most useful frame.”

    Dawson was speaking shortly after the publication of a survey conducted by the Higher Education Policy Institute, which found that 88 percent of U.K. undergraduates said they had used AI tools in some form when completing assessments.

    But the HEPI report argued that universities should “adopt a nuanced policy which reflects the fact that student use of AI is inevitable,” recognizing that chat bots and other tools “can genuinely aid learning and productivity.”

    Dawson agreed, arguing that “assessment needs to change … in a world where AI can do the things that we used to assess,” he said.

    Referencing—citing sources—may be a good example of something that can be offloaded to AI, he said. “I don’t know how to do referencing by hand, and I don’t care … We need to take that same sort of lens to what we do now and really be honest with ourselves: What’s busywork? Can we allow students to use AI for their busywork to do the cognitive offloading? Let’s not allow them to do it for what’s intrinsic, though.”

    It was a “fantasy land” to introduce what he called “discursive” measures to limit AI use, where lecturers give instructions on how AI use may or may not be permitted. Instead, he argued that “structural changes” were needed for assessments.

    “Discursive changes are not the way to go. You can’t address this problem of AI purely through talk. You need action. You need structural changes to assessment [and not just a] traffic light system that tells students, ‘This is an orange task, so you can use AI to edit but not to write.”

    “We have no way of stopping people from using AI if we aren’t in some way supervising them; we need to accept that. We can’t pretend some sort of guidance to students is going to be effective at securing assessments. Because if you aren’t supervising, you can’t be sure how AI was or wasn’t used.”

    He said there are three potential outcomes for the impact on grades as AI develops: grade inflation, where people are going to be able to do “so much more against our current standards, so things are just going to grow and grow”; and norm referencing, where students are graded on how they perform compared to other students.

    The final option, which he said was preferable, was “standards inflation,” “where we just have to keep raising the standards over time, because what AI plus a student can do gets better and better.”

    Over all, the impact of AI on assessments is fundamental, he said, adding, “The times of assessing what people know are gone.”

    Source link

  • Colleges scramble to meet federal anti-DEI deadline

    Colleges scramble to meet federal anti-DEI deadline

    The clock is running out on colleges as they mull how to respond to a sweeping federal order to end all race-based policies and programs.

    In the face of an imminent Friday night deadline, college leaders are scrambling to determine how to navigate the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter issued by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which declares all race-based educational programs and policies discriminatory and illegal. When they sent the letter on Valentine’s Day, department officials gave institutions two weeks to comply or face investigations and, possibly, the loss of federal funding.

    For many colleges, the challenge is figuring out how to avoid drawing unwanted government attention without abandoning key services for underrepresented students and staff.

    Institutions aren’t going to lose federal funding overnight. The investigative process is notoriously lengthy, and the Education Department has never revoked a college’s federal funding over civil rights concerns. The OCR may also be rendered impotent, at least temporarily, if a judge decides to halt enforcement while considering a lawsuit filed Tuesday challenging the letter.

    But college leaders are anxious about the threat of federal funding cuts, which would be catastrophic for the majority of postsecondary institutions. Ray Li, who previously worked as an attorney at the Office for Civil Rights, said he expects the office to launch investigations shortly and that many colleges will buckle under the pressure, shedding practices that fostered campus diversity and belonging.

    For now, colleges seem to be taking a slow and cautious approach, removing language about race and DEI buzzwords from the names of programs and launching internal policy reviews.

    University of Nebraska president Jeffrey P. Gold said system campuses are in the midst of a comprehensive review of programs and policies, but no changes have been made yet. The Nebraska Board of Regents discussed possible tweaks to its bylaws at a recent board meeting, like removing references to “cultural diversity” and revising language on equal opportunity in employment, but no final decisions were made.

    Gold said that as the review process continues, he doesn’t expect to “turn up anything that looks or feels like discrimination,” as the letter describes.

    But it’s possible “we will turn up some things that require some language changes or possibly some changes in titles, changes in offices … that could be misinterpreted by the Department of Education just because of [the] use of specific terminology.”

    He added that Nebraska banned affirmative action in 2008 and the state’s second attempt at an anti-DEI bill is pending in the Legislature, so “we have been changing websites [and] titles for years—that’s why I believe that there’s nothing substantive that we really have to change at this time.”

    The University of Montana undertook a similar compliance review that tasked senior administrators with assessing whether their departments had any policies or practices at odds with the Dear Colleague letter.

    “We made the decision to be as thorough as possible,” said Dave Kuntz, the university’s director of strategic communications. The review, however, led to “very minimal changes and really no changes at a programmatic or operational level.”

    University leaders over all concluded that the institution was already in compliance, though some programs, like the Women’s Leadership Initiative, chose to tweak their webpages to clarify that they don’t bar anyone who wants to participate.

    A spokesperson for the Education Department did not respond to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed in time for publication.

    A Thorough Scrubbing

    Many institutions are responding by scrubbing their websites of words like “diversity” and “inclusion.” The University of Cincinnati, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Alaska system and many more all did so after the Dear Colleague letter; some colleges had already begun revising their digital presence in response to Trump’s executive order on DEI in January.

    The University of Colorado removed all references to a former DEI office and replaced them with a website for a new “Office of Collaboration.” The University of Pennsylvania scrubbed the websites for all 16 undergraduate and graduate schools of DEI keywords and removed references to diversity and affirmative action from its nondiscrimination policies.

    Shaun Harper, a professor of education, business and public policy at the University of Southern California, said he’s been disappointed that higher ed leaders are heavily revising their institutions’ online presences in the hopes that it will appease the OCR—a project he believes will prove futile. In the Dear Colleague letter, acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor specifically warned against using “proxies for race” and promised to investigate race-neutral programs that “discriminate in less direct, but equally insidious, ways.”

    “Scrubbing websites, launching reviews—these are the easy things to do while colleges are in ‘wait and see’ mode, to find out if that will take the target off their backs,” said Harper, an Inside Higher Ed contributor who authored a blog post last week recommending ways colleges can fight back against the Dear Colleague letter. “I think it’s both weak and reckless.”

    Some institutions have gone one step further. Colorado State University issued a statement in which leaders simultaneously maintained that its policies are already race-neutral and promised to do more to comply with the new federal directives.

    “The new administration’s interpretation of law marks a change,” the statement reads. “Given the university’s reliance on federal funding, it is necessary to take additional steps.”

    And one day before the deadline, Ohio State University president Ted Carter announced the institution would shutter two DEI offices and eliminate more than a dozen staff positions, some of the most dramatic measures a college has taken during the new Trump administration.

    In a particularly telling move, OSU’s Office of Institutional Equity will be renamed the Office of Civil Rights Compliance to “more accurately reflect its work,” according to an email sent to students Thursday.

    ‘We’ve Seen This Film Before’

    For a glimpse of how anti-DEI compliance battles might play out between institutions and policymakers, consider the red states that have passed laws mandating similar cuts to race-conscious programs.

    In Texas and Florida, public colleges reacted to impending or newly signed anti-DEI laws by changing the names of university offices and campus resources, moving personnel to student support services, and removing DEI mentions from university materials and websites. But in both cases, lawmakers came down hard to ensure the institutions took more strident action, leading to significant layoffs, spending cuts and policy changes.

    “We’ve seen the prequel to this film before in Texas,” Harper said. “When that Senate bill was looming, many institutions thought they were very smartly getting ahead of it by just renaming things. That proved to be a failed strategy, and I very comfortably predict that some version of that will also happen nationally.”

    In some states, the “review and revamp” strategy for avoiding DEI crackdowns appeared to work for a while. The University of Arkansas eliminated its DEI office in June 2023 in part to pre-empt a bill that state lawmakers were considering to force spending cuts. And last year, the University of North Carolina system Board of Trustees passed an anti-DEI resolution just as legislation was gaining steam to mandate enforcement from the state; that legislation was never brought to a full vote.

    But circumstances have changed as the Trump administration launches direct attacks on DEI. Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law earlier this month that will “prohibit affirmative action and preferential treatment in state-supported institutions,” including public colleges like the University of Arkansas. Even in Texas, where public universities underwent broad layoffs and spending cuts in response to state legislation, lawmakers have threatened to cut $400 million in higher ed funding unless colleges do more to comply.

    “If they don’t kick DEI out of their schools, they’re going to get a lot less,” Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick said at a policy forum last week.

    What Happens Next?

    Legal experts say it’s unclear what will happen after the OCR’s deadline passes. The Dear Colleague letter promised more detailed guidance, but none has materialized.

    “We’re kind of all in agreement that [the letter] is really confusing and overbroad, and the timeline is really outrageous,” said Andrea Stagg, director of consulting services at Grand River Solutions, a company that works with colleges on legal compliance issues. She noted that many underresourced colleges don’t have in-house legal teams to assess their risk by the deadline.

    “What actually happens after tomorrow? How fast will it be?” she said Thursday. “I don’t know.”

    Typically, the Office for Civil Rights opens investigations based on complaints from students, families or legal advocates, but it can also launch its own direct investigations. Most cases end with a voluntary resolution, in which the institution agrees to make certain changes. But unresolved cases can be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation.

    Li believes the OCR will likely receive complaints from anti-DEI groups as well as open some direct investigations into higher ed institutions with race-based scholarships, affinity group graduation ceremonies or other practices called out by the letter, starting next week. (He pointed out that the current OCR has already launched some direct investigations into universities related to Title IX.)

    But that doesn’t mean the day after the Dear Colleague deadline “schools are just going to lose all their federal funding”—assuming normal procedures are followed, he said. Such investigations can take months, even years.

    An investigation reaching the point of litigation is also “an incredibly rare step that, under most administrations, pretty much never happens,” Li said. And the Department of Education taking away federal funding over an OCR investigation would be completely unprecedented.

    “But, also, rare things are happening right now,” Li conceded.

    Stagg said it’s hard to tell to what extent normal processes will be followed, or how much the Department of Government Efficiency’s reductions to the federal workforce could affect investigations.

    “There is a real question as to who will do these investigations” and how the OCR will choose institutions to focus on, she said. “Is there going to be an AI tool to search [college] websites for certain terms, the way we saw with the flagging of grants? It could be that the president has a bad interaction at a meeting with a leader and then they are targeted for investigation.”

    An Education Department spokesperson did not respond to questions about planned investigations, agency capacity and enforcement mechanisms in time for publication.

    It’s also unclear how much resistance colleges will put up. Li believes there’s a strong case to be made that some of the practices targeted in the Dear Colleague letter are perfectly legal. Higher ed institutions under investigation could refuse to make changes and go head to head with the Department of Justice. But they’d be signing up for an onerous, likely expensive process that puts their funding in jeopardy.

    “The question is, is anyone willing to litigate it?” Li said.

    Even if the Dear Colleague letter is rescinded, Li said the Office for Civil Rights has clearly signaled its plans for the next four years, and he believes higher ed institutions will continue working to rid themselves of anything that could attract scrutiny.

    “I think there’s going to be an overcorrection,” he said. “It is going to lead to some perfectly legal programs that support fostering racially inclusive communities on campus being taken away.”

    Source link

  • Woman admits stealing $5 mil from ED via fake students

    Woman admits stealing $5 mil from ED via fake students

    A North Carolina woman will face up to 20 years in prison after admitting that she scammed the Department of Education out of $5 million in financial aid, USA Today reported. 

    Cynthia Denise Melvin pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring with dozens of “straw students” through an elaborate, seven-year scheme, federal court records show. Melvin applied to colleges on the students’ behalf, submitted the Free Application for Federal Student Aid for them, and even went so far as to impersonate the students so it appeared they were attending class and completing assignments, according to charging documents. All the while, she pocketed any leftover aid dollars, giving a small portion to the individuals she was impersonating.

    Melvin was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. In addition to her time in prison, she will face three years of supervised release and be required to pay a $250,000 fine, as well as restitution.

    The scam is among the biggest “straw student” schemes in years, according to a USA Today review of Department of Justice news announcements.

    Source link

  • Trump tells agencies to plan for mass layoffs

    Trump tells agencies to plan for mass layoffs

    The Trump administration on Wednesday ordered federal agencies to start preparing for “large-scale reductions in force,” the latest step in a broader effort to dramatically reduce the federal workforce.

    The memo from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management applies to all federal departments, and the Department of Education could face heavy cuts as a result of Trump’s promise to “sweepingly reform” what he calls a “bloated, corrupt federal bureaucracy.” 

    The president has repeatedly talked about shutting down the Education Department, and this memo’s orders could give him an opportunity to diminish the agency. Specifically, the OMB document tells agency heads to eliminate all “non-statutorily mandated functions”—an action proponents of abolishing the department have supported.

    The OMB memo cites an executive order, “Implementing The President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” that was signed Feb. 11 as justification and directed agencies to submit a reorganization plan by March 13.

    “Pursuant to the President’s direction, agencies should focus on the maximum elimination of functions that are not statutorily mandated while driving the highest-quality, most efficient delivery of their statutorily-required functions,” wrote OMB director Russell Vought and Charles Ezell, the acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. “Agencies should also … implement technological solutions that automate routine tasks while enabling staff to focus on higher-value activities … and maximally reduce the use of outside consultants and contractors.”

    The memo notes that reduction should not impact positions necessary to meet border security, national security or public safety responsibilities, nor should it affect agencies or services that are directly provided to citizens “such as Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ health care.”

    Source link

  • UConn faculty member allegedly used funds for personal travel

    UConn faculty member allegedly used funds for personal travel

    A University of Connecticut faculty member has been charged with first-degree larceny after allegedly using more than $58,000 of university and grant funds for personal expenses and travel, including a trip to Disney World, The Hartford Courant reported.

    Sherry Lynn Zane, who is listed on the UConn website as a professor-in-residence of women’s, gender and sexuality studies, allegedly took 19 trips, “of which 17 were identified as potentially having unreported personal travel or lacking the sufficient documentation to support the purpose of business travel,” according to a report by UConn’s director of university compliance, Kimberly Hill.

    The compliance office referred the case to UConn police after receiving an anonymous report about Zane’s travel, which allegedly included seven trips to Belfast, Ireland, where her daughter had recently moved. According to the report, she was reimbursed for some of the travel through a grant provided to UConn by the Mellon Foundation.

    “Dr. Zane expensed trips where there were no actual planned business activities and then provided information or created documentation after the fact to justify the expenses incurred by the University,” the report said. “Dr. Zane also provided misleading or false information to the University on the travel request forms she submitted for the majority of these trips. In these circumstances, Dr. Zane’s actual activities while traveling were distinctly different and off-topic from the agreed-upon purpose.”

    Zane remains on administrative leave pending the completion of the university’s disciplinary process.

    Source link

  • Accreditors offer flexibility on DEI standards

    Accreditors offer flexibility on DEI standards

    President Donald Trump’s broadside against diversity, equity and inclusion has left colleges scrambling to determine how to comply—even as they juggle accreditation standards containing elements of DEI.

    But even with an executive order from the Trump administration targeting “illegal” DEI programs at colleges blocked by the courts, and a Dear Colleague letter from the Education Department likely unenforceable, accreditors are treading lightly on DEI, allowing colleges leeway on complying to certain standards. If the accreditors didn’t provide such flexibility, colleges would essentially have to decide between complying with the federal government or with their accreditor—a nearly impossible situation for institutions.

    Some, like the STEM accreditor ABET, have dropped DEI standards entirely. And the American Bar Association suspended enforcement of its DEI standards through August while it weighs revisions to such requirements.

    As colleges feel the squeeze, some of the largest institutional accreditors have decided not to force colleges to choose between them or the Education Department, at least for now, largely telling institutions they will not be adversely affected if they fail to comply with DEI standards due to state or federal laws.

    Accreditors Push Back

    While accreditors allow colleges to operate with flexibility on DEI standards, some are also pushing back on the Trump administration’s crackdown, particularly the Dear Colleague letter that seeks to expand a Supreme Court opinion in the Students for Fair Admissions case, which shot down affirmative action, to ban race-conscious scholarships, programming and more.

    “We would suggest that the [U.S. Department of Education’s] interpretation of SFFA is overly broad and expansive, a concern shared among legal experts,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions wrote in a letter to the Trump administration Monday.

    C-RAC officials added that the 14-day deadline for colleges to drop all race-conscious activities is “unreasonable” and that “the expectations for institutional actions or the methods through which institutions are expected to comply with these broad reaching requirements are unclear.”

    Numerous accreditors also signed on to a letter to the department from the American Council on Education, which raised similar concerns. That letter also noted that, “however one defines DEI—and DEI is a concept that means different things to different parties—it is worth noting that the range of activities that are commonly associated with DEI are not, in and of themselves, illegal.”

    Offering Flexibility

    As accreditors press the Department of Education for clarity, they have also provided guidance to colleges, emphasizing that their member institutions must follow state and federal laws.

    “What we have said is that they can be assured we would not take any adverse action with regard to any of our standards if the institution is attempting to follow what they believe is a legal requirement,” Larry Schall, president of the New England Commission of Higher Education, told Inside Higher Ed.

    Nicole Biever, chief of staff at the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, wrote by email that the organization has notified institutions “that the Commission would never expect any institution to violate the laws or government mandates of the jurisdictions in which they operate.”

    She added that MSCHE standards “will in no way inhibit” institutional compliance with the law.

    Barbara Gellman-Danley, president of the Higher Learning Commission, emphasized in an email to Inside Higher Ed that institutions must comply with all members of the regulatory triad, comprised of accreditors, state governments and the federal Department of Education. If “HLC’s requirements overlap with requirements from other members of the Triad, we work with the other Triad members to identify these situations and limit the burden on the institution,” she wrote.

    “HLC does not prescribe how a member institution meets HLC’s requirements,” she added. “If a requirement of another entity of the Triad may appear to limit an institution’s ability to meet HLC’s requirements in a particular manner, an institution has the flexibility within HLC’s requirements to identify other ways to demonstrate it meets HLC’s requirements.”

    In guidance sent to member institutions, Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission interim president Christopher Oberg noted that the Dear Colleague letter does not have the force of the law and encouraged institutions “to consult their own legal counsel to help navigate the Department’s guidance.” Oberg added that the organization “will continue to provide updates to member institutions as matters are clarified.”

    The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges has also emphasized flexibility in its guidance to members.

    “It is important to note that as a federally recognized institutional accreditor, ACCJC would never require a member institution to violate state or federal laws and regulations or consumer protection clauses. As an agency, we are beholden to the federal government, state governments, and our member institutions, and work collaboratively and flexibly with those oversight partners to meet any and all regulations and communicate requirements to member institutions, as necessary,” AACJC president Mac Powell wrote by email.

    What Are the DEI Standards?

    Policies on DEI are as varied as the accreditors themselves, with different requirements or none at all.

    For instance, NECHE’s accreditation criteria urge member institutions to address their “own goals for the achievement of diversity, equity, and inclusion” across the student body, faculty and staff.

    But MSCHE’s accreditation criteria require institutions to “reflect deeply and share results on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the context of their mission” across areas such as goals and actions, demographics, policies, processes, assessments, and resource allocation.

    “One goal of DEI reflection would be to address disparate impacts on an increasingly diverse student population if discovered,” part of MSCHE’s standards reads. Elsewhere, MSCHE indicates that candidates for accreditation should have “sufficient diversity, independence, and expertise to ensure the integrity of the institution.”

    Other accreditors, such as HLC, say that an accredited college should strive “to ensure that the overall composition of its faculty and staff reflects human diversity as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.”

    Others, such as programmatic accreditors, may have more exacting standards. But some accreditors, like the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, have never included DEI criteria.

    Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities interim president Jeff Fox told Inside Higher Ed by email that it too has never officially had DEI standards as part of its accreditation requirements.

    “The NWCCU has no language in the standards pertaining to DEI, and it recognizes institutions are addressing the requirements of various state and federal laws in this arena. The NWCCU supports institutions in their efforts to address the DCL as appropriate for their circumstances,” Fox wrote.

    ‘Very Little Danger’

    Some critics, particularly on the conservative side, take a dim view of accreditors’ DEI standards. Andrew Gillen, a research fellow at the conservative Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, wrote in a recent paper that “accreditors too often abuse their power as gatekeepers” to federal financial aid, including in areas such as pushing DEI standards.

    On paper, such standards look fine, he wrote to Inside Higher Ed by email. But he questions how such standards get enforced, arguing that “the problem is the interpretation of those standards. Accreditors can and do use vague standards to force radical changes on campus.”

    Gillen pointed to a past conflict in 2000 when—he argued—the ABA “used innocuous and vague diversity requirements to force George Mason University Law School to discriminate in favor of Black applicants by simply rejecting anything the university did short of discriminating.”

    But Gillen believes colleges face little risk if they fail to comply with accreditors’ DEI standards.

    “Colleges are in very little danger so long as they follow federal civil rights laws, which have largely reverted to their original intention of promoting colorblindness,” he wrote. “Any state or accreditor that requires violating these laws will find itself in a world of legal trouble. Accreditors that ignore civil rights laws would lose their recognition from the Department of Education, and colleges that followed such requirements would also lose access to federal aid programs.”

    Robert Shireman, a senior fellow at the progressive Century Foundation and a member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, which advises the education secretary on accreditation, downplays the notion that accreditors’ DEI standards are burdensome.

    Typically, he told Inside Higher Ed, accreditors’ DEI requirements are minimal. Such standards tend to focus on inclusivity, but he notes that accreditors are “not enforcing any kind of quota.”

    At a recent NACIQI meeting, he said when asked about changing DEI standards, accreditors indicated they didn’t plan to do so because “they feel that there’s nothing inappropriate about the approaches that they are taking, and they are holding firm.” He added that accreditors recognize “schools have to comply with laws, whether those laws are federal laws or state laws.”

    There’s also an outstanding question on how the Trump administration is defining DEI.

    “‘DEI’ has become this undefined term that gets interpreted in certain kinds of ways,” Shireman said. “And most accreditors are quite flexible in their approach to diversity, equity and inclusion.”

    In a time of uncertainty, Shireman believes many institutions want to see accreditors hold firm on DEI while they push ED for guidance on terminating race-conscious activities and programming.

    Shireman points to “surprise and outrage” over what he calls “an absurd perversion of civil rights laws that is happening in this administration. To read civil rights laws as prohibiting a caring approach to providing opportunity is Orwellian and it’s not appropriate. I don’t think schools support the idea of accreditors caving in to a backwards interpretation of civil rights laws.”

    Source link