Blog

  • Trump Administration Plans to Freeze Billions in Childcare Funding to California – The 74

    Trump Administration Plans to Freeze Billions in Childcare Funding to California – The 74


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

    The Trump administration says it’s planning to freeze about $10 billion in federal support for needy families in California and four other Democrat-run states, as the president announced an investigation into unspecified fraud in California.

    The plans come on the heels of the Trump administration announcing a freeze on all federal payments for child care in Minnesota, citing fraud allegations against daycare centers in the state.

    The state’s Democrat governor, Tim Walz — who ran for vice president against Donald Trump’s ticket in 2024 — announced Monday he was dropping out of running for reelection. He pointed to fraud against the state, saying it’s a real issue while alleging Trump and his allies were “seeking to take advantage of the crisis.”

    On Monday, the New York Post reported that the administration was expanding the funding freeze to include California and three other Democrat-led states, in addition to Minnesota. Unnamed federal officials cited “concerns that the benefits were fraudulently funneled to non-citizens,” The Post reported.

    Early Tuesday, President Trump alleged that corruption in California is worse than Minnesota and announced an investigation.

    “California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,” the president wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

    He did not specify what alleged fraud was being examined in the Golden State.

    LAist has reached out to the White House to ask what the president’s fraud concerns are in California and to request an interview with the president.

    “For too long, Democrat-led states and governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,” said an emailed statement from Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the federal childcare funds.

    “Under the Trump administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office disputed Trump’s claim on social media, arguing that since taking office, the governor has blocked $125 billion in fraud and arrested “criminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers.”

    Criminal fraud cases in CA appear to be rare for this program

    Defrauding federally funded programs is a crime — and one LAist has investigated, leading to one of the largest such criminal cases in recent years against a California elected official, which surrounded meal funds.

    When it comes to the federal childcare funds that are being frozen, the dollar amount of fraud alleged in criminal cases appears to be a tiny fraction of the overall program’s spending in California.

    A search of thousands of news releases by all four federal prosecutor offices in California, going back more than a decade, found a total of one criminal case where the press releases referenced childcare benefits.

    That case, brought in 2023, alleged four men stole $3.7 million in federal childcare benefits through fraudulent requests to a San Diego organization that distributed the funds. All four pleaded guilty, with one defendant sentenced to 27 months in prison and others sentenced to other terms, according to authorities.

    It appears to be equivalent to one one-hundredth of 1% of all the childcare funding California has received over the past decade-plus covered by the prosecution press release search.

    Potential impact on California families

    The plans call for California, Minnesota, New York, Illinois and Colorado to lose about $7 billion in cash assistance for households with children, almost $2.4 billion to care for children of working parents, and about $870 million for social services grants that mostly benefit children at risk, according to unnamed federal officials speaking to the New York Times and New York Post.

    In the largest category of funding, California receives $3.7 billion per year. The program is known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

     ”It’s very clear that a freeze of those funds would be very damaging to the children, families, and providers of California,” said Stacy Lee, who oversees early childhood initiatives “at Children Now, an advocacy group for children in California.

     ”It is a significant portion of our funds and will impact families and children and providers across the whole state,” she added. “It would be devastating, in no uncertain terms.”

    About 270,000 people are served by the TANF program in L.A. County — about 200,000 of whom are children, according to the county Department of Public Social Services.

    “Any pause in funding for their cash benefits – which average $1000/month – would be devastating to these families,” said DPSS chief of staff Nick Ippolito.

    Ippolito said the department has a robust fraud prevention and 170-person investigations team, and takes allegations “very seriously.”

    It remains to be seen whether the funding freeze will end up in court. The state, as well as major cities and counties in California, has sued to ask judges to halt funding freezes or new requirements placed by the Trump administration. L.A. city officials say they’ve had success with that, including shielding more than $600 million in federal grant funding to the city last year.

    A union representing California childcare workers said the funding freeze would harm low-income families.

    “These threats need to be called out for what they are: direct threats on working families of all backgrounds who rely on access to quality, affordable child care in their communities to go to work every day supporting, and growing our economy,” said Max Arias, chairperson for the Child Care Providers United, which says it represents more than 70,000 child care workers across the state who care for kids in their homes.

    “Funding freezes, even when intended to be temporary, will be devastating — resulting in families losing access to care and working parents facing the devastating choice of keeping their children safe or paying their bills.”

    Federal officials planned to send letters to the affected states Monday about the planned funding pauses, the New York Post reported. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, state officials said they haven’t gotten any official notification of the funding freeze plans.

    “The California Department of Social Services administers child care programs that help working families afford safe, reliable care for their children — so parents can go to work, support their families, and contribute to their communities,” said a statement from California Department of Social Services spokesperson Jason Montiel.

    “These funds are critical for working families across California. We take fraud seriously, and CDSS has received no information from the federal government indicating any freeze, pause, or suspension of federal child care funding.”

    This story was originally published on LAist.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Student Civil Rights Took Center Stage in 2025. Here’s What’s on the Horizon – The 74

    Student Civil Rights Took Center Stage in 2025. Here’s What’s on the Horizon – The 74

    School (in)Security is our biweekly briefing on the latest school safety news, vetted by Mark Keierleber. Subscribe here.

    Happy 2026 — and just like that, we’re more than a quarter of the way through this century. For news about school safety and students’ civil rights, 2025 was one for the history books — unless, of course, they get banned. 

    A bid to close the Education Department. Hundreds of thousands of deportations. A free-speech crackdown. And much, much more. 

    With the new year now underway, I figured I’d look back to highlight some of the largest news stories in the School (in)Security universe in 2025 that could see major developments over the next 12 months. 

    Trump’s immigration crackdown breaches the schoolhouse gate

    In an unprecedented response to President Donald Trump’s ongoing immigration crackdown and its impact on education, Minneapolis Public Schools shut down all of its schools for two days this week. The announcement came after immigration authorities reportedly tear-gassed students and arrested staff outside a high school. The Department of Homeland Security denied using tear gas.

    The encounter occurred just hours after a federal agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, who a DHS officer shot dead in her car.

    Students, families and K-12 schools throughout the country have felt the significant and far-reaching effects of the administration’s militarized mission on U.S. soil, which has resulted in more than half a million deportations.

    Student enrollment plunged after the Trump administration eliminated a longstanding policy against conducting raids at schools, churches and other “sensitive locations.” In limited but unprecedented ways, immigration agents acted on the policy change. In Florida, the Pinellas County school district applied to assist ICE in arresting immigrants — only to quickly backtrack as controversy ensued.  

    While agents have conducted “wellness checks” on unaccompanied minors across the country, including through visits to schools, thousands of children have been detained and are reportedly being held “as long as possible to increase the likelihood of deporting them.”

    Through it all, school communities across the country have banded together, my colleague Jo Napolitano reported, to send a clear message: “Not on our watch.”

    Looking forward: The sheer number of agents deployed to Minneapolis, a reported 2,000, and the violence and death that resulted could point to a willingness by the administration to double down on its targeting of cities and schools in the coming year.

    Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.

    Get the most critical news and information about students’ rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.

    DEI became a four-letter word

    Following a presidential campaign that centered on anti-immigrant and anti-transgender rhetoric, Trump made good on a promise with an order barring diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in schools. And, about as quickly, federal courts clapped back. In April, federal judges blocked the Education Department’s effort to withhold federal money from schools that didn’t pledge to carry out the Trump administration’s interpretation of anti-discrimination laws. 

    In December, the Department of Health and Human Services released a set of sweeping regulations designed to block gender-affirming care for minors, a move that advocates warned puts lives at risk. Iowa, meanwhile, became the first state in the country to strip discrimination protections from transgender and nonbinary people.

    Perhaps most consequential is the Trump administration’s efforts to decimate the Education Department — and its Office for Civil Rights, where thousands of unresolved investigations alleging discrimination in schools based on race and gender were left to languish.

    Expect an even smaller federal presence in school civil rights issues moving forward. In December, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced an order rescinding a 50-year-old rule that held schools responsible for neutral policies that negatively affect students of a certain race or nationality.

    Looking ahead: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next week over whether conservative states can ban transgender students from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.

    PowerSchool is breached — and millions of documents are leaked

    After PowerSchool became the target of a massive cyberattack in late 2024, Massachusetts teenager Matthew Lane was sentenced to prison for carrying out a failed get-rich-quick scheme that led to perhaps the largest student data breach in history. Now that Lane has had his day in court, attention has pivoted back to PowerSchool’s culpability in the breach. 

    The company has faced lawsuits from dozens of students, parents and school districts over allegations it failed to put adequate safeguards in place to protect troves of sensitive student data.

    In a separate complaint, Texas filed suit against the company, charging it deceived its customers about the strength of its cyber protections. 

    “If Big Tech thinks they can profit off managing children’s data while cutting corners on security, they are dead wrong,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a media release. “Parents should never have to worry that the information they provide to enroll their children in school could be stolen and misused.”

    The rise of artificial intelligence — and efforts to keep it contained

    Kids fell in love with AI-powered chatbots last year. No, really. As students turned to AI for help with their homework, for fun and to find romantic partnerships, skeptics warned that young people could grow socially and emotionally disconnected from the humans in their lives. Several lawsuits accused chatbots of leading kids down dark paths — even to suicide.

    On Wednesday, Character.AI and tech giant Google agreed to settle lawsuits filed by parents who said their children harmed themselves after using the startup’s chatbot. 

    Keep your eyes peeled: Bipartisan legislation proposed late last year could require chatbot users to verify their age — and force teens to break up with their digital companions.

    The murder of conservative pundit and operative Charlie Kirk was met with swift backlash as K-12 teachers, professors and college students were disciplined for social media posts celebrating his death. As the Trump administration vowed vengeance on Kirk’s critics, First Amendment protections for students were left on even shakier ground.

    Meanwhile, in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbot announced an initiative to launch Turning Point USA chapters at all high schools in the state — and warned educators of “meaningful disciplinary action” if they didn’t fall in line.

    Add to the mix federal efforts to silence pro-Palestinian college student activists. In September, a federal judge ruled a Trump administration effort to arrest and deport international students based on their pro-Palestinian advocacy was a blatant First Amendment violation.

    What happens next will play out in the courts: On Tuesday, the American Federation of Teachers filed a federal First Amendment lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency alleging it violated the free speech rights of educators in the wake of Kirk’s death.

    Emotional Support

    Sinead contemplates what’s to come in 2026 from her perch.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: What if, in trying to ‘fix’ universities, we are quietly unmaking them?

    WEEKEND READING: What if, in trying to ‘fix’ universities, we are quietly unmaking them?

    Join HEPI and Advance HE for a webinar on Tuesday, 13 January 2026, from 11am to 12pm, exploring what higher education can learn from leadership approaches in other sectors. Key topics will include innovative approaches to recruitment and diversity, and how to ensure future sector stability through effective leadership. Sign up here to hear this and more from our speakers.

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Monica Franco-Santos, Reader in Organisational Governance and Performance, Cranfield University.

    Across the UK, it is widely recognised that universities are under intense financial pressure. The observable fact is simple enough: there is not enough money coming in to cover the costs of what universities are expected to do. The difficulty begins when leaders, advisers and commentators decide what kind of problem this is.

    How the financial problem is described is not neutral. It reflects and reinforces a particular way of understanding what a university is and how it should function. If the financial situation is framed as a classic demand-and-cost problem (i.e., demand is insufficient, prices are constrained, and unit costs are too high), then the university is, implicitly, being treated as a ‘service provider’ operating in a competitive international education market where students are customers. In that frame, the obvious actions are to emphasise tight cost controls and to strengthen output-focused performance metrics, targets and incentives such as promotions based on publications in highly rated journals, income generation or teaching satisfaction scores.

    If the same financial situation is framed instead as a system-level shock that threatens the conditions under which teaching, research and public service can flourish, then a different picture of the university comes into view: a ‘living knowledge ecosystem’ serving a public mission and facing financial constraints partly beyond its control. Within that frame, the responses appears quite different. Attention turns to protecting core capacities, reducing harm to the most vulnerable parts of the system and working with others to share risks and resources.

    In both cases, the numbers in the spreadsheets are the same. What differs is the story told about the problem, and the underlying image of the university that story presupposes. At present, the former factory-like framing is the most common. With it, the danger is that, under a narrative of financial constraints, universities take actions that emphasise governance practices that reshape behaviour so deeply that, over time, what remains may still be called a ‘university’, but no longer acts like one.

    What makes a university a university?

    Students come to university for far more than a certificate or a set of skills. They expect new knowledge, but also critical thinking, confidence, friendships, networks and the sense that they are part of something bigger than themselves. They hope that a university education will open doors and help them lead more meaningful and fuller lives.

    Academics are drawn to universities not only as workplaces. They want to pursue their passion, make meaningful contributions, explore new ideas, contribute to their disciplines and teach the next generation. Many accept lower pay and higher uncertainty than they might enjoy elsewhere because they believe in the university’s mission.

    Governments and taxpayers fund universities not because they are efficient ‘businesses’, but because they are essential public institutions. They generate research that underpins economic growth and cultural life. They educate professionals on whom society depends. They are meant to be spaces where difficult questions can be asked and discussed. They are fundamental institutions in a democratic society.

    None of this is easily captured by governance practices that focus on performance metrics, targets, incentives or cost controls. These governance practices convey a different message about what is valued and what counts, and over time, these messages have the power to reshape what people do and eventually, what a university is.

    The rise of ‘control-oriented governance practices’ and how they change the rules of the game

    In recent years, universities have increasingly adopted governance practices such as:

    • individual and departmental targets for income, outputs and student metrics;
    • performance indicators used in league tables and regulatory frameworks;
    • workload models that count every task in hours and allocate them through software;
    • performance-related pay and promotion criteria tied closely to measured outputs;
    • cost analysis that evaluates teaching programmes as if they were products or services in their own right.

    These control-oriented governance practices are introduced with good intentions. Leaders demand accountability and transparency. They want to reassure governors and regulators that they are ‘in control’. They want to show staff that decisions are based on objective data. However, these governance practices carry with them implicit assumptions: that performance is controllable, that it can be measured and managed in a hierarchical manner and that those who produce the measurable performance are likely to behave in self-interested, risk-averse, and effort-averse ways. As a result, cost control, monitoring, tight targets, and performance-contingent rewards are seen as necessary to secure results. In our current situation, that means financial results.

    What we tend to forget is that, as this style of governance spreads and becomes institutionalised, it often displaces older, more collegial arrangements in which academics and professional staff had greater discretion, participated in decisions and were trusted to act in line with the institution’s mission. Governance systems can become self-fulfilling. The assumptions on which they are based eventually appear to be true, not because they were accurate to begin with, but because the specific mechanisms introduced steadily guide people to behave as if they were.

    When these governance arrangements take hold, several things tend to happen:

    • academics who value autonomy, curiosity and public service may leave, or never enter, university life as they notice these values are no longer upheld. Others may be made redundant as part of cost-saving measures;
    • those who remain may adapt by focusing on what is measured rather than what matters. They learn to hit targets, manage their ‘scores’, and protect themselves. They eventually behave as the practices assume them to behave;
    • new entrants may be selected partly for their comfort with this environment. The population slowly changes.

    In this way, the market logic remakes the institution in its own image. At that point, the university may perform respectably in league tables and may have returned to healthy financial levels. But something more fundamental has shifted. The pattern of behaviour that governance practices value, reward and punish no longer aligns with the traditional mission of the university as a community of scholars serving the public good. The question then is not just “Are we financially sustainable?” It is “What kind of institution are we sustaining?”

    Questions for leaders and policymakers

    Policy work should offer alternatives, not only criticism. So what might it mean to protect the ’university-ness’ of universities under financial pressure?

    For governing bodies:

    • when you review performance information, ask not only “are we on target?” but also “what behaviours are these indicators encouraging or discouraging?”;
    • consider whether the balance between control and collegial governance is appropriate for different roles, especially for academic work.

    For vice-chancellors and senior teams:

    • before introducing new dashboards, workload systems or performance schemes, ask a simple question: “If this mechanism were the only thing staff knew about what we value, what would they infer?”;
    • involve staff from different groups in the design and review of governance mechanisms, and be open to evidence about unintended consequences, including effects on stress, trust and identity.

    For government and regulators:

    • recognise that the way funding and accountability regimes are structured shapes internal governance. If external frameworks reward narrow indicators, it is unsurprising that institutions pass that logic on to individuals;
    • consider how policy can support forms of governance that sustain academic stewardship, not only short-term performance.

    When do universities stop being universities?

    Universities can and must adapt. They have evolved many times in response to political, economic and technological shifts. No one is arguing for a return to a mythical golden age. However, if we allow a narrow, factory-style logic of control to dominate and we frame all our problems through that lens, we risk changing not only processes and structures, but the very rules of the game. When the values and behaviours that are made salient are those that undermine curiosity, critical thought and public service, the term ‘university’ begins to lose its substance.

    In my view, this is the core issue that staff, students, governors and policymakers should be debating. The question is not only how to keep universities solvent, but how to ensure that, in ten or twenty years’ time, they are still universities. And by that I mean: places where the pursuit of knowledge, the formation of judgement and the service to society remain at the heart of what they do.

    Source link

  • UVA Board Members Blast Lawmakers, Faculty in Texts

    UVA Board Members Blast Lawmakers, Faculty in Texts

    University of Virginia board members blasted state lawmakers as “extremist” and faculty members as “out of control” in a batch of text messages published by the Washington Post.

    Richmond-based author Jeff Thomas sued the university to force the release of communications between board members and university officials from June 2023 through last month; then he released the 947 pages of messages to the newspaper.

    In recent months, the Board of Visitors—stocked with GOP donors and other political figures—has defied state lawmakers, including Governor-Elect Abigail Spanberger, over calls to pause a presidential search. That search concluded with an internal hire last month, though multiple critics have flagged process concerns and state lawmakers have also voiced displeasure.

    The text messages show that board members reacted sharply last year when a Democrat-controlled board rejected multiple university board picks by Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin. The governor lost a subsequent legal fight to seat the picks and several boards remain hobbled.

    In August text messages to Jim Donovan, one of the rejected picks, UVA Board Rector Rachel Sheridan, called the General Assembly’s refusal to approve Youngkin’s nominees “Very disappointing. Completely unprecedented and destructive.” Sheridan added: “I hope this backfires politically and reveals them to be the extremists they are.”

    Sheridan did not apologize or backtrack after the texts were released. In a statement to the Washington Post and Inside Higher Ed, she wrote: “I respect the General Assembly’s authority on these matters but share the frustration of those four individuals that were summarily rejected without the benefit of consideration of their merit and the value these individuals have given and could have continued to give to the university community.”

    Her remarks highlight tensions between the board and the General Assembly, which have spiked since President Jim Ryan resigned under pressure in June and the university signed an agreement with the Department of Justice in October to close multiple investigations into alleged civil rights violations.

    In other text messages, Vice Rector Porter Wilkinson expressed frustration with the UVA Faculty Senate, which has demanded answers about whether Ryan was pushed out by the board and the DOJ agreement.

    When Board of Visitors Secretary Scott Ballenger texted Wilkinson in October that the Faculty Senate was debating a resolution to demand a meeting with Sheirdan and then-Interim President Paul Mahoney, Wilkinson responded “That is insane.” When he told her the Faculty Senate was weighing a resolution of no-confidence in Mahoney, she wrote: “So embarrassing. For them.” Wilkinson added in response to another text from Ballenger: “This is out of control.”

    The published text messages also expose the board’s dramatic behavior behind the scenes. In a text to Sheridan, former Rector Robert Hardie, a Democratic appointee who has since rotated off the board, made vague references to an “unhinged” board member threatening the university administration.

    Hardie called board members Stephen P. Long and “BE” (presumably Bert Ellis) “assholes.” (Ellis was removed by Youngkin in late March for his combative style on the board.) Hardie referred to board members BE, Long, Douglas Wetmore and Paul Harris as “four horses asses.” Hardie also complained about a member that he did not name trying to stir controversy and a “food fight.”

    The full batch of text messages can be read here.

    The release of the texts—spurred by legal action—comes as UVA has been slow to release information in response to public records requests, prompting criticism from a local lawmaker and others. Citing “a significant backlog,” UVA has not yet fulfilled a public records request regarding communications with federal officials sent by Inside Higher Ed in October.

    Source link

  • ED Panel Signs Off on New Earnings Test

    ED Panel Signs Off on New Earnings Test

    The revamped proposal could cut failing programs off from federal student aid entirely.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | skodonnell/E+/Getty Images | tarras79/iStock/Getty Images

    After a week of talks and a final compromise from the Education Department, an advisory committee on Friday signed off on regulations that would require all postsecondary programs to pass a single earnings test.

    The new accountability metric, set to take effect in July, could eventually cut failing programs off from all federal student aid funds—an enhanced penalty that appeared key to the committee reaching consensus Friday. Before the compromise, programs that fail the earnings test would only have lost access to federal student loans. Under the proposal, college programs will have to show that their graduates earn more than a working adult with only a high school diploma.

    In the course of negotiations, committee members repeatedly argued that allowing failing programs to receive the Pell Grant didn’t sufficiently protect students or taxpayer funds, and it appeared unlikely that without more significant changes, the committee would reach unanimous agreement.

    But now, failing programs will also lose eligibility for the Pell Grant if their institution doesn’t pass a separate test, which measures whether failing programs account for either half of the institution’s students or federal student aid funds. If either condition is met in two consecutive years, the programs will be cut off. The timing of the two tests and consequences mean that it will take at least three years for institutions to lose all access to federal student aid. Individual programs lose access to loans after failing the earnings test in two consecutive years.

    Preston Cooper, the committee member representing taxpayers and the public interest, who had opposed the department’s initial proposal, said the agency’s compromise would “protect a lot of students.”

    “By some of our calculations here, this would protect around 2 percent of students and close to a billion dollars a year in Pell Grant funds,” he said.

    The department unveiled this new penalty late Friday morning after what ED’s lead negotiator Dave Musser called an “extremely productive” closed-door meeting with nearly all of the committee members. The proposed regulations aren’t yet final. The department is required to release them for public comment and review that feedback before issuing a final rule.

    Other committee members also praised the compromise as “reasonable’ and “common-sense.” Members representing states and accreditors said the revised earnings test and new penalties would help to ensure institutions offer credentials that boost graduates’ earnings. Some suggested that the accountability framework could better inform discussions between institutions and employers, as it sets clear standards.

    “And those standards are going to influence the decisions that [employers] make, and that’s going to be a pretty large educational effort,” said Randy Stamper with the Virginia Community College System, who represented states on the committee. “But at least we have the tool to hang our hat on to make points that low-earning programs are a result of low pay, and I think that will help us.”

    How Courses Will Be Measured

    The department’s proposal essentially combines two accountability metrics—the Do No Harm standard that Congress passed last summer and the existing gainful-employment rule. Gainful employment only applies to certificate programs and for-profit institutions, whereas Do No Harm covers all programs except certificates.

    Tamar Hoffman, the committee member representing legal aid, consumer protection and civil rights groups, was the only person to abstain from voting. (Abstaining doesn’t block consensus.)

    “The reason I’m abstaining from this vote is because it was made very clear to me throughout this process that protections for students in certificate programs would be taken away altogether if I blocked consensus, and those students are just too important for me to take that risk, especially with the long history of abuse in certificate programs,” Hoffman said.

    About 6 percent of all programs would fail the combined earnings test, including about 29 percent of undergraduate certificates, according to department data. Roughly 650,000 students were enrolled in a failing program as of the 2024–25 academic year, half of whom attend a for-profit institution.

    “Proprietary institutions are eager to be able to demonstrate where we have programs that are of great value and have good outcomes,” said Jeff Arthur, the committee member representing the for-profit higher education sector. “We’re looking forward to having that opportunity to have a level comparison for the first time across several metrics with all other programs.”

    Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent praised the committee’s work in his closing remarks, saying they made history by adopting a standard accountability metric that will ensure the taxpayer investment in higher education is working for everyone.

    “For years, we have been bogged down in ineffective measures that simply failed to capture the full picture of how all programs were actually performing,” he said. “This new framework is different. It’s about ensuring that all programs meet a baseline for financial value, a baseline that reflects the needs of students and taxpayers alike.”

    What’s Next for OBBBA Regulations

    Friday’s meeting ends two rounds of negotiations at the Education Department to implement Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In November, a different advisory committee reached consensus on regulations related to repayment plans, graduate student loan caps and what’s become a controversial plan to designate 11 degree programs as eligible for a higher borrowing limit. Then, in December, this advisory committee approved rules to expand the Pell Grant to short-term workforce training programs.

    The department still has to take public comments and finalize those rules before July 1. Kent said the regulations for the student loan provisions should be published later this month.

    Several outside policy experts doubted whether the department could get through the necessary negotiations and reach consensus on all the topics—a point that Kent addressed as he called out some of the media coverage surrounding the talks.

    “And yet, here we are today,” he said. “Together, we have built something that will stand the test of time and end the regulatory whiplash. Once again, those who bet against us were wrong. They continue to severely underestimate this administration and this committee.”

    Source link

  • Connecticut Democrats pitch plan for state-level graduate loan program

    Connecticut Democrats pitch plan for state-level graduate loan program

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Democratic leaders in Connecticut are proposing a new state graduate student loan program to fill a vacuum created by the federal lending pullback built into Republicans’ massive spending bill. 
    • That plan would expand the reach of the Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority, using up to $20 million of its funds to create the loan program, according to a press release. It also calls for $10 million in state funding. 
    • The program could reach over 2,000 students in its initial phase, a CHESLA official said at a press conference Wednesday. The chairs of the General Assembly’s education committee plan to introduce and push for the proposal in the upcoming session.

    Dive Insight:

    The federal bill set to take effect in July, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will bring sweeping changes to the federal student loan system, with the largest impacts landing on graduate students and programs. 

    The new law sunsets the Grad PLUS loan program, which allows graduate students to borrow up to the cost of attendance. When it launched 20 years ago, Grad PLUS was the largest new student aid program in decades. 

    Along with the program’s end, OBBBA sets new caps on annual and total borrowing. Federal loans will max out at $100,000 for graduate students and double that for professional students.

    Just who is considered a graduate or professional student is no small financial matter, and one that regulators are mulling. The U.S. Department of Education plans to propose regulations that would exclude some health professions — including nursing, occupational therapy and physician associates — from the definition of “professional” that carries a higher loan cap. 

    Much uncertainty hangs over the federal loan changes and could put pressure on states to engineer their own solutions, as Connecticut is considering. 

    “We can ensure that students have the ability to become a doctor or scientist or a nurse or an educator and have their career choice determined by their drive and their talent — not the size of their bank account,” Rep. Gregg Haddad, co-chair of the state House’s Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, said at a press conference Wednesday. 

    Haddad and others estimate Connecticut graduate students currently receive $90 million in Grad PLUS loans, leaving a large financing gap in the state once the program ends. 

    The plan to create a state-level loan program would use CHESLA’s existing infrastructure and bond authority, while state funding could make loans more affordable, said Josh Hurlock, deputy director of CHESLA, at the press conference. 

    “The plan is not to just replace the Grad PLUS program,” Hurlock said. “The goal is to provide a more affordable financing option for Connecticut graduate students.” 

    Democrats control both chambers of Connecticut’s legislature as well as the state’s executive branch. 

    Where states don’t create their own lending programs, graduate students could be forced into the private lending market to make up shortfalls in federal loans. 

    Currently, private lenders play a “minimal” role in the market, researchers with the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Consumer Finance Institute said in a recent analysis. 

    The study found that 28% of graduate student borrowers in recent years took out loans over the cap levels set by OBBBA. Of those, 38% had either subprime credit scores or no score at all, meaning they would struggle to borrow in the private sector without a co-signer. 

    Those students could also face higher interest rates and less generous terms from private lenders compared to loans from the federal government, the researchers pointed out. 

    Connecticut officials alluded to this possibility when announcing their proposal. 

    “These arbitrary ceilings do not reflect the reality of rising tuition, and they’ll force students to turn to a predatory private market for lenders that will impose higher interest rates with fewer protections,” Haddad said.

    Source link

  • Proposed Changes to Provider Pay Could Lead to Child Care Rate Hikes, Closures – The 74

    Proposed Changes to Provider Pay Could Lead to Child Care Rate Hikes, Closures – The 74


    Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.

    For months now, Shannon Hampson has had August 1 etched in her mind. 

    That day marks an important shift for her and other early care and education providers in Nebraska who serve low-income families. On that date, the state intended to begin paying providers a consistent rate for families who use government subsidies to pay for child care. 

    Instead of reimbursing providers based on children’s attendance — which can vary wildly, especially this time of year, based on factors like illness and family travel — Nebraska would pay providers the same amount each month based on enrollment. 

    Last year, because of the change expected to come in summer 2026, Hampson, who owns a home-based child care program in Lincoln, Nebraska, felt comfortable filling more of her program slots with children whose families pay with subsidies. Today, she does not have one private-paying family. She made the shift assuming the enrollment-based pay would insulate her from the instability that often accompanies subsidy slots. 

    “I was super excited to know more of these families were going to get that quality, consistent care,” Hampson said, adding that reaching more low-income families is important in the field. “It’s not that providers don’t want to.”

    Now, though, that could all be about to change. 

    Nebraska’s transition to enrollment-based pay was part of an effort to get in compliance with a rule established by the Biden administration in 2024. Enrollment-based payments, that administration believed, would create greater predictability for providers, allowing them to serve more low-income families who need child care and, eventually, could entice more providers to participate in the subsidy program. 

    The rule was one of a handful of changes made by the prior administration related to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), the primary federal program that states use to provide financial assistance to low-income families in need of child care. Other shifts include paying providers up front for child care, rather than reimbursing them the following month, and encouraging the use of grants and contracts with providers. State timelines for implementing these changes have varied. As of September 2025, 24 states were paying based on enrollment, according to an analysis by New America. For the others, the latest deadline granted was Aug. 1, 2026. 

    Just this week, however, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), announced that it would seek to rescind many of the 2024 rules, returning these issues to states. 

    The proposed changes cannot be enforced right away. Under federal law, the agency is required to take public comments, review them, and use that input to make final decisions, noted Alex Adams, who leads ACF. He declined to give a timeline for any changes to take effect.

    If approved, the changes would not “make any net new policy decisions,” he added. “It simply goes back to where we were prior to 2024 regulations.”

    The administration wants to rescind the 2024 rules, he said, because all 50 states had requested waivers related to some or all of these rules due to budget constraints and other implementation challenges. 

    “Any time 50 states are asking for a waiver from something,” Adams said, “it suggests to me that maybe the rule isn’t working as intended.”

    He also noted that “attendance-verified payment,” rather than enrollment-based, “is more of a deterrent to fraud.” Leaders in the Trump administration are concerned about programs with “phantom attendance” — suggesting they receive government payments but don’t actually serve the children they say they do — Adams said, but he declined to share specifics of ongoing investigations. 

    Many early care and education advocates and policy experts have expressed skepticism that rampant fraud and abuse is going unchecked. 

    Casey Peeks, senior director of early childhood policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, called the allegations “unfounded” and worried that they would undo real progress made in the field in recent years. 

    “It is very unhelpful and destabilizing to the sector, in the immediate- and long-term, to take some of these most foundational levers we have to stabilize the sector and claim that they result in fraud,” Peeks said.

    Upon hearing the news this week, Hampson said she’s had to remind herself to “just breathe.” She knew she was taking a risk by enrolling 100% of families on subsidies.

    Now, she said, she will have to rearrange her budget to continue to serve all of those families. Under an attendance-based pay structure, her income is just that much more volatile.

    In December, for example, between holidays, vacation time and children’s absences, Hampson was only able to bill the state for 18 child care days. If the children in her program were from private-paying families, she would have been paid for 23 days, she said. 

    But Hampson’s operational costs didn’t see a material decrease in December. 

    “Without a provider being at fault at all, they could be at 50% attendance one day just because the flu is going around. That shouldn’t harm their bottom line,” Peeks said. 

    “It’s really unpredictable and unfair for the provider,” she added. “Just because attendance is down doesn’t mean operation costs go down.”

    In West Virginia, where providers have been paid based on enrollment since 2020, Katelyn Vandal emphasized how critical the change has been to keeping her rural, center-based program open. 

    “Our mortgage payment doesn’t cost less because two kids in the classroom have the flu,” noted Vandal, director of A Place to Grow, a child care center in Oak Hill, West Virginia. Nor does her electricity bill and a host of other overhead costs. 

    If her state returns to attendance-based pay, she’s not sure A Place to Grow would be able to continue operating. The center serves about 100 kids, with 60% from families that pay with subsidies. 

    “We run such a fine budget line anyway that if, six months from now, we were going back to attendance, we would be looking at closing,” she said. “We would not survive transitioning back to that.”

    Sheryl Hutzenbiler, owner of Munchkin Land Daycare in Billings, Montana, said she suspects that, under attendance-based pay, providers will either raise tuition rates on families — many of whom are already paying the maximum they can afford without one parent leaving the workforce — or, like Vandal, be forced to close their doors. 

    But that is not a decision Hutzenbiler will have to face, should the Trump administration successfully restore attendance-based pay. Since she lives in Montana, where enrollment-based pay became law in 2023, she and other providers in the state are protected from policy fluctuations at the federal level. 

    That’s true for a handful of states, which have either passed laws protecting enrollment-based pay or have continued paying based on enrollment, on a temporary basis, since the pandemic. (West Virginia is in the latter category.)

    Enrollment-based pay has been pivotal for Hutzenbiler, whose home-based program consists of about 60% of families who pay with subsidies. Back when she was paid based on attendance, she said her first sacrifice during low-attendance months would be her own wages. She would pay her full-time teacher first and make sure program costs were covered, often leaving nothing for herself and relying on her husband’s income instead. With the consistent subsidy income each month, though, she’s not only been able to avoid missed paychecks for herself, she’s been able to add two part-time workers to the payroll. 

    Hampson, in Nebraska, said she was part of a group last year advocating for the state to pass legislation around enrollment-based pay. It was ultimately unsuccessful.

    “We wanted to know our state had already said yes, so we wouldn’t go backwards,” she said. “And here we are going backwards.”

    In an industry where profit margins are estimated at less than 1%, these changes will inevitably leave providers who participate in the subsidy program with less revenue to survive on. The shifts will likely also deter providers who participate in the subsidy program, or who might have considered participating, from doing so in the future, said Peeks. This will likely, in effect, leave low-income families with fewer choices about where to go for child care. 

    “When you’re stabilizing providers overall, you’re often creating more options for families overall,” said Peeks. “I think it could definitely have a chilling effect.”


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Can the Pentagon strip Mark Kelly’s rank over speech?

    Can the Pentagon strip Mark Kelly’s rank over speech?

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says the Pentagon is moving to dock Senator Mark Kelly’s captain rank and retirement pension after Kelly released a video, joined by five Democratic congressional colleagues who also served in the military, saying “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.”

    On Monday, Hegseth wrote on X that the video was “reckless and seditious.” Hegseth also accused Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy captain and current member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, of “reckless misconduct” and said the Defense Department has initiated proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f), which governs the rank of retired officers. 

    Despite Hegseth’s comments, Kelly merely stated the law. Page 402 of the Manual for Courts-Martial establishes that while orders are presumed to be lawful, that presumption “does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Indeed, servicemembers are only bound to follow “lawful orders” — not unlawful ones. Hegseth wants to argue that Kelly encouraged dereliction of duty, but simply stating the law is protected under the Constitution.

    Here’s what you need to know about how the First Amendment governs active duty and retired servicemembers’ speech. 

    Can the government court-martial military retirees?

    Yes, Congress has established that military retirees remain subject to military courts under 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(4). Kelly served in the Navy for 25 years, so he’s subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Do military members have First Amendment rights?

    Military members do have First Amendment rights, though military prosecution for speech-based offenses operates under a different constitutional framework than civilian cases.

    In Parker v. Levy (1974), the Supreme Court grounded limits on active-duty service members’ speech in “military necessity,” reasoning that the armed forces are a “separate society” dependent on rank, discipline, and obedience. That logic doesn’t fit for retirees, whose speech typically poses no immediate risk to day-to-day order and discipline.

    Can the military demote a retired servicemember?

    By law, a service member’s retired grade is based on the “highest permanent grade” in which the officer served “satisfactorily.” But § 1370(f) allows the government to reconsider a retiree’s rank for things like fraud. Additionally, § 1370(f)(2)(D) allows demotion for “good cause” — a catchall provision left to the Pentagon’s discretion. Hegseth is arguing that Kelly violated UCMJ articles 133 and 134, constituting good cause.

    Did Kelly commit “conduct unbecoming an officer” under Article 133?

    Article 133 bans “conduct unbecoming an officer.” The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), the highest appellate court for military justice, applies a simple test here. The accused must have committed an act, or used language, unbecoming an officer. Hegseth believes the video in question qualifies. But the bar is high. In United States v. Voorhees (2019), the CAAF described unbecoming conduct as “more serious than slight” misbehavior “of a material and pronounced character.”

    When the alleged misconduct is otherwise protected speech, the CAAF layers on extra protections based on the First Amendment. The speech must pose a “clear and present danger” of “dishonoring or disgracing the officer, seriously compromis[ing]” the officer’s standing.

    In United States v. Howe (1967), the court upheld an Article 133 conviction for an active-duty officer who called President Johnson an “ignorant fascist.” The court reasoned that, in context, such contempt toward senior civilian leadership presented a “clear and present danger” to military discipline.

    Later, in United States v. Hartwig (1994), the CAAF upheld an active-duty officer’s conviction for sending a sexually explicit letter to a stranger he had reason to know was a minor. The court reasoned that this was inherently dishonorable.

    Notably, the government hasn’t brought an Article 133 case against a retiree since Hooper v. Hartman (1958), leaving little guidance as to whether the CAAF might layer on additional speech protections (like Article 134’s nexus requirement, addressed below). Indeed, Hooper wasn’t even a speech case. It involved a servicemember’s same-sex relationship, now constitutionally protected under Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

    Kelly didn’t dishonor or disgrace another officer, so the government’s theory must be self-disgrace. It’s hard then to see how accurately stating the law creates a “clear and present danger.” Unlike in Hartwig, stating the law isn’t inherently dishonorable conduct. The government will need to prove Kelly’s statement, not mere political disagreement, tends to disgrace him personally or brings disrepute to the officer corps.

    In fact, the military’s 2024 Operational Law Handbook (page 86) expressly states that troops should learn the duty to refuse “manifestly” illegal orders. If troops are regularly taught this basic law-of-armed-conflict precept, why would it be “seditious,” as Hegseth suggested, for Kelly to remind servicemembers of that obligation?

    A plaque at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point explaining that military officers must not obey illegal orders. 

    Did Kelly “prejudice good order” under Article 134?

    Article 134 prohibits “service discrediting” speech, meaning speech that could “prejudice… good order and discipline in the armed forces.” The Department of Defense Manual for Courts-Martial further states that under Article 134, “certain disloyal statements” may be “punishable,” including “praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection.”

    What civilians can say freely, active-duty troops often can’t. Parker v. Levy’s “military necessity” doctrine allows limits on active-duty troops’ exercise of First Amendment rights, even though military courts do sometimes impose constraints on speech-based court-martials.

    For example, in United States v. Wilcox (2008), the CAAF established a nexus test for service discrediting speech. If the speech is otherwise protected outside the military context, there must be a “reasonably direct and palpable connection between the speech and the military mission or military environment” before the court continues to balance First Amendment interests against the military’s interest in order.

    In Wilcox, an army paratrooper was court-martialed under Article 134 for posting online comments supporting the KKK. Because the record showed no evidence that his comments were directed at service members, reached his unit, or had any demonstrated operational or disciplinary effect, the CAAF held that there was no nexus and thus dismissed the case.

    In the retiree context, the nexus requirement functions as a free-speech safeguard. Without evidence tying a retiree’s comments to concrete disruption within the ranks of the military, an Article 134 court-martial will likely fail.

    Kelly is no longer in the military, but his remarks were directed toward active service members. Still, the content of those comments matter. Telling troops to “refuse illegal orders” is not the same as telling them to refuse duty. It’s an articulation of the very real legal boundaries that service members must respect, as outlined in Article 92. The government will have to show that Kelly’s comments had some operational or disciplinary effect. 

    Hegseth has not yet offered any such proof.

    What’s the significance of the Pentagon’s move against Kelly? 

    The law here is less developed than civilian First Amendment doctrine, making outcomes hard to predict. So, broad use of Articles 133 and 134 against retirees risks chilling their participation in public debate about U.S. military actions. This is especially risky for a sitting United States senator — one serving on the Armed Services Committee — elected by the citizens of his state specifically to debate and form U.S. policy, including military actions.

    Under Articles 133 and 134 — as well as many others in the UCMJ — the Pentagon can stretch vague wording to punish active duty and retired servicemembers for ordinary criticism. But if the First Amendment means anything, civilians and veterans alike should be free to discuss — or even criticize — military policy without fear of punishment. As Eugene Fidell, a military law expert at Yale, predicted: “None of this will stand up.”

    Many of America’s servicemembers have given their lives to protect these freedoms. Those who retire from service should not be refused those same liberties.



    Source link

  • The Retention Disconnect: What Adult Learners Need — and What Institutions Miss

    The Retention Disconnect: What Adult Learners Need — and What Institutions Miss

    New research from UPCEA and Collegis Education reveals a growing misalignment between how institutions approach retention and what adult learners actually need to succeed. While many institutions are investing in retention, strategies still over-rely on structured oversight and under-deliver on the flexibility, visibility, and autonomy adult online learners say they need most.

    The Retention Disconnect: What Adult Learners Need and What Institutions Miss
    Wednesday, February 11
    1:00 pm ET / 12:00 pm CT 

    Join Dr. Tracy Chapman, Chief Academic Officer at Collegis Education, and Emily West, Senior Market Research Analyst at UPCEA, as they break down key findings from the national survey and explore how institutions can realign support strategies to improve outcomes, protect revenue, and meet adult learners where they are.

    Expert Speakers

    Dr. Tracy Chapman

    Chief Academic Officer

    Collegis Education

    Emily West Headshot

    Emily West

    Senior Market Research Analyst

    UPCEA

    What you’ll learn: 

    • Why nearly half of institutional leaders can’t report their online retention rate — and why that matters
    • The disconnect between staff-led interventions and student-preferred tools like dashboards and self-service
    • How to shift from compliance-based models to empowerment-driven support
    • The importance of segmentation based on life stage, not just demographics
    • Three strategic shifts institutions can act on now

    Who should attend:

    This session is ideal for higher ed leaders focused on student success, enrollment, and retention strategy, including:

    • Academic leadership (CAOs, provosts)
    • Enrollment and student affairs leaders
    • Online and adult learner program managers
    • Institutional researchers and data strategists
    • IT decision-makers
    • Presidents, CFOs, and strategic planning teams

    If you’re working to improve outcomes for adult online learners or reduce attrition, this webinar is for you.

    Complete the form on the top right to reserve your spot. We look forward to seeing you on Wednesday, February 11. 

    Our mission is to enable impact in higher education. We help our partners achieve more, deliver superior experiences, and drive impact across the entire student lifecycle by leveraging and aligning data, technology, and talent.

    Source link

  • key headlines from East and Southeast Asia

    key headlines from East and Southeast Asia

    From China’s TNE reforms, to Japan’s internationalisation push, East Asia is in the midst of a drive to attract more international students. Meanwhile, Southeast Asian countries are deepening higher education links with the UK and Australia while seeking to attract international students themselves.

    Here’s The PIE’s pick of the biggest international education stories of the region from the year that’s just gone.

    1. Universities across ASEAN join forces to strengthen HE collaboration and partnerships

    At the ASEAN Universities Exhibition and Forum 2025, which brought together universities from across Southeast Asia, more than 10 collaborations were signed between ASEAN institutions, highlighting growing regional cooperation in higher education. The forum also emphasised a collective commitment to strengthening Asia’s position as a “rising contender” to the traditional big four study destinations.

    Key announcements included the soft launch of the ASEAN Global Exchange for Mobility & Scholarship (ASEAN GEMS) platform and the launch of the ASEAN Student Mobility Program in collaboration with Universiti Utara Malaysia and 13 Malaysian universities, with transnational education being underscored as a “key pillar” of the region’s higher education future.

    2. East Asian countries view internationalisation as key to sustaining regional economic growth

    In 2025, most East Asian countries were clear that international students and intra-regional mobility are key to sustaining strong economic growth. The “Asian tigers” — Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore — have been central to this shift, with places like Hong Kong actively diversifying their student body to include learners from India, Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other emerging markets.

    While enrolments from East Asia to UK universities remain steady, rising price sensitivity and expanding regional options are reshaping student flows. At the same time, uneven wage growth across East Asia has coincided with student mobility within the region growing faster between 2013 and 2020 than mobility to major English-speaking destinations.

    3. Malaysia’s rise as Asia’s “belle of the ball” for international students

    The Southeast Asian country has seen a 26% rise in international applications over the past two years and has set a target of hosting 250,000 international students by 2030.

    With the majority of applications coming from China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, the Malaysian government announced plans last year to introduce a centralised system aimed at streamlining international student admissions, alongside collaboration with source countries to ensure a “smooth and secure” process.

    Moreover, Malaysia is seeking to grow recruitment from Central Asia and Africa, though the planned introduction of a 6% service tax on private education services for non-Malaysian students has raised concerns about the destination’s long-term attractiveness.

    4. Chinese student demand softens for the Big Four, especially the US

    A July 2025 webinar confirmed what many had long suspected: China is no longer the “easy goldmine” it once was. Chinese students are increasingly opting for alternatives closer to home, with countries like the US and Canada seeing notable declines in Chinese enrolments, while destinations such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand have shown opposite trends.

    This shift comes as China issued warnings to its student nationals in April last year to exercise caution when planning to study in certain US states following the passage of Ohio’s higher education bill, which restricts Chinese partnerships.

    At the same time, the Trump administration pledged to “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students with links to the Chinese Communist Party or those studying in “critical fields”, although the President has since defended Chinese students as an important part of the US higher education system on separate occasions.

    5. China aims to expand TNE enrolments from 800,000 to eight million within a decade

    In 2025, China’s education ministry announced a series of updates to its TNE policy during a briefing for international diplomatic missions, as part of efforts to scale up TNE enrolments nationwide.

    The revised framework eases several restrictions, including removing the 1,200-student enrolment cap previously applied to joint education institutes and programmes. It also expands flexibility beyond the traditional 4+0 model to include 3+1 and other blended formats that allow students to spend part of their studies overseas, while enabling institutions to submit multiple applications within a single approval cycle.

    Against this backdrop, a Universities Australia delegation led by chair Carolyn Evans and supported by CEO Luke Sheehy visited Shenzhen and Beijing in October 2025 to renew partnerships in education, research and innovation, with the aim of deepening cooperation in areas critical to both countries, including clean energy, advanced manufacturing, health and technology.

    6. Japan moves to increase international students and researchers

    Japan’s Ministry of Education (MEXT) is planning to raise enrolment caps at select institutions to boost international student numbers.

    Under the proposals, some universities, junior colleges and technical colleges would be allowed to exceed their enrolment limits by up to 5% from the next academic year, starting in April 2026. The move forms part of the government’s push to meet its target of attracting 400,000 international students by 2033.

    In parallel, Japan has launched a new program aimed at attracting overseas researchers to 11 institutions as it seeks to position itself as a world-class research hub. Led by MEXT, the initiative will see ¥3.3bn allocated across the universities to support researchers over the next three years.

    7. South Korea hits 300k international student goal two years ahead of schedule

    International student enrolments in South Korea surpassed 300,000 for the first time in August 2025, according to government immigration data, with more than a third of students coming from Vietnam. Chinese students made up 28% of the total, followed by smaller cohorts from Uzbekistan, Mongolia and Nepal.

    The growth has been driven largely by government policy, particularly the launch of the “Study Korea 300K” initiative in 2023, which aimed to reach the target by 2027.

    Measures under the strategy included easing financial requirements for D-2 student visas, expanding permitted working hours during study, extending post-study job-seeking periods, and stepping up recruitment in Southeast and Central Asia. Universities were also given greater flexibility to introduce English-taught programmes and strengthen student support.

    However, challenges remain, with experts pointing to a lack of clear pathways linking international students to employers. Students and the labour market remain largely disconnected, even as around 90% of international students hope to stay and work in South Korea after graduation.

    8. China rolls out K visa in bid to attract international talent

    Effective since October 1, the K visa is open to international youths with undergraduate or STEM degrees from leading domestic and global research institutions, as well as early-career professionals engaged in education and research in STEM fields.

    The visa is designed to offer greater convenience through multiple entries, longer validity, and extended stay durations, while also facilitating exchanges and collaboration across education, science, technology, culture, business, and entrepreneurship, with applications assessed based on age, education, and work experience rather than requiring sponsorship from a local enterprise.

    The move comes amid declining interest in pursuing artificial intelligence degrees in the US, alongside growing interest in studying AI in China. The K visa is being seen as a significant step in China’s efforts to attract young international science and technology talent and challenge US technological leadership.

    9. Monash opens second Malaysia campus amid Australia’s Southeast Asia push

    Monash University Malaysia will partner with TRX City, developer of Kuala Lumpur’s Tun Razak Exchange, to deliver its RM2.8 billion (USD $1bn) investment in a new campus aimed at deepening engagement in the ASEAN region.

    Scheduled to open in 2032, the campus will eventually accommodate 22,500 students and 1,700 staff, featuring cutting-edge research centres in energy transition, health, AI, and data science.

    The move aligns with Invested: Australia’s Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040, which seeks to strengthen ties between Australia and Southeast Asia across education, agriculture, and resources.

    10. TOEIC cheating in Japan raises questions about paper-based test delivery

    Japan cancelled 803 TOEIC scores following a student’s arrest for cheating, prompting a review of tests taken since May 2023.

    The testing company said maintaining the integrity and fairness of its assessments is a top priority, with security measures described as “multilayered” and “regionally adaptive”.

    11. China and Japan warn students about safety in each other’s countries

    Last year, China and Japan issued safety warnings for students amid rising diplomatic tensions. China’s Ministry of Education cited “social unrest” and increasing crimes against Chinese nationals in Japan, while Japan advised its citizens in China, particularly students, to exercise extra caution and said it was working to ensure their safety.

    The warnings followed Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi’s statement that any Chinese military action against Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival, prompting Beijing to call the remarks “brazenly provocative”.

    With over 123,000 Chinese students in Japan and more than 10,000 Japanese students in China as of May 2024, both countries are now expected to see a decline in student enrolments.

    12. First UK-Australia university campus opens in Indonesia

    The Deakin Lancaster Indonesia University (DLI) campus, first announced in January 2024, officially opened in Bandung, West Java, on February 26, 2025.

    The campus represents the first UK-Australian transnational education (TNE) partnership in Indonesia, allowing students to complete dual undergraduate degrees from Deakin University and Lancaster University without leaving the country.

    13. Vietnam’s growing international education strategy and UK partnership gain traction

    Vietnam aims to increase international students from 0.5% to 1.5% of enrolments and improve the global standing of its universities, targeting top-500 positions worldwide and top-200 in Asia. The government’s 2030 strategy focuses on advancing education, science, research, and innovation, with a vision extending to 2045.

    Separately, Vietnam is opening its doors to UK institutions to establish branches and expand operations, as the country positions itself as an emerging hub for international education.

    Source link