Blog

  • A practical guide for sourcing edtech

    A practical guide for sourcing edtech

    Key points:

    Virtual reality field trips now enable students to explore the Great Wall of China, the International Space Station, and ancient Rome without leaving the classroom.  Gamified online learning platforms can turn lessons into interactive challenges that boost engagement and motivation. Generative AI tutors are providing real-time feedback on writing and math assignments, helping students sharpen their skills with personalized support in minutes.

    Education technology is accelerating at a rapid pace–and teachers are eager to bring these digital tools to the classroom. But with pandemic relief funds running out, districts are having to make tougher decisions around what edtech they can afford, which vendors will offer the greatest value, and, crucially, which tools come with robust cybersecurity protections.

    Although educators are excited to innovate, school leaders must weigh every new app or online platform against cybersecurity risks and the responsibility of protecting student data. Unfortunately, those risks remain very real: 6 in 10 K-12 schools were targeted by ransomware in 2024.

    Cybersecurity is harder for some districts than others

    The reality is that school districts widely vary when it comes to their internal resources, cybersecurity expertise, and digital maturity.

    A massive urban system may have a dedicated legal department, CISO, and rigid procurement processes. In a small rural district, the IT lead might also coach soccer or direct the school play.

    These discrepancies leave wide gaps that can be exploited by security threats. Districts are often improvising vetting processes that vary wildly in rigor, and even the best-prepared system struggles to know what “good enough” looks like as technology tools rapidly accelerate and threats evolve just as fast.

    Whether it’s apps for math enrichment, platforms for grading, or new generative AI tools that promise differentiated learning at scale, educators are using more technology than ever. And while these digital tools are bringing immense benefits to the classroom, they also bring more threat exposure. Every new tool is another addition to the attack surface, and most school districts are struggling to keep up.

    Districts are now facing these critical challenges with even fewer resources. With the U.S. Department of Education closing its Office of EdTech, schools have lost a vital guidepost for evaluating technology tools safely. That means less clarity and support, even as the influx of new tech tools is at an all-time high.

    But innovation and protection don’t have to be in conflict. Schools can move forward with digital tools while still making smart, secure choices. Their decision-making can be supported by some simple best practices to help guide the way.

    5 green flags for evaluating technology tools

    New School Safety Resources

    With so many tools entering classrooms, knowing how to assess their safety and reliability is essential. But what does safe and trustworthy edtech actually look like?

    You don’t need legal credentials or a cybersecurity certification to answer that question. You simply need to know what to look for–and what questions to ask. Here are five green flags that can guide your decisions and boost confidence in the tools you bring into your classrooms.

    1. Clear and transparent privacy policies

    A strong privacy policy should be more than a formality; it should serve as a clear window into how a tool handles data. The best ones lay out exactly what information is collected, why it’s needed, how it’s used, and who it’s shared with, in plain, straightforward language.

    You shouldn’t need legal training to make sense of it. Look for policies that avoid vague, catch-all phrases and instead offer specific details, like a list of subprocessors, third-party services involved, or direct contact information for the vendor’s privacy officer. If you can’t quickly understand how student data is being handled, or if the vendor seems evasive when you ask, that’s cause for concern.

    1. Separation between student and adult data

    Student data is highly personal, extremely sensitive, and must be treated with extra care. Strong vendors explicitly separate student data from educator, administrator, and parent data in their systems, policies, and user experiences.

    Ask how student data is accessed internally and what safeguards are in place. Does the vendor have different privacy policies for students versus adults? If they’ve engineered that distinction into their platform, it’s a sign they’ve thought deeply about your responsibilities under FERPA and COPPA.

    1. Third-party audits and certifications

    Trust, but verify. Look for tools that have been independently evaluated through certifications like the Common Sense Privacy Seal, iKeepSafe, or the 1EdTech Trusted App program. These external audits validate that privacy claims and company practices are tested against meaningful standards and backed up by third-party validation.

    Alignment with broader security frameworks like NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), ISO 27001, or SOC 2 can add another layer of assurance, especially in states where district policies lean heavily on these benchmarks. These technical frameworks should complement radical transparency. The most trustworthy vendors combine certification with transparency: They’ll show you exactly what they collect, how they store it, and how they protect it. That openness–and a willingness to be held accountable–is the real marker of a privacy-first partner.

    1. Long-term commitment to security and privacy

    Cybersecurity shouldn’t be a one-and-done checklist. It’s a continual practice. Ask vendors how they approach ongoing risks: Do they conduct regular penetration testing? Is a formal incident response plan in place? How are teams trained on phishing threats and secure coding?

    If they follow a framework like the NIST CSF, that’s great. But also dig into how they apply it: What’s their track record for patching vulnerabilities or communicating breaches? A real commitment shows up in action, not just alignment.

    1. Data minimization and purpose limitations

    Trustworthy technology tools collect only what’s essential–and vendors can explain why they need it. If you ask, “Why do you collect this data point?” they should have a direct answer that ties back to functionality, not future marketing.

    Look for platforms that commit to never repurposing student data for behavioral ad targeting. Also, ask about deletion protocols: Can data be purged quickly and completely if requested? If not, it’s time to ask why.

    Laying the groundwork for a safer school year

    Cybersecurity doesn’t require a 10-person IT team or a massive budget. Every district, no matter the size, can take meaningful, manageable steps to reduce risk, establish guardrails, and build trust.

    Simple, actionable steps go a long way: Choose tools that are transparent about data use, use trusted frameworks and certifications as guideposts, and make cybersecurity training a regular part of staff development. Even small efforts , like a five-minute refresher on phishing during back-to-school sessions, can have an outsized impact on your district’s overall security posture.

    For schools operating without deep resources or internal expertise, this work is especially urgent–and entirely possible. It just requires knowing where to start.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Justice Department targets ‘unlawful’ DEI in hiring, training

    Justice Department targets ‘unlawful’ DEI in hiring, training

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

    The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday released a sweeping guidance document that could impact school district hiring and training practices, as well as the programming available to students. 

    In some situations, districts could be exposed to legal liability by asking job applicants how their “cultural background informs their teaching,” using recruitment strategies targeting candidates from specific geographic areas or racial backgrounds, and asking job candidates to describe how they overcame obstacles, according to the memo from U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi. 

    Such diversity, equity and inclusion practices could amount to “illegal discrimination,” said Bondi in a statement on Wednesday. “This guidance will ensure we are serving the American people and not ideological agendas.” 

    The DOJ memo contains examples of practices it lists as “unlawful” and says could lead to federal funding being revoked, as well as a list of recommendations, which it says are not mandatory, to avoid “legal pitfalls.”

    The guidance issued to all federal agencies also says the following actions could expose federally funded institutions, including school districts,to legal liability based on race, ethnicity or sex-based discrimination: 

    • Providing teacher training that “all white people are inherently privileged” or training on “toxic masculinity.” 
    • Providing areas, such as lounges, that are primarily meant to provide “safe spaces” for traditionally underserved groups. 
    • Using demographically driven criteria “to increase participation by specific racial or sex-based groups” in programs and opportunities. 
    • Asking employees, including teachers, during training sessions to “confess” to personal biases or privileges based on a protected characteristic.

    Instead, school districts and other federally funded institutions should provide opportunities to all races and sex-based groups without regard to their protected characteristics or demographic goals, instead focusing on “universally applicable criteria” such as academic merit or financial hardship, the Justice Department memo said. 

    The guidance could impact districts’ efforts to make education more equitable, such as by diversifying the teacher pool through Black educator pipelines, training teachers on implicit and explicit biases, and creating academic or enrichment programs to increase engagement from minority student groups. 

    The directive is in line with the Trump administration’s push to pare back diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, including through the U.S. Department of Education. In recent months, the Education Department has increasingly collaborated with the Department of Justice to enforce civil rights laws, often seeking to protect Asian and White students. 

    The guidance from the Justice Department illustrates the major shift in how both agencies under President Donald Trump approach enforcement of civil rights laws, with officials now targeting programs that were often launched to fight systemic discrimination.

    In April, the Education Department announced a Title VI investigation into Chicago Public Schools over allegations from the conservative group Defending Education that the district’s “Black Students Success Plan” implemented in 2023-24 discriminated against students based on race. 

    In May, the department announced another Title VI investigation into Fairfax County Public Schools over a 2020 revision to the admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. That policy dropped standardized testing requirements and instead used a holistic review process, which the Education Department said harms Asian American students. 

    In 2024-25, the highly selective magnet school was 61% Asian and 21% White, with Black and Hispanic students making up less than 10% of the student population each.

    The guidance from the Trump administration and the Education Department investigations come after concerns from civil rights groups that recent federal policy changes, along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, would set back educational equity efforts even outside of race-conscious admissions. 

    Scholarship availability, teacher pipelines and student affinity groups were among the top areas beyond college access that advocates were concerned could be impacted in the wake of that ruling.

    Source link

  • Test yourself on the past week’s K-12 news

    Test yourself on the past week’s K-12 news

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

    How well did you keep up with this week’s developments in K-12 education? To find out, take our five-question quiz below. Then, share your score by tagging us on social media with #K12DivePopQuiz.

     

    Source link

  • Want a better society? Teach kids how to be exemplary citizens

    Want a better society? Teach kids how to be exemplary citizens

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

    Autumn Adkins Graves is head of school of St. Anne’s-Belfield School, an age 2 through grade 12 independent school in Charlottesville, Va.

    We adults have lost our way.

    We need to figure out how to right the ship for our children — the sooner, the better.

    As an educator and independent school leader, I can speculate about how we got here, but that doesn’t matter as much as how we collectively fix the broken infrastructure.

    One place to start is by teaching students how to be exemplary citizens — the kind of people who focus on making the world a better place, not just on their own self-interests.

    This is a headshot of Autumn Adkins Graves, head of school of St. Anne’s-Belfield School in Charlottesville, Va.

    Autumn Adkins Graves

    Permission granted by Autumn Adkins Graves

     

    Of course, this raises a chicken-egg conundrum. To raise outstanding citizens, do we begin by rethinking how we teach important subjects and lessons? Or is it more important to challenge students to think holistically, apply their lessons in a broader context, and envision a world — one they can help shape — beyond the year 2025?

    The answer is both.

    The task is enormous. After all, we have to teach students how to thrive in an ever-changing world, a society that we may not completely understand ourselves.

    On another level, basic civics lessons can — and should be — woven more explicitly into curricula.

    On a fundamental level, that means teaching students how to work together in teams — whether academic, athletic or performing arts.

    Selflessness should be in, while selfishness should be on the way out. We’ve become a society of “me,” not “we.” We are now a country of people who value the highlight dunk reel over passing up a shot for a teammate, and we are indirectly teaching that “me first” mindset to our students.

    True leadership isn’t always about being in charge or being credited as No. 1. Sometimes, it’s about supporting a team, pushing a shared vision forward, and finding contentment in playing a small but vital role in a team effort.

    There’s real value in contributing to something bigger than oneself, even without the title or limelight. If we can shift that mindset and rethink that paradigm, we’ll be making positive strides.

    At a larger level, it also means educating students about how decisions and laws are established, not just in the three branches of the federal government but also at the state and local levels.

    A student needs to realize why it matters to stay abreast of current events and the importance of participating in democracy.

    Nearly 64% of people voted in the last presidential election, but far fewer voted in off-year or local elections. Yet those are the elections that impact people and communities the most.

    Moreover, because so many people avoid voting, too many young people don’t know how the government works in America or feel apathetic to the incremental changes that occur at the local level.

    Rather than seeing elected officials as public servants, they identify officeholders as political figures or, even worse, career politicians or celebrities — people who are only interested in making decisions to ensure victory in their reelection campaign rather than determining what is best for their constituents in the short or long run.

    Also, it is time to tweak the way we teach media literacy: Too many students accept TikTok and Instagram posts at face value without considering the source or weighing the credibility of the content creator.

    Moreover, schools can empower students to solve issues instead of getting stuck on identifying problems.

    Too frequently, we fixate on what’s broken instead of creating a better way. Rather than pointing fingers, shifting the focus can make a difference. When students learn to be solution-makers, not just problem-identifiers, they lower their toxic anxiety levels and instead set themselves up to succeed in tomorrow’s world.

    As educators, shaping students to think like exemplary citizens means adjusting our approaches so we enable students to build confidence in their abilities to apply their understanding in a “real-world” context.

    Things won’t change today, this month, this year or even this decade. But by beginning with the end in mind — with a resolve that society can be full of exemplary citizens — we can start on the right path.

    Source link

  • A sportswear brand vs. an Ivy League school: Columbia sues Columbia

    A sportswear brand vs. an Ivy League school: Columbia sues Columbia

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Columbia Sportswear is suing Columbia University for trademark infringement, unfair competition and breach of contract, according to court documents filed last week.
    • Attorneys for Columbia Sportswear say the university is in breach of a written agreement between the parties over the sale of apparel merchandise. The two groups entered a written agreement in 2023 that the university would not use the “Columbia” name alone.
    • Last year, Columbia University’s webstore offered for sale shirts, sweatshirts and hats that bare the word “Columbia” on its own, which attorneys for Columbia Sportswear say violate the contract and its trademark rights.

    Dive Insight:

    Columbia Sportswear is seeking a jury trial in the complaint against Columbia University. It also asks that the university be prevented from using the trademark name alone on apparel and accessories, along with recalling any such products currently in the university’s possession. The brand also is seeking monetary damages.

    In 2023, the sportswear company said the two groups entered a written agreement whereby the university could use the “Columbia” name, for which the sportswear company has a trademark, if the name was used with one other distinguishing mark associated with the university, such as its shield, crown or lion mascot logo, or words, such as “university,” “Columbia Law,” or its year of founding.

    The lawsuit was filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Columbia Sportswear is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. 

    Some of the Columbia University apparel mentioned in the lawsuit include the Nike and Champion logos, which attorneys for Columbia Sportswear say can create customer confusion and a false association between Columbia Sportswear and its competitors.

    A Columbia University sweatshirt with the Nike emblem.

    An example of Columbia University’s allegedly infringing products.

    Retrieved from Court Filing.

     

    “Though Columbia Sportswear and Nike are headquartered in the same State and are both highly reputable sporting apparel designers and have a generally friendly relationship, the two companies have never collaborated to jointly design, manufacture, market, or sell any product,” the complaint says. “A consumer looking at the Infringing Merchandise would never know that, and, in fact, would reasonably be induced into believing the companies had.”

    A Columbia University spokesperson declined to comment on the pending litigation.

    It’s likely that this case will be settled out of court, and fairly quickly, said Josh Gerben, trademark attorney and founder of Gerben IP law firm.

    However, “if Columbia Sportswear’s version of the story in the complaint is not entirely accurate, and Columbia University decides to defend the case, things could get interesting,” Gerben said in an email. “This is because Columbia University has been around much longer than Columbia Sportswear. It gives the university some very interesting defenses to the overall claims regarding trademark infringement.”

    Columbia Sportswear is set to announce its second quarter earnings Thursday. In Q1, the company reported a net sales increase of 1% to $778.5 million. At the time of the announcement, the company withdrew its full-year financial outlook due to economic uncertainty related to tariffs.

    Source link

  • 150K fewer international students this fall? That’s what one analysis predicts.

    150K fewer international students this fall? That’s what one analysis predicts.

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

    Dive Brief:

    • International enrollment at U.S. colleges could drop by as much as 150,000 students this fall unless the federal government ramps up its issuing of visas this summer, according to recent projections from NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 
    • The financial consequences could be severe. A 30% to 40% decline in new foreign students would lead to a 15% overall drop in international enrollment and, with it, a potential loss of $7 billion in revenue for colleges and 60,000 higher education jobs, NAFSA estimated. 
    • The organization attributed the projected decline to various Trump administration actions, including travel bans and an earlier suspension of visa interviews. NAFSA called on Congress to direct the State Department to expedite processing for student visas. 

    Dive Insight:

    Preliminary data from early this year suggested “flat to modest growth” in international student enrollment, but NASFA pointed to policy changes that could alter the landscape ahead.

    Since President Donald Trump retook office this year, many in the higher education world have worried international enrollment would decline in response to his policies and the perceptions abroad about America and how welcoming it will be to foreign students. 

    His administration has indeed taken an aggressive stance on admitting students from outside the U.S. In June, Trump signed an executive order banning travel from 12 countries and imposing restrictions on seven others. And the president has recently considered bans on 36 more countries. 

    Also in June, the State Department announced expanded screening that included surveillance of social media posts for applicants of F, M and J nonimmigrant visas. 

    That followed an announcement in May from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the U.S. would move to “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students. Trump later appeared to walk back that stance on social media, adding more confusion as to the administration’s actual policy.

    NAFSA pointed to reports of limited to no visa review appointments for prospective international students in India, China, Nigeria and Japan. The organization noted that India and China send the most international students to the U.S., while Nigeria and Japan are the seventh and 13th leading home countries, respectively. 

    On top of those moves, the administration has demonstrated interest in using international student enrollment as leverage against institutions and activists in Trump’s crosshairs. 

    Through various directives, for example,Trump and his government have tried to bar Harvard from enrolling international students in the administration’s ongoing feud with the university. Each of those efforts have been temporarily blocked in court. Had they not been, the consequences for Harvard would likely be dire. In the 2024-25 academic year, the Ivy League university’s roughly 6,800 foreign students made up 27.2% of its student body.  

    Earlier this year, the administration also moved to deny visas for pro-Palestinian protestors. 

    A July report from analysts with Moody’s ratings services pointed to the potential financial fallout for colleges from declines in international enrollment. They noted that foreign students tend to pay full tuition and fees, heightening the potential revenue impact. 

    A stress test by the analysts found that for 130 colleges they rate, a 20% drop in international enrollment would translate into a 0.5 percentage-point hit to their earnings margin before taxes, interest, depreciation and amortization. For 18 colleges, EBITDA margin loss would be 2 to 8 points. Those with already low margins could face “significant financial stress,” the analysts said.

    Source link

  • Priyanka Roy, York University

    Priyanka Roy, York University

    Introduce yourself in three words or phrases. 

    Borderless thinker, story collector, quietly fierce.

    What do you like most about your job?

    Connecting people to possibilities. It blends everything I’ve studied and lived through, connection, culture, and human behavior.

    With a background in clinical psychology, I lean into the why behind choices, but I also love thinking big: What changes access? What drives outcomes? What makes strategy stick? Helping students dream bigger is what I do daily, but assisting institutions to see differently is what I’m growing toward.

    Best work trip/Worst work trip?

    Best: Nepal. A place where spirituality meets ambition, and every conversation felt like a masterclass in purpose. I met students who challenged assumptions,
    asked global questions, and reminded me why this work isn’t just recruitment, it’s relationship-building across borders.

    Worst: One of those everything-goes-wrong kind of trips – delayed flights, tech glitches, and a schedule that changed by the hour. I remember the panic, but
    more than that, I remember pivoting fast, staying present, and making it work. It showed me how adaptability and clarity under pressure aren’t just nice-to-haves;
    They’re the bones that build leaders.

    If you could learn a language instantly, which would you pick and why?

    Arabic. I was born in Saudi, so it’s always felt like the soundtrack of my early life. Learning it would be more than linguistic. It’d be a way of reconnecting with
    something I’ve always found myself drawn to.

    A close second would be Japanese. With how they’re innovating in education and global engagement, it feels like a language that’s about to take centre stage.

    What makes you get up in the morning?

    The fact that someone out there is making a life-changing decision, and I might get to play a small part in it. That, and the promise of good coffee.

    Champion/cheerleader which we should all follow and why?

    Tunde Oyeneyin. Peloton coach turned powerhouse. She speaks about purpose, identity, and growth like she’s been reading your journal. I was never athletic or sporty and exercise never felt like it belonged to me.

    But something shifted when I found her. She made movement feel like a celebration, not a punishment. Her energy is magnetic, her story is powerful, and her voice makes you believe you can rewrite your narrative, and when used intentionally, can move people.

    Best international ed conference and why

    APAIE in India earlier this year. My first global panel! Sitting among leaders I Googled in awe and quietly learn from, now contributing to the conversation at the same table as them was surreal. It was one of those “you’re not in the audience anymore” moments.

    Worst conference food/beverage experience

    One conference served “fusion” snacks. I tried something that was somewhere between dessert and deep regret. Coffee didn’t salvage it either. It’s fine.
    Character was built.

    Book or podcast recommendation for others in the sector?

    The One Thing by Gary Keller. This sector moves fast. There’s always something to do, someone to help, somewhere to be. This book forces you to pause and ask: “What’s the one thing I can do right now that actually makes a difference?” Game changer for anyone juggling a million priorities.

    Describe a project or initiative you’re currently working on that excites you.

    I’m working on a storytelling series that spotlights international students who’ve carved out unexpected paths. It’s about humanising the data and reminding
    institutions that behind every stat is a story worth telling. Still in early stages, but it’s one of those ideas that just won’t leave me alone.

    The post Priyanka Roy, York University appeared first on The PIE News.

    Source link

  • Senate Appropriators Reject Trump’s Education Dept. Cuts

    Senate Appropriators Reject Trump’s Education Dept. Cuts

    Senate Republicans are planning to protect the Pell Grant program, keeping the maximum grant award at $7,395 for the coming academic year, despite the Trump administration’s proposal to lower it to $5,710.

    The rejection of Pell Grant cuts at a key committee markup Thursday is just the latest rebuke from congressional appropriators as lawmakers in both chambers have appeared wary of President Trump’s plans to shutter offices, gut programs and generally reshape the federal government.

    In addition to protecting $22.5 billion for Pell, the GOP also spared TRIO, campus childcare subsidies and numerous other programs that Trump had proposed zeroing out. It also set new staffing standards for the recently gutted Department of Education, increased funding for medical research by $400 million and rejected the National Institutes of Health’s attempt to cap indirect research cost reimbursements at 15 percent. The legislation also restricts other efforts at NIH to change how grants are awarded, though Democrats say “more needs to be done to protect NIH research programs.”

    Over all, the Department of Education is going to receive $79 billion and the NIH will get $48.7 billion. In comparison, Trump had requested $66.7 billion for ED and $27.5 billion for NIH.

    Committee chair Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said she was proud of the legislation that advanced Thursday, calling it a bipartisan effort to fund the health and education of American families. She noted that “the appropriations process is the key way that Congress carries out its constitutional responsibility for the power of the purse.”

    But Democrats, while overall supportive, noted that they’ve had to make a number of compromises already and warned that Trump could still attempt to make unilateral changes moving forward.

    “These are not the bills I would have written on my own, but nonetheless they represent serious bipartisan work to make some truly critical investments in our country and families’ future,” said Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and ranking member of the committee. Still, she added, this is only half the battle. “The fact of the matter is we have an administration right now that is intent on ignoring Congress, breaking the law and doing everything it can without transparency to dismantle programs and agencies.”

    The Trump administration has repeatedly frozen or cut grant funding, largely declining to spend money that Congress appropriated—moves that Murray and others have decried as illegal. More recently, the administration waited weeks before sending critical funding to states that supports after-school programs, migrant education and adult education. About $7 billion was affected, and colleges had to scramble to find a way to fill the funding gaps before Trump’s Office of Management and Budget finally released the money last week. Meanwhile, colleges are still waiting for the Education Department to open up grant applications for millions in funds.

    At NIH, grant cancellations and other changes have slowed the flow of research funding to colleges. Earlier this week the administration briefly paused all new grant awards, infuriating congressional Democrats. Over all, since Trump took office, the biomedical research agency has cut more than 4,000 grants at 600 institutions totaling somewhere between $6.9 billion and $8.2 billion.

    Beyond the grant cuts, the Trump administration recently clawed back money that had been allocated to public broadcasting, using a legislative process called rescission. The president is expected to propose a second rescission package in the months to come, this time targeting education dollars. Democrats have warned that using rescissions to change the budget could endanger talks on fiscal year 2026 spending.

    So while higher ed lobbyists typically look to the Senate’s spending plan as the framework for what to expect in the final bill, Trump’s willingness to test the limits of executive power complicates the picture.

    Still, the Senate’s proposals for the NIH as well as the Education Department, which funds a number of programs at the previous year’s level, is a victory for advocates who spent months warning that Trump’s budget cuts would be devastating for students and research.

    “We are not surprised by what we’ve seen. The Senate often works more bipartisanly together, and that was reflected in the markup today,” said Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education. “In this political environment, flat funding is a win. It’s not ideal, but it is us being mindful of the current realities that we’re in and the financial constraints that we’re in, especially with the upcoming rescissions package that’s supposed to include education.”

    That said, Guillory noted that he’s bracing for deeper cuts from the House, which has yet to release its education and health spending proposals.

    “I could see the House having a bit more influence [than most years past], as they have had more influence so far this Congress,” he said.

    Seeking Guardrails

    Democrats did try to amend the bill in order to establish guardrails that would retroactively address Trump’s funding cuts and protect the fiscal year 2026 appropriations from a similar ambush.

    Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, proposed reinstating all college grants frozen or retracted since Jan. 28, with the exception of those pulled due to financial malfeasance. He highlighted how, in Chicago, the cuts have halted infant heart defect research and then ran through a lengthy list of other medical projects affected in other senators’ districts.

    “This could happen to any of your states’ research centers. It could hurt any of your families,” he argued.

    Later, Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, one of the few Democrats who did not support the bill, sought an inspector general report into whether the Department of Education’s civil rights office is properly following statutes when investigating discrimination complaints and issuing discipline.

    The Department of Education’s OCR, along with other agencies, has launched dozens of investigations into alleged civil rights violations at colleges and universities. Those inquiries haven’t followed the required statutory procedures, but colleges have lost funding and faced other consequences.

    Murphy proposed withholding OCR funding until the appropriations committee received the IG’s report.

    “My worry is simply that the president is going to ignore the will of Congress that is present in this legislation,” he said. “If this does become normalized—if the president of the United States gets to deny funds to universities because they don’t like political viewpoints of the student body or of the faculty—that is a Pandora’s box that is hard to ever again close.”

    Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, the West Virginia Republican who leads the education and health subcommittee, shot down both proposals, calling Murphy’s amendment “contrary to the point of the [OCR] office” and Durbin’s “too broad.”

    “I think every administration has the prerogative to implement new goals and priorities,” she said.

    Source link

  • National Science Foundation Suspends Grants at UCLA

    National Science Foundation Suspends Grants at UCLA

    The Justice Department this week accused UCLA of failing to protect its Jewish students.

    Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

    (This article has been updated with comment from UCLA.)

    The National Science Foundation said Thursday that it’s suspending grant awards at the University of California, Los Angeles. 

    An NSF spokesperson said that the university’s awards “are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals,” though they didn’t offer more specifics. NSF changed its priorities in April and, as a result, cut off funding to programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion and those aimed at combating misinformation

    Freelance journalist Dan Garisto wrote on BlueSky that nearly 300 grants at UCLA are now suspended. That includes a $25 million grant that supports the university’s Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics. (In 2022, UCLA had about 450 grants from the NSF, totaling more than $350 million.)

    UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk wrote in a letter to the campus community that the freeze extended beyond NSF to include grants from the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies.

    “This is not only a loss to the researchers who rely on critical grants,” Frenk wrote. “It is a loss for Americans across the nation whose work, health, and future depend on the groundbreaking work we do.”

    Frenk noted that UCLA was prepared for a grant freeze and has developed contingency plans. “We will do everything we can to protect the interests of faculty, students and staff—and to defend our values and principles,” he pledged.

    The Associated Press reported that the freeze affected $339 million in federal grants.

    The grant suspension comes as UCLA finds itself the Trump administration’s latest target in its growing war with higher education. Earlier this week, the university settled a lawsuit in which a group of Jewish students alleged that UCLA enabled pro-Palestinian activists to cut off Jewish students’ access to parts of campus. On the same day the settlement was announced, the Justice Department accused UCLA of violating the federal civil rights law that bars antisemitism and race-based discrimination.

    Frenk said the government claimed “antisemitism and bias as the reasons” for the freeze. But he argued that Trump’s “far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.” 

    He added that UCLA shares the goal of eradicating antisemitism, detailing the steps the university has taken in the last year to address the issue, including establishing new policies for campus protests.

    UCLA has until Aug. 5 to respond to the DOJ’s notice of violation; DOJ officials threatened that the university would “pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk.” The Justice Department is also investigating the admissions practices at UCLA, but that inquiry hasn’t wrapped up yet.

    Source link

  • Why Universities Must Not Capitulate to the Trump Regime

    Why Universities Must Not Capitulate to the Trump Regime

    The $221 million settlement with the Trump administration by Columbia University (and a similar $50 million deal by Brown University) represent a terrible capitulation by these campus leaders. AAUP president Todd Wolfson called the settlement “a disaster for Columbia students, faculty, and staff, as well as for academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the independence of colleges and universities nationwide. Never in the history of our nation has an educational institution so thoroughly bent to the will of an autocrat.”

    Columbia and Brown had slam-dunk legal cases against the Trump administration, which clearly violated the processes required under Title VI when they suspended funding. (Brown was never notified of any reasons for the funding to be cut off, and there wasn’t even the pretense of a finding of antisemitic discrimination.) By making a settlement, universities give up their legal rights to challenge this repression, agree to impose massive censorship and pay a huge sum for the privilege of sacrificing their values.

    It’s possible that the leaders of Columbia and Brown made this agreement because they concluded that Trump is a pathological liar, a petty dictator, a petulant lawbreaker intent on taking revenge against any perceived enemy and a president who will simply ignore any adverse judicial rulings. That analysis is accurate. But if you think Trump will ignore the law and violate any rules, then trusting his regime to obey a legal settlement is just as crazy.

    The settlements include a bizarre amount of federal micromanagement of private universities, requiring Brown to provide single-sex floors in student housing, ban admissions decisions using personal statements that mention race and conduct a survey about antisemitism by the end of the year and take “appropriate action” in response. Even the smallest violation of the numerous requirements could be used to justify a future cutoff in federal funds.

    The same officials who made ludicrous accusations of antisemitic discrimination to punish these universities will get to decide if the colleges are violating the agreement and deserve to be punished. While the agreements settle the old baseless charges, nothing prevents new baseless charges from being filed and leading to the same illegal funding cuts. Colleges that settle with the Trump administration have no guarantee of safety from further retaliation, and Trump officials will actually use these settlements to demand a tighter reign of censorship.

    The New York Times reported about those praising the Columbia agreement, “Many have focused on a provision that said no part of the settlement ‘shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate faculty hiring, university hiring, admissions decisions or the content of academic speech.’” Far from being a positive protection for intellectual liberty, this language is actually a terrible threat to free expression on campus.

    By only protecting academic speech, this provision leaves the door wide open for government-imposed repression. Most expression on college campuses is not academic speech. The extramural utterances of faculty, along with virtually all student speech, is not academic speech and therefore is open to any suppression by the government under this agreement. But protecting extramural utterances is an essential part of academic freedom and has been a fundamental aspect of its definition since the AAUP’s 1915 Declaration of Principles.

    While the provision says that the government can’t “dictate faculty hiring,” there’s nothing about dictating faculty firings. By solely protecting hiring decisions, Columbia leaves the door wide-open for purging faculty, staff and students who are deemed undesirable by the Trump administration.

    In an email to the campus, Brown president Christina H. Paxson wrote that the first key aspect of the settlement was that “no provision of this Agreement, individually or taken together, shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate Brown’s curriculum or the content of academic speech.” (Brown apparently didn’t bother to follow Columbia and get a ban on federal control over its hiring decisions, which is an alarming omission.)

    Some people might think that paying $221 million to get $400 million in research grants is a good bargain. Federal grants aren’t free money for colleges. All of the funding goes to research expenses. Now that the Trump administration has arbitrarily lowered the indirect cost rate to 15 percent, government-sponsored research is much less profitable for colleges—and possibly an expense they must subsidize. Certainly, Columbia will be losing money by paying $221 million to get access to $400 million in grants.

    Paramount bribed Donald Trump a mere $16 million (and purged a few critics) in order to get approved an $8 billion merger that can’t be undone. As terrible as Paramount’s submission to Trump was, Columbia purged far more students and spent 13 times as much to get a deal worth 1/20th the value that increases ongoing federal control over Columbia. Paramount and Columbia executives may share a moral gutter, but at least Paramount’s bribe made financial sense.

    Worse yet, by making a settlement, Columbia loses that $221 million forever, with no opportunity to prevail in court and receive the full funding their researchers are entitled to. By agreeing to obey the government, Columbia hurts its legal options to challenge future funding cutoffs, because the government can claim that Columbia failed to live up to the terms of the settlement. If the courts rule against the Trump administration’s illegal actions, Columbia and Brown will still be forced to pay these millions, impose repressive censorship and face retaliation without legal recourse.

    The Columbia capitulation sets a precedent for Harvard to pay an even bigger settlement, estimated at up to $500 million. Unfortunately, hapless apologists for repression such as former Harvard president Larry Summers are urging Harvard to follow Columbia’s model, and Summers praised the Columbia capitulation as “the best day higher education has had in the last year.” Summers claimed, “The prestige of the university is not to be arrogated by faculty members in support of any set of political convictions, particularly those in leadership positions of academic units.”

    Let me translate this: Professors should not be allowed to express political views. For believers in censorship such as Summers, the desire to suppress academic freedom finds a convenient partner in the Trump administration.

    Universities are making these deals with the Trump regime not in spite of the requirements for censorship, but because of those restrictions. The provisions in these settlements enhance administrative power to suppress dissent, and that’s precisely what makes them so appealing to some campus administrators.

    Columbia and other colleges are trapped in a no-win situation, but even difficult moral dilemmas have wrong answers, and that’s what Columbia’s leadership has chosen. Let’s hope Harvard is not the next lemming to throw itself over the cliff and sacrifice its core values, its donor money and its common sense in the vain hope that fawning obedience and bribery can satisfy the vengeance of a mad leader.

    Source link