Blog

  • Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

    Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

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

    The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a bipartisan fiscal year 2026 K-12 education bill that would prevent the executive branch from removing Title I and special education programs to agencies outside the U.S. Department of Education. The legislation also rejects several other funding reforms proposed by the Trump administration.

    The bill would require timely awarding of formula grants by the Education Department to states and districts. For several weeks in July, the Education Department and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget withheld $6.2 billion in grant funding that states and districts expected access to starting July 1.

    That funding at pre-approved FY 2025 spending levels was released after the Trump administration conducted a “programmatic review” and added “guardrails” to ensure the funds would not violate executive orders or administration policy, a senior administration official at OMB told K-12 Dive in an email July 25.

    Educators, parents, education organizations, and Republican and Democratic lawmakers had pressured the administration to make the funds available, citing that the disruption in funds was causing school program cuts, canceled contracts and staff layoffs. 

    In total, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommends funding the Education Department in FY 26 at $79 billion, according to the bill text. That’s $12.3 billion more than President Donald Trump’s proposal of $66.7 billion. In the current fiscal year, the Education Department is funded at $78.7 billion. 

    “The bill also supports families by investing in education and affordable child care, which promotes financial stability for working parents and benefits our economy,” said Appropriations Committee Chair Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

    The proposed education budget — which was included in funding legislation for the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and related agencies — passed the committee in a 26-3 vote. 

    “Our bills reject devastating cuts — and reject many of this administration’s absurd proposals — like dismantling the Department of Education,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in her opening remarks. 

    “We all know President Trump cannot dismantle the Department of Education or ship education programs to other agencies. Authorizing laws prevent that. Appropriations laws prevent that,” Murray said. 

    Trump has said he wants to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and give states and localities more fiscal decision-making authority while reducing bureaucracy. 

    In March, Trump signed an executive order to shutter the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate.” Congress, however, would need to approve the closing of the agency.

    Maintaining separate formula grants

    The Trump administration’s budget proposed a new K-12 Simplified Funding Program that would merge 18 current competitive formula funding grant programs into one $2 billion formula grant program. The administration said the SFP would spur innovation and give states more spending flexibility and decision-making power.

    The Senate Appropriation Committee instead rejected that plan by keeping the formula grants separate. The Senate plan would provide a $50 million increase over FY 2025 spending for both Title I-A funding for low-income schools and districts, and for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

    The bill would maintain current spending levels, except for a few reductions, across other K-12 formula and competitive grant programs targeting improvements in teaching and learning, according to a bill summary from Murray’s office. 

    Other notable spending proposals from the Senate Appropriations Committee FY 26 bill include:

    • The Office for Civil Rights would maintain level spending at $140 million.
    • The Institute of Education Sciences would be funded at $793 million, level with the FY 25 budget. 
    • Title I and IDEA would be funded at $18.5 billion and $15.2 billion, respectively. The two grant programs make up the largest share of funding for K-12 at the Education Department.
    • Under the HHS portion of the legislation, the committee recommends increasing funding for the early childhood learning programs Head Start and the Child Care and Community Block grant by $85 million each to $12.4 billion and $8.8 billion, respectively. 

    The Senate Appropriations bill will now be considered by the House and full Senate. FY 26 starts Oct. 1.

    Source link

  • Penny Schwinn Drops Out of the Running for Ed Department’s Deputy Role – The 74

    Penny Schwinn Drops Out of the Running for Ed Department’s Deputy Role – The 74

    Updated

    Penny Schwinn, in line to serve as second in command of the U.S. Department of Education, has withdrawn from the nomination, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced Thursday.

    Instead, the former Tennessee education commissioner will take on a different role for the department.

    “I am grateful to Dr. Schwinn for her commitment to serving students, families, and educators across the nation,” McMahon said in a statement. “Penny is a brilliant education mind and I look forward to continuing working with her as my chief strategist to make education great again.”

    Schwinn, in a statement, said she gave the decision “thoughtful consideration” and said she will  “remain committed to protecting kids, raising achievement and expanding opportunity  —  my lifelong mission and north star.”

    Considered a champion for improving reading outcomes and high-dosage tutoring, Schwinn was among President Donald Trump’s early picks for department posts. Many perceived her as a more bipartisan choice than others joining the administration, but among Tennessee conservatives, many who felt she was too liberal, opposition to her nomination was strong.

    The timing of Schwinn’s withdrawal couldn’t be worse, according to some conservatives. 

    “Her decision to remove herself from consideration to become deputy secretary hurts students, educators, and the Trump administration,” said Jim Blew, co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute, a think tank. “Secretary McMahon has been charged by Congress and the president with huge tasks under the One Big Beautiful Bill and several urgent executive orders.”

    As head of the Education Department, McMahon is striving to turn more authority over education to the states. It’s now unclear who will step into the deputy position and take the lead on the state’s requests for more flexibility over education funding. At least two states, Iowa and Oklahoma, have already submitted requests for block grants, and Indiana is currently gathering comments from the public in preparation for a similar proposal. Kirsten Baesler, North Dakota’s long-time education chief, is currently awaiting confirmation to be assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the department. In February, she joined 11 other GOP chiefs in asking McMahon for greater freedom to direct education funds toward state-level needs.

    Controversies and questions over Schwinn’s conservative qualifications have followed her for years. Far-right groups, including Moms for Liberty, said her past support for equity initiatives, like hiring more teachers of color, was evidence that she was not a good fit for an administration determined to eliminate such programs. Others remained angry over Schwinn’s pandemic-era plan to conduct “well-being” home visits. Even though she scrapped the plan, parents and members of the legislature considered it an example of government overreach.

    More recently, Steve Gill, a conservative commentator in Tennessee, reported that while she was deputy superintendent of the Texas Education Agency, Schwinn recommended individuals who advocate for comprehensive sex education, including abortion rights, to advise the state on health curriculum. 

    Gill told The 74 he shared his TriStar Daily article about her stance on these issues with Tennessee Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty, as well as the state’s congressional delegation. Blackburn, who is expected to run for governor next year, was considered a possible no vote for Schwinn.

    According to Gill, Blackburn’s office “has been working tirelessly behind the scenes with the White House, Secretary Linda McMahon and Majority Leader [John] Thune to block the confirmation.”

    But Madi Biedermann, spokeswoman for the department, said the agency “strongly disagrees with that characterization.”

    Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee was expected to vote no on Penny Schwinn’s confirmation. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    Blew said it’s unfortunate that politics got in the way, noting that Schwinn’s experience in both blue and red states would have brought valuable expertise to the Ed Department role. In addition to her jobs in Tennessee and Texas, Schwinn founded a charter school in Sacramento and also served in the Delaware Department of Education.

    “It’s sad that a handful of demagogues are standing in the way of giving Secretary McMahon the team she needs to succeed,” he said.

    Others praised Schwinn’s record of prioritizing the science of reading in Tennessee schools and directing COVID relief funds toward tutoring.

    “This is a setback for all who want to see Washington slashing red tape, advancing literacy and fighting for common sense values,” said Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

    For some critics, Schwinn’s business ventures since leaving the top spot in Tennessee two years ago raised questions as she waited to appear before the Senate education committee. 

    In June, a day ahead of her joint hearing with three other nominees, The 74 reported that shortly after Trump tapped her for the job, she registered a new education consulting business in Florida, New Horizon BluePrint Group, with a longtime colleague. Before Schwinn filed ethics paperwork with the federal government, her sister replaced her as a manager on the business. 

    When a reporter from The 74 asked questions about the new project, Donald Fennoy, her colleague and a former superintendent of the Palm Beach County School District, dissolved the business.

    Ethics experts say candidates for an administration post often distance themselves from new business entanglements to avoid any appearance of a conflict, but Schwinn has faced accusations of poor judgment before.

    While she was in Texas, the state agency signed a $4.4 million no-bid contract in 2017 with a software company where she had a “professional relationship” with a subcontractor, according to a state audit. And in Tennessee, the education agency made an $8 million deal in 2021 with TNTP, a teacher training organization where her husband Paul Schwinn was employed at the time. Lawmakers considered the deal a “huge conflict.”

    “Ethics was a crucial concern,” said J.C. Bowman, executive director and CEO of Professional Educators of Tennessee, a non-union organization. He was among those who sent letters to the Senate, asking them to remove her from consideration. “Her personal business interests and possible conflicts could potentially influence educational decisions in ways that many found difficult to overlook.”

    Clarification: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the role Penny Schwinn will take on in lieu of serving as the deputy education secretary. Schwinn will be taking on an advisory role at the Education Department.


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

    Source link

  • How will the India-UK Vision 2035 impact education?

    How will the India-UK Vision 2035 impact education?

    The India–United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), negotiations for which began in January 2022, was finalised on July 24, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi calling it a ‘step-change’ in bilateral relations. 

    While the trade deal covers a wide range of areas, including tariff reductions, market access, mobility, and investment protection, aimed at delivering a £4.8bn annual boost to the UK economy and an estimated USD $9-10bn in export growth, the two Prime Ministers also endorsed the India-UK Vision 2035, “reaffirming their shared commitment to unlocking the full potential of a revitalised partnership”.

    Although technology, innovation, defence, and climate action are key pillars of India-UK cooperation under the Vision 2035 framework, education remains central to the shared goal of developing a skilled, future-ready talent pool to tackle global challenges and drive a sustainable future, according to a policy statement released alongside the FTA signing.

    In a first, both countries are launching an annual ministerial India-UK Education Dialogue, which will include reviews of mutually recognised qualifications and knowledge-sharing through joint participation in platforms such as the UK’s Education World Forum and India’s National Education Policy initiatives. 

    The launch of the ministerial dialogue also comes as UK universities increasingly recognise the potential of establishing academic and research-focused branch campuses in India.

    Just this Tuesday, the University of Bristol joined a growing list of UK institutions that have received approval to open campuses in India under the University Grants Commission’s Foreign Higher Educational Institutions (FHEI) regulations.

    Bristol’s Mumbai campus, slated to launch in Summer 2026, will offer undergraduate and postgraduate programs in data science, economics, finance and investment, immersive arts, and financial technology.

    Once operational, Bristol, ranked 51st globally, will become the highest-ranked British university to establish a campus in India, surpassing the University of Southampton, which launched its Gurugram campus earlier this month with classes beginning this August.

    Though Modi has welcomed the establishment of British campuses in India, calling it a “new chapter in the education sector of both countries”, some UK universities are facing flak at home “for seeking fortunes in India” amid ongoing financial woes and domestic job cuts.

    However, with universities like Bristol positioning their India campus as a hub for students, researchers, and industry to shape a better future, the Vision 2035 framework also underscores the India-UK Green Skills Partnership, an initiative focused on equipping young people in both countries with future-ready skills.

    The partnership aims to bridge skill gaps and enable joint initiatives, such as centres of excellence, climate-focused ventures, and courses and certifications in areas such as sustainability. 

    Moreover, the Vision 2035 framework also “encourages exchange and understanding among youth and students” to strengthen the success of existing initiatives like the Young Professionals Scheme (YPS) and the Study India Programme.

    While the YPS, launched in February 2023, is designed as a reciprocal visa scheme enabling British and Indian citizens aged 18-30 to live, work, travel, and study in each other’s country for up to two years, it has so far been largely one-sided. 

    Over 2,100 visas were issued to Indian nationals in 2023, while no such data is available for UK nationals going to India – suggesting participation has been minimal.

    But on the educational front, with UK universities setting up campuses in India and more exchange opportunities emerging, British students may also be encouraged to study in the South Asian country, Alison Barrett, country director India at the British Council, said in a recent interview with Financial Express.

    Once the FTA is ratified, the responsibility will shift to business organisations, institutions, and industry leaders to bring it to life
    Amarjit Singh, India Business Group

    Furthermore, a recent article by Bhawna Kumar, Acumen’s director of TNE and institutional partnerships, and Nikunj Agarwal, the company’s consultant in research and TNE, highlighted the pivotal role of India’s National Education Policy in shaping the FTA and the Vision 2035. 

    “Chapter 8B of the FTA (UK Schedule of Commitments) places no restriction on UK providers offering higher education services (CPC 923) in India. This opens doors for UK universities to expand through various TNE models such as joint degrees, dual degrees, and campus partnerships,” they noted, citing the example of University of Birmingham’s joint master’s programs with IIT Madras in Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, and Sustainable Energy Systems, as a key example. 

    “Chapter 14 of the FTA aligns closely, promoting joint R&D, researcher exchanges, and institutional partnerships in areas like digital innovation, clean energy, agriculture, and healthcare mirroring NEP’s multidisciplinary agenda,” they added. 

    While the Vision 2035 framework appears robust on paper, the authors point out several implementation challenges that remain pressing, chief among them being regulatory alignment, visa bottlenecks, and the slow pace of progress on mutual recognition agreements. 

    “Establishing a Joint Education and Skills Council, co-chaired by senior officials from both countries, would institutionalise cooperation, monitor delivery, and resolve bottlenecks in real time,” they suggested. 

    While the trade deal does not explicitly mention international students, CETA is expected to broaden “high-quality employment pathways” for young Indians by easing access to the services market and facilitating short-term mobility for skilled talent across sectors such as IT, healthcare, finance, and the creative industries. 

    Each year, up to 1,800 Indian chefs, yoga instructors, and classical musicians would be able to work in the UK temporarily under CETA. 

    Additionally, Indian workers will benefit from the Double Contribution Convention (DCC), which will exempt them and their employers from UK National Insurance contributions for up to three years.

    Will CETA stand the test of time in delivering benefits to students and professionals? Amarjit Singh, CEO, India Business Group, believes it can but only with a collaborative approach to ensure its long-term success.

    “The UK-India partnership is respected across party lines. While the 2030 Roadmap was negotiated last year, the framework has been in the making for nearly a decade. There is broad consensus not to jeopardize this progress,” Singh told The PIE News. 

    Though CETA has been signed by both countries, it still requires ratification by their respective parliaments, a process expected to take another six to 12 months.

    “Once the FTA is ratified, the responsibility will shift to business organisations, institutions, and industry leaders to bring it to life. That’s where we need more awareness, active engagement, and a bit of hand-holding to realise its full potential.” 

    Source link

  • IRCC adds officer decision notes to visa refusals

    IRCC adds officer decision notes to visa refusals

    Announcing the news on July 29, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) said the move supported its “commitment to… transparency” and, in theory, has been hailed as welcome news for prospective students, institutions and representatives.  

    “This is a welcome step that many of us in the sector have long advocated, however how it is actually implemented remains to be seen,” director of global engagement at the University of British Columbia, Philipp Reichert, told The PIE News.  

    The move is intended to provide greater transparency and clarity in IRCC’s decision-making, giving applicants a better understanding of the reasons for their visa refusal, and reducing the need to submit Access to Information Requests (ATIR) or file Judicial Reviews challenging visa decisions.  

    And yet, “the real test will be whether these officer decision notes provide meaningful detail, rather than generic statement, to support informed reapplications”, said Reichert.  

    Given the frustration of applicants and representatives who previously received template refusal letters, Canadian immigration lawyer Will Tao said it was “largely justifiable” that colleagues had generally reacted positively to the news.  

    However, heeding caution, Tao raised concerns “that having letters which provide only the summary of the final decision, the ‘last entry notes’ so to speak, may not move us forward very much”.

    Just two days into the new policy, early examples of IRCC decision notes are already circulating among educators and immigration lawyers, with Reichert calling them “disappointingly brief and surface-level”. 

    Stakeholders have stressed that the policy will only be effective if decision notes meaningfully explain how an officer reached their conclusion. “Transparency without clarity risks being a missed opportunity,” warned Reichert. 

    In the policy’s early phase, decision notes are being provided with visa refusal letters for study permits, work permits, visitor visas and extensions, with more application types to be added over time.

    The change comes amid rising sector concerns over the falling study permit approval rate which dropped from 60% in 2023 to 48% in 2024, meaning half of all prospective international students were denied entry to Canadian institutions last year.  

    What’s more, the declining approval rate comes as the pool of applicants is shrinking due to the federal cap on international students – a trend that has surprised some stakeholders who had expected the applicant pool to have become stronger.  

    As approval rates have fallen, a growing number of international students are relying on information requests to obtain basic information about the reasons for refusal, as well as appealing the decision through judicial reviews.  

    If implemented correctly, clear officer decision notes could reduce the number of ATIP requests and judicial reviews by addressing some of the uncertainty that drives these decisions.  

    Superficial or templated notes are unlikely to make a significant difference to JR volumes

    Philipp Reichert, University of British Columbia

    Not only would this make for a fairer process, but it would also lower the administrative burden and costs on the IRCC system and “create a smoother experience for everyone involved”, noted Reichert.  

    “However, this will depend heavily on the quality of the information provided. Superficial or templated notes are unlikely to make a significant difference to Judicial Review volumes,” said Reichert.  

    Based on initial examples, Tao said the notes so far had provided “merely the same boilerplate language” except without the disclosure of the use of Chinook (the IRCC’s software system), triage and timestamp information, which, he warned, would make it difficult to uncover bulk decision-making.  

    At the same time, commentators have highlighted that it is still “early days”, with Tao suggesting that the use of tools including IRCC GPT could drive more case-specific refusal reasons over time. 

    Notably, the change comes as the IRCC is planning to de-platform its case management system (GCMS) altogether, meaning that the officer notes could be all that applicants can access in the new Digital Platform Modernisation, ‘DPM 3’, due to be rolled out across IRCC’s temporary resident visa program next year.  

    Though until that happens: “my clients will likely still need to file ATIPs and also judicial review decisions telling the court full reasons were not received,” said Tao.  

    Source link

  • Sonia De La Torre | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Sonia De La Torre | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Dr. Sonia De La Torre Sonia De La Torre has been named Vice President of Student Services at Fullerton College.

    De La Torre most recently served as Dean of Student Equity at Long Beach City College. She previously served as the Associate Dean of Student Support Services and Director of Student Success and Support Services at Long Beach City College. Prior to her tenure in the California Community College system, she held leadership roles in student affairs at Scripps College and in academic support within the University of California system.

    De La Torre holds a Bachelors of Arts degree from University of California, Davis, a Master of Science degree in Educational Counseling and Guidance from California State University, San Bernardino and a Doctorate in Educational Leadership from California State University, Long Beach. 

    Source link

  • Visa Processing Delays Could Cost U.S. Universities $7 Billion and 60,000 Jobs This Fall

    Visa Processing Delays Could Cost U.S. Universities $7 Billion and 60,000 Jobs This Fall

    Recent disruptions to student visa processing could trigger a 30-40% decline in new international student enrollment this fall, potentially costing the U.S. economy $7 billion and more than 60,000 jobs, according to a new analysis by NAFSA: Association of International Educators and JB International.

    The preliminary projections, based on SEVIS and State Department data, paint a stark picture for higher education institutions that have come to rely heavily on international students for both revenue and academic diversity. The analysis predicts an overall 15% drop in international enrollment for the 2025-26 academic year, which would reverse years of steady growth in this critical sector.

    “This analysis, the first to calculate the potential economic impact of fewer international students on cities and towns across the country, should serve as a clarion call to the State Department that it must act,” said Dr. Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA. “The immediate economic losses projected here are just the tip of the iceberg.”

    The projected decline stems from a confluence of policy changes and administrative challenges that have created significant barriers for prospective international students:

    Visa Interview Suspension: Between May 27 and June 18, 2025, student visa interviews were paused during the peak issuance season—precisely when students needed to secure visas for fall enrollment. When interviews resumed on June 18, consulates received a directive to implement new social media vetting protocols within five days, but with minimal guidance.

    Appointment Bottlenecks: Reports indicate limited or no visa appointment availability in key countries including India, China, Nigeria, and Japan. India and China alone represent the top two sources of international students to the United States, while Nigeria ranks seventh and Japan 13th among sending countries.

    Declining Visa Issuance: F-1 student visa issuance dropped 12% from January to April 2025 and plummeted 22% in May 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. While June 2025 data has not been published, the analysis suggests a possible 80-90% decrease based on the identified disruptions.

    Travel Restrictions: A June 4, 2025 executive order imposed restrictions on nationals from 19 countries, with reports suggesting another 36 countries could be added. These restrictions alone threaten $3 billion in annual economic contributions and more than 25,000 American jobs.

    The economic implications extend far beyond university campuses. International students contributed $46.1 billion to the U.S. economy in 2024-25 and supported nearly 400,000 jobs across various sectors including housing, dining, retail, and transportation.

    The projected 15% enrollment decline would reduce international student economic contributions to $39.2 billion in 2025-26, down from an expected $46.1 billion. This represents not just a loss to individual institutions, but to entire communities that have built economic ecosystems around international education.

    “Without significant recovery in visa issuance in July and August, up to 150,000 fewer students may arrive this fall,” the report warns, highlighting the narrow window remaining for policy corrections.

    Beyond immediate economic impacts, education leaders worry about long-term consequences for American higher education’s global competitiveness. International students contribute to research innovation, provide diverse perspectives in classrooms, and often remain in the United States after graduation, filling critical roles in STEM fields and other high-demand sectors.

    The timing is particularly concerning given increased competition from other English-speaking countries like Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, which have positioned themselves as more welcoming alternatives for international students.

    To mitigate what NAFSA calls a “devastating outcome,” the organization is urging Congress to direct the State Department to take two immediate actions:

    1. Provide expedited visa appointments and processing for all F-1 and M-1 students and J-1 exchange visitor visa applicants
    2. Exempt F and M students as well as J exchange visitors from current travel restrictions affecting nationals from 19 countries, while maintaining required background checks and vetting

    The report argues that these policy changes could help institutions avoid the projected enrollment cliff and preserve the economic benefits that international students bring to American communities.

    For institutions planning fall enrollment, the report suggests the need for contingency planning and advocacy efforts to address visa processing challenges. With the traditional summer months representing the final opportunity for students to secure visas for fall enrollment, time is running short for policy interventions.

     

    Source link

  • Black Women Reach Record State Legislative Representation Despite Persistent Gaps at Higher Levels

    Black Women Reach Record State Legislative Representation Despite Persistent Gaps at Higher Levels

    Black women achieved record-high representation in state legislatures and made historic gains in the U.S. Senate in 2025, according to a new report tracking their political progress over the past decade.

    Senators Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland.The “Black Women in American Politics 2025” report, released by Higher Heights Leadership Fund and the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, documents significant advances for Black women in elected office while highlighting continued underrepresentation at the highest levels of government.

    Black women now hold 401 state legislative seats nationwide, representing 5.4% of all state legislators and 16.2% of all women state legislators. This marks a 67.1% increase from 240 seats in 2014, when the organizations began tracking these statistics.

    The most dramatic change occurred in the U.S. Senate, where two Black women now serve simultaneously for the first time in American history. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland and Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware both won open seats in the 2024 election, doubling Black women’s representation in the upper chamber.

    “This year also marks the first time in history that two Black women serve together in the United States Senate,” Alsobrooks and Blunt Rochester wrote in the report’s foreword. “That milestone is not a coincidence; it’s a culmination. It’s the result of investments made, barriers challenged, and generations of Black women who refused to be sidelined.”

    At the congressional level, 29 Black women currently serve as voting members, including 27 in the House and two in the Senate. This represents nearly double the 15 Black women who served in Congress when tracking began in 2014. All current Black congresswomen are Democrats except for the two senators.

    The 2024 election cycle was particularly significant because Vice President Kamala Harris became the first Black woman to head a major-party presidential ticket. Though Harris lost the election, her 107-day campaign raised $81 million in its first 24 hours and nearly doubled Democratic voter enthusiasm, according to the report.

    Black women also made notable gains in municipal leadership. Three new Black women became mayors of major cities: Cherelle Parker in Philadelphia, Sharon Tucker in Fort Wayne, and Barbara Lee in Oakland. Eight Black women now serve as mayors of the nation’s 100 most populous cities, matching their proportion of the U.S. population.

    However, significant representation gaps persist at higher levels. No Black woman has ever served as governor, and Black women remain underrepresented in statewide executive offices. Currently, 10 Black women serve in such positions nationwide, including four lieutenant governors, two attorneys general, two secretaries of state, one auditor, and one controller.

    The report notes that 34 states have never elected a Black woman to statewide executive office. Since 2014, only 25 Black women have ever held such positions across 17 states.

    “In our nation’s 249-year history, a Black woman has never served as governor of a state or as president of the United States,” the senators wrote. “That reality is a stark reminder that our work is not done.”

    The growth in Black women’s representation has occurred almost exclusively among Democratic officeholders. The report documents only seven Black Republican women state legislators nationwide and notes that all Black congresswomen are Democrats.

    State-level representation varies significantly by region. Maryland leads with Black women comprising 18.6% of state legislators, followed by Georgia at 17.4%. Conversely, five states have no Black women in their legislatures: Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

    The report also highlights institutional leadership gains. Twenty Black women now hold state legislative leadership positions, including six who lead their chambers. In Congress, Black women hold over 22% of House Democratic leadership positions.

    Looking ahead, the organizations identify opportunities for continued growth. Virginia Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, a Republican, is running for governor in 2025 and could become the first Black woman governor in U.S. history if successful. Additionally, over 200 statewide offices will be up for election in 2026.

    This marks the eighth iteration of the annual report series, which began in 2014 and has been published in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2023. The comprehensive analysis tracks Black women’s political participation across federal, state, and local levels, providing the most detailed picture available of their representation in American politics.

    Source link

  • Just 329 students with an EHCP got to a high tariff provider last year

    Just 329 students with an EHCP got to a high tariff provider last year

    Everyone who can benefit from higher education deserves to do so. That’s pretty much what people remember the Robbins report as saying – and it is a comforting story that higher education likes to tell itself.

    But it doesn’t really hold true in the experiences of an increasingly diverse pool of potential applicants.

    The state of the art of supporting and regulating fair access to (and participation in) higher education in England has moved far beyond the (rather unsophisticated) idea of national targets and metrics. Like it or loathe it, the risk-based approach taken by the Office for Students is commendably grounded both in the experience of individual students and the academic literature.

    However a weakness of this approach is the temptation to argue that any access gaps represent a failure of higher education providers rather than taking a whole system (educational and, indeed socio-economic) perspective. When we do glance at wider problems with, say schools attainment it may not always be universities that are best placed (or adequately supported) to address them.

    And let us not be coy here – there are gaps:

    [Full screen]

    The chart shows progression rates to HE, either to all providers or “high tariff providers” (of which more later) for each year since 2009-10. The size of the dots represent the number of students in that population, the colours represent the groups of characteristics: you get everything from measures of economic disadvantage, to ethnicity, to disability and – new for this year – care experience. We are looking at the students that might usually be expected to enter HE that academic year (so the cohort that turned 18 the previous year – those who took a year out before university or who progress after resits will not be shown as progression to HE).

    SEN and EHCP

    There’s thousands of potential stories in this data – for this article I’m going to focus on special educational needs (SEN) as a factor influencing progression.

    As you can see from the chart 21.1 per cent of students with any special educational need progressed to higher education by the age of 19 in 2023-24. This is the highest on record, but before you break open the champagne we should add that the progression rate for their peers without SEN was more than 50 per cent. And for progression to high tariff providers the gap is even starker: 14.9 per cent without SEN, 3.8 with.

    Though a traditional image of a student with SEN may be of someone who is less academically able, there are many very academically inclined students who have SEN and are able to progress to any destination you can think of if they can access the right support. Support is not exactly easy to come by, and it is very much a lottery whether support is available to a particular child or not. Progression to any higher education setting by 19 was 25.4 per cent for those with SEN who had more generalised support, and just 9.4 for those who managed to get an education, health, and care plan (EHCP).

    Again, the experience of pupils with an EHCP may make it more likely that they apply later on (and thus not feature in their cohort data) – those who do progress often need to top up their level 2 or 3 qualifications before being able to progress to the next level of study, all of which takes time.

    But just 1.5 per cent of students with an EHCP, 327 students, progressed to a high tariff provider. To me, that’s a systemic failing.

    Regional dimensions

    More so than any other characteristic, where you live (and, more germanely, where you go to school) has a huge impact on your educational experience with SEN. In Kensington and Chelsea, 45.5 per cent of students with SEN are in HE by the age of 19. In Thurrock, the figure is more like 10 per cent.

    The variation is similar for all students – 71 per cent get to university in Redbridge, 26 per cent in Knowsley.

    [Full screen]

    But this core variation (which covers everything from socio-economic status to school quality to aspirations) is overlaid by the varying proportions of students with SEN in each area, and the varying levels (and quality) of the support that can be provided.

    [Full screen]

    Some 23.3 per cent of all students in Middlesbrough have a SEN marker. In Havering the figure is 8.85 per cent (there are some outliers with low numbers of students in total)

    What is being done?

    As Alex Grady of nasen wrote on the UCAS blog earlier this year, the many misconceptions around SEN indicating some form of “learning difficulty” that makes higher education irrelevant or impossible still persist. Students with SEN very often flourish at university, but the assumption that they will not attend higher education – so thinking around support through and beyond the transition between compulsory education and higher education often happens late or in a piecemeal fashion.

    It is comparatively rare for a university to visit a non-mainstream school, or vice-versa. There are many reasons (not least financial) for this not to happen, but there is a clear benefit to introducing students from all settings to a range of post-compulsory routes early and often. Sometimes special schools and other alternate provision partner with larger local schools to make this happen.

    Student records do not transition neatly between the compulsory sector and higher education, a situation not helped by the presumption that an EHCP extends to age 25 if you don’t go to university, but ends if they do (this, beautifully, is considered a “positive outcome”). A student may be used to assuming staff understand the best way to support them (as this is what happened at school) and feel uncomfortable or ill-equipped to effectively argue for similar support in HE.

    Universities do address this, both in highlighting the support that they offer students and in signposting what is available via the Disabled Students’ Allowance (many students with SEN do not identify themselves as “disabled”, and the variations in terminology are a recognised issue). But schools also have a role to play in preparing students for an application and choice experience that is pretty bewildering for all students.

    Additional data

    The DfE Widening Participation release is the only place where you get a definition of a “high tariff” provider – in 2023-24 this term referred to higher education providers with a mean tariff of 125.8 or above (last year this was 129.4).

    [Full screen]

    Source link

  • Do we still value original thought?

    Do we still value original thought?

    I have written the piece that you are now reading. But in the world of AI, what exactly does it mean to say that I’ve written it? 

    As someone who has either written or edited millions of words in my life, this question seems very important. 

    There are plenty of AI aids available to help me in my task. In fact, some are insinuating themselves into our everyday work without our explicit consent. For example, Microsoft inserted a ‘Copilot’ into Word, the programme I’m using. But I have disabled it. 

    I could also insert prompts into a service such as ChatGPT and ask it to write the piece itself. Or I could ask the chatbot direct questions and paste in the answers. Everybody who first encounters these services is amazed by what they can do. The ability to synthesise facts, arguments and ideas and express them in a desired style is truly extraordinary. So it’s possible that using chatbots would make my article more readable, or accurate or interesting.

    But in all these cases, I would be using, or perhaps paraphrasing, text that had been generated by a computer. And in my opinion, this would mean that I could no longer say that I had written it. And if that were the case, what would be the point of ‘writing’ the article and putting my name on it?

    Artificial intelligence is a real asset.

    There is no doubt that we benefit from AI, whether it is in faster access to information and services, safer transport, easier navigation, diagnostics and so on. 

    Rather than a revolution, the ever-increasing automation of human tasks seems a natural extension of the expansion of computing power that has been under way since the Second World War. Computers crunch data, find patterns and generate results that simulate those patterns. In general, this saves time and effort and enhances our lives.

    So at what point does the use of AI become worrying? To me, the answer is in the generation of content that purports to be created by specific humans but is in fact not. 

    The world of education is grappling with this issue. AI gathers information, orders and analyses it, and is able to answer questions about it, whether in papers or other ways. In other words, all the tasks that a student is supposed to perform! 

    At the simplest level, students can ask a computer to do the work and submit it as their own. Schools and universities have means to detect this, but there are also ways to avoid detection. 

    The human touch

    From my limited knowledge, text produced with the help of AI can seem sterile, distanced from both the ‘writer’ and the topic. In a word, dehumanised. And this is not surprising, because it is written by a robot. How is a teacher to grade a paper that seems to have been produced in this way?

    There is no point in moralising about this. The technologies cannot be un-invented. In fact, tech companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in vast amounts of additional computing power that will make robots ever more present in our lives. 

    So schools and universities will have to adjust. Some of the university websites that I’ve looked at are struggling to produce straightforward, coherent guidance for students. 

    The aim must be, on the one hand, to enable students to use all the available technologies to do their research, whether the goal is to write a first-year paper or a PhD thesis, and on the other hand to use their own brains to absorb and order their research, and to express their own analysis of it. They need to be able to think for themselves. 

    Methods to prove that they can do this might be to have hand-written exams, or to test them in viva voce interviews. Clearly, these would work for many students and many subjects, but not for all. On the assumption that all students are going to use AI for some of their tasks, the onus is on educational establishments to find new ways to make sure that students can absorb information and express their analysis on their own.

    Can bots break a news story?

    If schools and universities can’t do that, there would be no point in going to university at all. Obtaining a degree would have no meaning and people would be emerging from education without having learned how to use their brains.

    Another controversial area is my own former profession, journalism. Computers have subsumed many of the crafts that used to be involved in creating a newspaper. They can make the layouts, customise outputs, match images to content, and so on. 

    But only a human can spot what might be a hot political story, or describe the situation on the ground in Ukraine.  

    Journalists are right to be using AI for many purposes, for example to discover stories by analysing large sets of data. Meanwhile, more menial jobs involving statistics, such as writing up companies’ financial results and reporting on sports events, could be delegated to computers. But these stories might be boring and could miss newsworthy aspects, as well as the context and the atmosphere. Plus, does anybody actually want to read a story written by a robot? 

    Just like universities, serious media organisations are busy evolving AI policies so as to maintain a competitive edge and inform and entertain their target audiences, while ensuring credibility and transparency. This is all the more important when the dissemination of lies and fake images is so easy and prevalent. 

    Can AI replace an Ai Weiwei? 

    The creative arts are also vulnerable to AI-assisted abuse. It’s so easy to steal someone’s music, films, videos, books, indeed all types of creative content. Artists are right to appeal for legal protection. But effective regulation is going to be difficult.  

    There are good reasons, however, for people to regulate themselves. Yes, AI’s potential uses are amazing, even frightening. But it gets its material from trawling every possible type of content that it can via the internet. 

    That content is, by definition, second hand. The result of AI’s trawling of the internet is like a giant bowl of mush. Dip your spoon into it, and it will still be other people’s mush. 

    If you want to do something original, use your own brain to do it. If you don’t use your own intelligence and your own capabilities, they will wither away.

    And so I have done that. This piece may not be brilliant. But I wrote it.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. If artificial intelligence writes a story or creates a piece of art, can that be considered original?

    2. How can journalists use artificial intelligence to better serve the public?

    3. In what ways to you think artificial intelligence is more helpful or harmful to professions like journalism and the arts?

     

    Source link

  • What we lose when AI replaces teachers

    What we lose when AI replaces teachers

    Key points:

    A colleague of ours recently attended an AI training where the opening slide featured a list of all the ways AI can revolutionize our classrooms. Grading was listed at the top. Sure, AI can grade papers in mere seconds, but should it?

    As one of our students, Jane, stated: “It has a rubric and can quantify it. It has benchmarks. But that is not what actually goes into writing.” Our students recognize that AI cannot replace the empathy and deep understanding that recognizes the growth, effort, and development of their voice. What concerns us most about grading our students’ written work with AI is the transformation of their audience from human to robot.

    If we teach our students throughout their writing lives that what the grading robot says matters most, then we are teaching them that their audience doesn’t matter. As Wyatt, another student, put it: “If you can use AI to grade me, I can use AI to write.” NCTE, in its position statements for Generative AI, reminds us that writing is a human act, not a mechanical one. Reducing it to automated scores undermines its value and teaches students, like Wyatt and Jane, that the only time we write is for a grade. That is a future of teaching writing we hope to never see.

    We need to pause when tech companies tout AI as the grader of student writing. This isn’t a question of capability. AI can score essays. It can be calibrated to rubrics. It can, as Jane

    said, provide students with encouragement and feedback specific to their developing skills. And we have no doubt it has the potential to make a teacher’s grading life easier. But just because we can outsource some educational functions to technology doesn’t mean we should.

    It is bad enough how many students already see their teacher as their only audience. Or worse, when students are writing for teachers who see their written work strictly through the lens of a rubric, their audience is limited to the rubric. Even those options are better than writing for a bot. Instead, let’s question how often our students write to a broader audience of their peers, parents, community, or a panel of judges for a writing contest. We need to reengage with writing as a process and implement AI as a guide or aide rather than a judge with the last word on an essay score.

    Our best foot forward is to put AI in its place. The use of AI in the writing process is better served in the developing stages of writing. AI is excellent as a guide for brainstorming. It can help in a variety of ways when a student is struggling and looking for five alternatives to their current ending or an idea for a metaphor. And if you or your students like AI’s grading feature, they can paste their work into a bot for feedback prior to handing it in as a final draft.

    We need to recognize that there are grave consequences if we let a bot do all the grading. As teachers, we should recognize bot grading for what it is: automated education. We can and should leave the promises of hundreds of essays graded in an hour for the standardized test providers. Our classrooms are alive with people who have stories to tell, arguments to make, and research to conduct. We see our students beyond the raw data of their work. We recognize that the poem our student has written for their sick grandparent might be a little flawed, but it matters a whole lot to the person writing it and to the person they are writing it for. We see the excitement or determination in our students’ eyes when they’ve chosen a research topic that is important to them. They want their cause to be known and understood by others, not processed and graded by a bot.

    The adoption of AI into education should be conducted with caution. Many educators are experimenting with using AI tools in thoughtful and student-centered ways. In a recent article, David Cutler describes his experience using an AI-assisted platform to provide feedback on his students’ essays. While Cutler found the tool surprisingly accurate and helpful, the true value lies in the feedback being used as part of the revision process. As this article reinforces, the role of a teacher is not just to grade, but to support and guide learning. When used intentionally (and we emphasize, as in-process feedback) AI can enhance that learning, but the final word, and the relationship behind it, must still come from a human being.

    When we hand over grading to AI, we risk handing over something much bigger–our students’ belief that their words matter and deserve an audience. Our students don’t write to impress a rubric, they write to be heard. And when we replace the reader with a robot, we risk teaching our students that their voices only matter to the machine. We need to let AI support the writing process, not define the product. Let it offer ideas, not deliver grades. When we use it at the right moments and for the right reasons, it can make us better teachers and help our students grow. But let’s never confuse efficiency with empathy. Or algorithms with understanding.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link