Blog

  • For Puerto Rican schools, Trump’s campaign to dismantle the Department of Education has a particular bite

    For Puerto Rican schools, Trump’s campaign to dismantle the Department of Education has a particular bite

    Maraida Caraballo Martinez has been an educator in Puerto Rico for 28 years and the principal of the elementary school Escuela de la Communidad Jaime C. Rodriguez for the past seven. She never knows how much money her school in Yabucoa will receive from the government each year because it isn’t based on the number of children enrolled. One year she got $36,000; another year, it was $12,000.

    But for the first time as an educator, Caraballo noticed a big difference during the Biden administration. Because of an infusion of federal dollars into the island’s education system, Caraballo received a $250,000 grant, an unprecedented amount of money. She used it to buy books and computers for the library, white boards and printers for classrooms, to beef up a robotics program and build a multipurpose sports court for her students. “It meant a huge difference for the school,” Caraballo said.

    Yabucoa, a small town in southeast Puerto Rico, was one of the regions hardest hit by Hurricane Maria in 2017. And this school community, like hundreds of others in Puerto Rico, has experienced near constant disruption since then. A series of natural disasters, including hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and landslides, followed by the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, has pounded the island and interrupted learning. There has also been constant churn of local education secretaries — seven in the past eight years. The Puerto Rican education system — the seventh-largest school district in the United States — has been made more vulnerable by the island’s overwhelming debt, mass emigration and a crippled power grid.

    Maraida Caraballo Martinez has been an educator in Puerto Rico for 28 years and is now the principal of an elementary school. Her school has been slated for closure three times because of mass emigration from the island. Credit: Kavitha Cardoza for The Hechinger Report

    Under President Joe Biden, there were tentative gains, buttressed by billions of dollars and sustained personal attention from top federal education officials, many experts and educators on the island said. Now they worry that it will all be dismantled with the change in the White House. President Donald Trump has made no secret of his disdain for the U.S. territory, having reportedly said that it was “dirty and the people were poor.” During his first term, he withheld billions of dollars in federal aid after Hurricane Maria and has suggested selling the island or swapping it for Greenland. 

    A recent executive order to make English the official language has worried people on the island, where only 1 in 5 people speak fluent English, and Spanish is the medium of instruction in schools. Trump is seeking to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and has already made sweeping cuts to the agency, which will have widespread implications across the island. Even if federal funds — which last year made up more than two thirds of funding for the Puerto Rican Department of Education, or PRDE — were transferred directly to the local government, it would likely lead to worse outcomes for the most vulnerable children, say educators and policymakers. The PRDE has historically been plagued by political interference, widespread bureaucracy and a lack of transparency.

    And the local education department is not as technologically advanced as other state education departments, nor as able to disseminate best practices. For example, Puerto Rico does not have a “per pupil formula,” a calculation commonly used on the mainland to determine the amount of money each student receives for their education. Robert Mujica is the executive director of the Puerto Rico Financial Oversight and Management Board, first convened under President Barack Obama in 2016 to deal with the island’s financial morass. Mujica said Puerto Rico’s current allocation of education funds is opaque. “How the funds are distributed is perceived as a political process,” he said. “There’s no transparency and there’s no clarity.”

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.

    In 2021, Miguel Cardona, Biden’s secretary of education, promised “a new day” for Puerto Rico. “For too long, Puerto Rico’s students and educators were abandoned,” he said. During his tenure, Cardona signed off on almost $6 billion in federal dollars for the island’s educational system, leading to a historic pay increase for teachers, funding for after-school tutoring programs, hiring of hundreds of school mental health professionals and the creation of a pilot program to decentralize the PRDE.

    Cardona designated a senior adviser, Chris Soto, to be his point person for the island’s education system to underscore the federal commitment. During nearly four years in office, he made more than 50 trips to the island. Carlos Rodriguez Silvestre, the executive director of the Flamboyan Foundation, a nonprofit in Puerto Rico that has led children’s literacy efforts on the island, said the level of respect and sustained interest felt like a partnership, not a top-down mandate. “I’ve never seen that kind of attention to education in Puerto Rico,” he said. “Soto practically lived on the island.”

    Soto also worked closely with Victor Manuel Bonilla Sánchez, the president of the teachers union, Asociación de Maestros de Puerto Rico, or AMPR, which resulted in a deal in which educators received $1,000 more a month to their base salary, a nearly 30 percent increase for the average teacher. “It was the largest salary increase in the history of teachers in Puerto Rico,” Bonilla said, though even with the increase, teachers here still make far less money than teachers on the mainland.

    One of the biggest complaints Soto said he heard was how rigid and bureaucratic the Puerto Rico Department of Education was, despite a 2018 education reform law that allows for more local control. The education agency — the largest unit of government on the island, with the most employees and the biggest budget — was set up so that the central office had to sign off on everything. So Soto created and oversaw a pilot program in Ponce, a region on the island’s southern coast, focusing on decentralization.

    For the first time, the local community elected an advisory board of education, and superintendent candidates had to apply rather than be appointed, Soto said. The superintendent was given the authority to sign off on budget requests directly rather than sending them through officials in San Juan, as well as the flexibility to spend money in his region based on individual schools’ needs.

    In the past, that wasn’t a consideration: For example, Yadira Sanchez, a psychologist who has worked in Puerto Rican education for more than 20 years, remembers when a school got dozens of new air conditioners even though it didn’t need it. “They already had functioning air conditioners,” she said, “so that money was lost.”

    The pilot project also focused on increasing efficiency. For example, children with disabilities are now evaluated at their schools rather than having to visit a special center. And Soto says he tried to remove politics and increase transparency around spending in the PRDE as well. “You can improve invoices, but if your political friends are getting the work, then you don’t have a good school system,” he said.

    A school bus under a tree that fell during Hurricane Maria, which hit the island of Puerto Rico in September 2017. More than a year later, it had not been removed. Credit: Al Bello/Getty Images for Lumix

    Under Biden, Puerto Rico also received a competitive U.S. Department of Education grant for $10.5 million for community schools, another milestone. And the federal department started including data on the territory in some education statistics collected. “Puerto Rico wasn’t even on these trackers, so we started to dig into how do we improve the data systems? Unraveling the data issue meant that Puerto Rico can properly get recognized,” Soto said.

    But already there are plans to undo Cardona’s signature effort in Ponce. The island’s newly elected governor, Jenniffer González Colón, is a Republican and a Trump supporter. The popular secretary of education, Eliezer Ramos Parés, returned earlier this year to head the department after leading it from April 2021 to July 2023 when the governor unexpectedly asked him to resign — not an unusual occurrence within the island’s government, where political appointments can end suddenly and with little public debate. He told The Hechinger Report that the program won’t continue in its current form, calling it “inefficient.”

    “The pilot isn’t really effective,” he said, noting that politics can influence spending decisions not only at the central level but at the regional level as well. “We want to have some controls.” He also said expanding the effort across the island would cost tens of millions of dollars. Instead, Ramos said he was looking at more limited approaches to decentralization, around some human resource and procurement functions. He said he was also exploring a per pupil funding formula for Puerto Rico and looking at lessons from other large school districts such as New York City and Hawaii.

    Related: In Puerto Rico, the odds are against high school grads who want to go to college

    While education has been the largest budget item on the island for years, it’s still far less than any of the 50 states spend on each student. Puerto Rico spends $9,500 per student, compared with an average of $18,600 in the states.

    The U.S. Department of Education, which supplements local and state funding for students in poverty and with disabilities, has an outsized role in Puerto Rico schools. On the island, 55 percent of children live below the poverty line, compared with 17 percent in the 50 states; for students in special education, the figures are 35 percent and 15 percent, respectively. In total, during fiscal year 2024, more than 68 percent of the education budget on the island comes from federal funding, compared to 11 percent in U.S. states. The department also administers Pell Grants for low-income students — some 72 percent of Puerto Rican students apply — and supports professional development efforts and initiatives for Puerto Rican children who move back and forth between the mainland and territory.

    Linda McMahon, Trump’s new education secretary, has reportedly said that the government will continue to meet its “statutory obligations” to students even as the department shuts down or transfers some operations and lays off staff. The U.S. Department of Education did not respond to requests for comment.

    Some say the Biden administration’s pouring billions of dollars into a troubled education system with little accountability has created unrealistic expectations and there’s no plan for what happens after money is spent. Mujica, the executive director of the oversight board, said the infusion of funds postponed tough decisions by the Puerto Rican government. “When you have so much money, it papers over a lot of problems. You didn’t have to deal with some of the challenges that are fundamental to the system.” And he said there is little discussion of what happens when that money runs out. “How are you going to bridge that gap? Either those programs go away or we’re going to have to find the funding for them,” Mujica said.

    He said efforts like the one in Ponce to bring decision making closer to where the students’ needs are is “vitally important.” Still, he said he’s not sure the money improved student outcomes. “This was a huge opportunity to make fundamental changes and investments that will yield long-term results. I’m not sure that we’ve seen the metrics to support that.”

    Related: Are the challenges of Puerto Rico’s schools a taste of what other districts will face?

    Puerto Rico is one of the most educationally impoverished regions, with academic outcomes well below the mainland. On the math portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, a test that students across the U.S. take, just 2 percent of fourth graders in Puerto Rico were proficient, the highest score ever recorded for the island, and zero percent of eighth graders were. Puerto Rican students don’t take the NAEP for reading because they learn in Spanish, not English, though results shared by Ramos at a press conference in 2022 showed only 1 percent of third graders were reading at grade level.

    There are some encouraging efforts. Flamboyan Foundation, the nonprofit in Puerto Rico, has been leading an island-wide coalition of 70 partners to improve K-3 literacy, including through professional development. Teacher training through the territory’s education department has often been spotty or optional.

    The organization now works closely with the University of Puerto Rico and, as part of that effort, oversees spending of $3 million in literacy training. Approximately 1,500 or a third of Puerto Rico’s K-5 teachers have undergone the rigorous training. Educators were given $500 as an incentive for participating, along with books for their classrooms and three credit hours in continuing education. “It was a lot of quality hours. This was not the ‘spray and pray’ approach,” said Silvestre. That effort will continue, according to Ramos, who called it “very effective.”

    A new reading test for first through third graders the nonprofit helped design showed that between the 2023 and 2024 school years, most children were below grade level but made growth in every grade. “But we still have a long way to go so that this data can get to teachers in a timely manner and in a way that they can actually act on it,” Silvestre said.

    Kristin Ehrgood, Flamboyan Foundation’s CEO, said it’s too soon to see dramatic gains. “It’s really hard to see a ton of positive outcomes in such a short period of time with significant distrust that has been built over years,” she said. She said they weren’t sure how the Trump administration may work with or fund Puerto Rico’s education system but that the Biden administration had built a lot of goodwill. “There is a lot of opportunity that could be built on, if a new administration chooses to do that.”

    Another hopeful sign is that the oversight board, which was widely protested when it was formed, has cut the island’s debt from $73 billion to $31 billion. And last year board members increased education spending by 3 percent. Mujica said the board is focused on making sure that any investment translates into improved outcomes for students: “Our view is resources have to go into the classroom.”

    Related: A superintendent made big gains with English learners. His success may have been his downfall

    Betty A. Rosa, education commissioner and president of the University of the State of New York and a member of the oversight board, said leadership churn in Puerto Rico drives its educational instability. Every new leader is invested in “rebuilding, restructuring, reimagining, pick your word,” she said. “There is no consistency.” Unlike her New York state position, the Puerto Rican education secretary and other positions are political appointments. “If you have permanent governance, then even when the leadership changes, the work continues.”

    Ramos, who experienced this instability when the previous governor unexpectedly asked to resign in 2023, said he met McMahon, the new U.S. secretary of education, in Washington, D.C., and that they had a “pleasant conversation.” “She knows about Puerto Rico, she’s concerned about Puerto Rico, and she demonstrated full support in the Puerto Rico mission,” he said. He said McMahon wanted PRDE to offer more bilingual classes, to expose more students to English. Whether there will be changes in funding or anything else remains to be seen. “We have to look at what happens in the next few weeks and months and how that vision and policy could affect Puerto Rico,” Ramos said.

    Ramos was well-liked by educators during his first stint as education secretary. He will also have a lot of decisions to make, including whether to expand public charter schools and close down traditional public schools as the island’s public school enrollment continues to decline precipitously. In the past, both those issues led to fierce and widespread protests.

    Soto says he’s realistic about the incoming administration having “different views, both ideologically and policywise,” but he’s hopeful the people of Puerto Rico won’t want to go back to the old way of doing things. “Somebody said, ‘You guys took the genie out of the bottle and it’s going to be hard to put that back’ as it relates to a student-centered school system,” Soto said.

    Cardona, whose grandparents are from the island, said Puerto Rico had seen “academic flatlining” for years. “We cannot accept that the students are performing less than we know they are capable of,” he told The Hechinger Report, just before he signed off as the nation’s top education official. “We started change; it needs to continue.”

    Related: What’s left after a mass exodus of young people from Puerto Rico?

    Principal Carabello’s small school of 150 students and 14 teachers has been slated for closure three times already, though each time it has been spared in part because of community support. She’s hopeful that Ramos, with whom she’s worked previously, will turn things around. “He knows the education system,” she said. “He’s a brilliant person, open to listen.”  

    Escuela de la Communidad Jaime C. Rodriguez is a Montessori school in Yabucoa, Puerto Rico, that did not have any sports facilities for its students. It recently began work on a multipurpose sports center, made possible by federal funds under former President Joe Biden. Credit: Kavitha Cardoza for The Hechinger Report

    But the long hours of the past several years have taken a toll on her. She is routinely in school from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. “You come in when it’s dark and you leave when it’s dark,” she said. There have been many new platforms to learn and new projects to implement. She wants to retire but can’t afford to. After decades of the local government underfunding the pension system, allowances that offset the high price of goods and services on the island were cut and pension plans were frozen.

    Now instead of retiring with 75 percent of her salary, Carabello will receive only 50 percent, $2,195 a month. She is entitled to Social Security benefits, but it isn’t enough to make up for the lost pension. “Who can live with $2,000 in one month? Nobody. It’s too hard. And my house still needs 12 years more to pay.”

    Carabello, who is always so strong and so optimistic around her students, teared up. But it’s rare that she allows herself time to think about herself. “I have a great community. I have great teachers and I feel happy with what I do,” she said.

    She’s just very, very tired. 

    This story about Puerto Rican schools was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Due Dates Provide a Structure for Spaced Learning – Faculty Focus

    Due Dates Provide a Structure for Spaced Learning – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Due Dates Provide a Structure for Spaced Learning – Faculty Focus

    Due Dates Provide a Structure for Spaced Learning – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The difference between commuting by choice versus necessity

    The difference between commuting by choice versus necessity

    Plenty has been written in the last few years that discusses the way the pandemic and the cost-of-living and housing crisis have driven the rise in commuter students across the sector.

    And as the commuter student series has demonstrated, universities and student unions can take steps to better meet the needs of this community.

    We know they are less engaged, more financially constrained, exhausted, and more likely to have lower degree outcomes compared to campus students.

    And yet despite knowing all of this, it sometimes feels like we are circling the drain when it comes to implementing better policies for commuter students.

    And part of the issue is that we are still framing students’ decision to commute as a choice rather than a necessity when it comes to decision making.

    While some may argue this is semantics and that the two words are interchangeable, the difference in experience between choice commuters and necessity commuters is something to interrogate.

    Spot the difference

    Last year, I read the Blackbullion Student Money & Wellbeing 2024 report and for students who identified themselves as commuters they were asked, “Is this by choice or a necessity?”

    319 students identified by choice and 234 by necessity.

    While the difference in word choice might seem minor, the data presented throughout the report revealed their experiences were in fact quite different.

    For example, non-commuter students need about £577 a month more than what they currently have compared to £671 for commuters by choice and £782 for commuters due to necessity.

    Recognising these financial differences as well as others could help universities provide more targeted support.

    Things like commuter friendly timetables, better event planning and reducing hidden course costs benefit all students, but it could also potentially provide a noticeable financial reprieve for those who commute due to necessity.

    To better support different student groups the sector needs a deeper understanding of the nuances within their student population and the impact on attendance, engagement, and belonging in order to design effective interventions.

    Our commuters

    At Royal Holloway, 40 per cent of our students are commuters.

    And this year the students’ union is running a policy inquiry to examine their academic experience, seeking feedback from current commuter students through online surveys and qualitative activities like a paid in-person focus group and a journaling activity.

    We followed Blackbullion’s lead and asked students whether they commuted by choice or necessity in our term one online survey which received 654 responses.

    58 per cent of respondents identified as necessity commuters, 39 per cent were choice commuters and three per cent preferred not to say.

    The patterns across year groups revealed undergraduates in earlier year groups were more likely to commute by choice while late-year undergraduate and postgraduate students commuted due to necessity.

    When asked to explain in more detail why they commuted, the top reasons given were often financially motivated around expensive accommodation, the cost-of-living crisis, not wanting to take out a maintenance loan, and the fact they could not justify the expense of living out when they had close transport links to the university.

    Sticky campus

    We also wanted to better understand commuter travel patterns.

    Looking at the data we learned that 72 per cent of overall commuters come to campus only on the days they have teaching, 17 per cent come to campus more days than they have scheduled teaching and 11 per cent come less days than they have teaching.

    Within the 17 per cent who come to campus more days, 63 per cent of those students are commuters by necessity compared to 33 per cent of commuters by choice.

    Despite extending their time on campus, 60 per cent of necessity commuters reported that their commute negatively impacts their ability to socialise with other students compared to about 41 per cent of commuters by choice who felt this way.

    In terms of forming friendships, commuters by choice felt more positively with 67 per cent feeling they have had good opportunities to form friendships and foster a sense of belonging within the student community versus 55 per cent of commuters by necessity.

    These differences extend into their academic socialisation, and 55 per cent of choice commuters agreed to an extent they felt part of an academic community compared to 48 per cent of necessity commuters.

    Our survey highlighted that managing their studies was a major barrier which impacted daytime socialisation for commuter students. 85 per cent of choice commuters stated they found their workload manageable versus 72 per cent of necessity commuters.

    A high proportion of respondents indicated they manage their workload, but they compensate by studying during their commutes or teaching breaks, limiting their time to socialise.

    Taking all of this into account it is no surprise that necessity commuters were more likely to report their commute affects their physical or mental well-being at 37 per cent compared to 17 per cent of choice commuters.

    Where do we go from here?

    When it comes to commuting by choice or by necessity, necessity commuters face greater financial, academic and social challenges.

    Once universities and students’ unions reframe their thinking around commuting as a necessity rather than a choice, they can create more targeted support to support this community.

    Things that might alleviate the pressures commuters face include commuter-friendly timetables, hybrid teaching options, travel bursaries or affordable overnight accommodation options to reduce exam stress or attendance at late-night events.

    We also need to reach out and ask what types of commuter-friendly events and initiatives they would like and what would work for them to build better social inclusion on their terms.

    Right now, commuter students feel left behind and invisible when they’re on campus. But we can change this narrative if we rethink our perception of this community and create more targeted policies to support them across their student journey by first understanding the nuance.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • Turning Insight Into Action: The 2025 RNL National Alumni Survey

    Turning Insight Into Action: The 2025 RNL National Alumni Survey

    51,000 alumni weigh in on giving priorities, engagement preferences, and more.

    This blog features an excerpt from Howard Heevner, fundraising industry leader and co-author of the
    2025 RNL National Alumni Survey.

    RNL’s 2025 National Alumni Survey was just released and, while the insights gleaned from this report are always valuable, one could argue that this data is worth its weight in gold during times of extreme uncertainty like we are currently facing in our sector. After all, there are a few universal truths that strategic fundraisers understand, regardless of differing priorities, levels of experience, or overall philosophy:

    • “Hope”‘” is not a strategy.
    • Stewardship matters.
    • You will never regret confirming your flight departure time ahead of an important donor visit…
    • When in doubt, go straight to the source: your donors.

    RNL’s National Alumni Survey gives fundraisers a valuable opportunity to refine their engagement strategies by focusing on what truly matters—understanding donor expectations. By analyzing responses from more than 51,000 alumni across generations and institutions of all types, this report sheds light on alumni sentiments toward their alma maters, their giving priorities, generational volunteer trends, and the motivations behind their contributions of time, talent, and financial support.

    Facilitated by RNL’s Sarah Kleeberger, this report also benefits from the expertise of longtime RNL partner and industry leader Howard Heevner. Howard provides both a foreword and conclusion to the report, offering insightful commentary, practical applications, and a forward-looking perspective on the future of donor engagement.

    Excerpt from the 2025 RNL National Alumni Survey Report,
    written by Howard Heevner:

    Howard Heevner
    Howard Heevner

    As part of RNL’s second annual research study, we are again sharing the collective wisdom of 51,000 alumni representing a broad spectrum of higher education. The opportunity to provide a conduit for these voices to be heard is an honor, and along with the team at RNL, we are excited to share the feedback alumni from 21 institutions.

    In higher education, we often spend our time looking inward or looking at other institutions instead of turning to those we wish to connect, engage, and inspire to be in a closer relationship with our institutions. For decades, we have been able to rely on an expectation of loyalty from our alumni because that’s how it’s always been. However, so many factors have changed the nature of that relationship and those expectations. Among them are the rising costs of education, the implied and often explicit promise that degree achievement will provide you with a pass to greater opportunity, and the increasing mistrust of institutions and higher education.

    There is a growing concern for our pipeline of donors. We have seen a dramatic decrease in alumni donor counts across the United States over the past three decades. These trends pre-date the pandemic but seem to be exacerbated post-pandemic. Many schools are struggling to acquire new donors and are searching for new methodologies to do so. However, it seems most often we are taking the fractured giving structures that brought us here and bringing those into these new strategies. Maybe the issue isn’t our tools or strategies, but our ability to authentically connect with our alumni.

    Ready to dive into the data yourself?

    Download your copy of the 2025 National Alumni Survey, featuring eight key findings about alumni giving and connection taken from more than 50,000 alumni, as well as additional insights from Howard.

    2025 National Alumni Survey: What can you learn from 50,000 alumni?2025 National Alumni Survey: What can you learn from 50,000 alumni?

    Source link

  • Podcast: Sussex fine, franchising | Wonkhe

    Podcast: Sussex fine, franchising | Wonkhe

    This week on the podcast we’re discussing the Office for Students fine of £585,000 levied against the University of Sussex for breaches of free speech conditions, as vice chancellor Sasha Roseneil calls the process “Kafka-esque” and plans a legal challenge.

    Plus we examine what Bridget Phillipson has called “one of the biggest financial scandals universities have faced” – franchising. Does the scandal point towards a shift towards a more “planned” system?

    With Vivienne Stern, Chief Executive at Universities UK, Jonathan Simons, Partner and Head of the Education Practice at Public First, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    Sussex fined almost £600k over free speech

    So are universities allowed to chill misogyny or not?

    The franchise problem may not have a quick answer

    Welcome to the walk-in degree

    What is the franchising boom doing to drop-out?

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: New College, Oxford

    Higher education postcard: New College, Oxford

    Greetings from Oxford!

    As I write this blog, the spring statement is two days away, and I have no idea (although I can make a guess!) how Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves’ statement has gone down with people. Reeves studied for her first degree at New College Oxford, and so that’s where we’re going today.

    This being Oxford, New College is obviously a very old college. It was founded in 1379 by William of Wykeham, the Bishop of Winchester. Formally – that is, when it’s in trouble with its mum – it’s called The College of St Mary of Winchester in Oxford. But even in 1379 this caused confusion. There was already another college dedicated to St Mary – the one snappily titled The Provost and Scholars of the House of the Blessed Mary the Virgin in Oxford, commonly called Oriel College, of the Foundation of Edward the Second of famous memory, sometime King of England.

    And so it became known as New College. Which name it retains to this day, despite (at the time of writing) there being thirty colleges of the university which are, by any reckoning, newer.

    Anyway, enough cavilling. The college was founded, and it had a name which at the time seemed reasonable. It’s founder, William of Wykeham, was a man of substance: as well as being Bishop of Winchester, he was Lord Chancellor to both King Edward III and Richard II. And he became thereby a rich man: by speculating on tax revenues, by income from the many church livings he had, and by the expropriation of the property of French religious houses looted during the Hundred Years’ War.

    He used these riches in part to fund education, and in the late 1370s was busy not only establishing an Oxford college, but also establishing Winchester School. (He’s the reason why Winchester old boys are called Wykehamists. I say old boys advisedly – Winchester School started admitting girls in 2022, so soon former pupils will be a more accurate description.)

    New College’s charter and statutes made it unusual. Admission was restricted to pupils from Winchester College – it formed a closed system. It also included provision for undergraduate students, one of the first at Oxford to do so. (And no, I’m not sure how you got to be a graduate student if you hadn’t been admitted somewhere to be an undergraduate first. My guess is that the medieval understandings of these terms is different to mine today.)

    The senior fellows (masters and above) taught the junior fellows (undergraduates). In this arrangement you can see the start of Oxford’s tutorial system; you can also see the practice of research students teaching undergraduate classes, which is common across the UK today, especially in research-focused universities.

    New College was also the first of the Oxford colleges to be built around a quadrangle, meaning that everything the fellows needed – places to sleep, eat, read and pray – were inside the college walls.

    The statutes and the physical constraints of the buildings kept New College small. The college’s history identifies two notable periods in the next few centuries. The first was the period of religious strife during the Tudor dynasty’s reign. New College was a hotbed of Catholic fervour, and its fellows staunch supporters of Queen Mary. And when Mary died, to be succeeded by the very protestant Elizabeth, many of its scholars fled to mainland Europe.

    In the civil war, Oxford was a significant place – the base of the King’s parliament for much of the war, it was also put under siege. The royalist defence of the city was, in part, organised by the then warden (head) of the college, Robert Pinke, who was acting vice chancellor at the time. When Oxford was threatened by parliamentarian forces, he went to parley with their commanders. One of whom, William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele, was a New College man himself. But that didn’t stop him sending Pinke to London where he was arrested and held for a while. Alumni relations must have been tricky for a while after that.

    After the civil war, demand for higher education slowly grew, as the political settlement took hold, as the power of the monarch was slowly constrained by parliament, and as a middle class began to emerge. But New College was constrained by its statutes: it could only have 70 fellows, and they had to be Winchester College students. This meant that it went from being one of the larger colleges to being one of its smallest.

    Statute and ordinance changes in 1857 and 1883 did much to modernise the college. The requirement to be a Winchester school pupil was removed; the limit to the college’s size also. In 1868 fellows were permitted to marry, and the college introduced (with Balliol) the idea of intercollegiate lectures. The college grew, admitting more students, so that by 1900 nearly 300 undergraduates were registered.

    The 1900s also brought a couple of notable wardens. The first was William Archibald Spooner, for whom spoonerisms were named. Spooner, it is held, was prone to making amusing slips in his speech, such as asking “tell me, was it you or your brother who was killed in the war?” A particular meaning is swapping the first sounds of nearby words (“you have hissed my mystery lectures”). Dictionaries of quotations are full of spoonerisms. And, once you recognise that New College becomes cue, knowledge, it is possible to have some sympathy with the Reverend Spooner. The pen-portrait on the college website is certainly very fond of him, with good reason, I would say.

    The second notable warden was H A L Fisher. Fisher was President of the Board of Education in David Lloyd George’s wartime cabinet, from 1916 to 1922. He introduced legislation to require compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14, and also introduced enhanced pension arrangements for teachers. The Teachers’ Pension Scheme, rates for which currently cause headaches for more than a few university vice chancellors, is part of Fisher’s legacy. He retied from politics to take up the post of warden of New College, succeeding Spooner. Fisher died in 1940.

    There’s a fascinating, and slightly ghoulish, postscript to Fisher’s life. In 1943, as part of a wartime deception, British intelligence dressed up a corpse as a British marine, carrying apparently secret documents. Documents written to deceive. The body was left to wash ashore near Spain, the documents were shared by the then fascist Spanish government with nazi Germany. And the documents, which related to the site of allied landings in southern Europe, seem to have been believed. To make the deception more credible, the fictitious marine had to be dressed appropriately, and in wartime London good quality clothing was hard to find. And so Fisher’s woollen underwear was used.

    New College has an impressive list of alumni. As well as Rachel Reeves, the list includes politicians Tony Benn, Gyles Brandreth, and Hugh Gaitskell; academics Harold Laski and J B S Haldane; Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks; public intellectuals Neil MacGregor and Lucy Worsley. And, as the K-Tel hits compilation adverts used to say, many, many more.

    And here, as usual, is a jigsaw of the postcard for you.

    Source link

  • Brown University targets student journalist for sending DOGE-like emails

    Brown University targets student journalist for sending DOGE-like emails

    “Describe what tasks you performed in the past week.” 

    That’s what student journalist Alex Shieh asked 3,805 administrators at Brown University in a March 18 email. The backlash was swift. 

    Just two days later, Brown told Shieh it was reviewing his DOGE-inspired email — based on allegations that he had “emotionally harmed” several employees and “misrepresented” himself by saying he was a reporter for the conservative student newspaper The Brown Spectator, which he was. 

    Elon Musk, de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), wields a chainsaw at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference.

    In Brown’s letter, officials also claimed he violated operational procedures and demanded he “return any confidential information,” warning that his access to university data systems could be restricted.

    Days later, Associate Dean and Associate Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards Kirsten Wolfe threatened to charge Shieh with “failure to comply” unless he provided evidence that he had deleted unspecified confidential information that Brown alleged he may have accessed. Wolfe also demanded Shieh keep even the existence of this investigation private. Nor has Brown revealed what confidential information they believe he published, and Shieh denies having taken any confidential information.

    He pointed out that even if he did have any confidential information — an allegation the university has not begun to substantiate — providing evidence that he deleted it would also provide Brown incriminating evidence that he had the information in the first place — violating Brown’s promise that students have a right against self-incrimination

    Brown’s response here flies in the face of its due process and free expression guarantees, and threatens to chill student reporting on campus. Due process is essential not just to guarantee defendants a fair shake, but to uphold the legitimacy of campus disciplinary proceedings. It also acts as a bulwark protecting students’ individual liberties. As FIRE has said before, universities that guarantee their students free expression cannot base investigations on the very speech they promise to protect — and for good reason. 

    Telling someone they are the target of an investigation can have a chilling effect on speech, especially in cases like this one, where universities also can’t use chilling investigations as fishing expeditions. Brown’s effort to get Shieh himself to substantiate its assertions against him by providing evidence he thinks could relate to the allegations against him flips the disciplinary process on its head. ​​

    Fundamental fairness requires that the university bear the burden of proving the allegations, not the student to prove his innocence.

    Moreover, Brown’s threats also burden newsgathering practices protected by the university’s guarantee of press freedom. Certainly, administrators are within their rights to investigate actual breaches of confidentiality policies. But investigating journalism, offbeat though it may be, is a far cry from that.

    University President Christina Paxson declared in a recent letter that Brown will defend free expression against encroachments from the federal government. Shieh’s case suggests that her promise does not extend to Brown’s own encroachments on free expression.


    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

    Source link

  • House Education and Workforce Committee Holds Hearing on FLSA Modernization

    House Education and Workforce Committee Holds Hearing on FLSA Modernization

    by CUPA-HR | March 27, 2025

    On March 25, the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing titled “The Future of Wage Laws: Assessing the FLSA’s Effectiveness, Challenges, and Opportunities.” The hearing focused on several bills aimed at modernizing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including legislation to amend overtime pay requirements on compensatory time and regular rate of pay and to provide clarity on independent contractor status under the FLSA.

    The witnesses at the hearing included Tammy McCutchen, senior affiliate at Resolution Economics; Paige Boughan, senior vice president and director of human resources at Farmers and Merchants Banks (on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management); Andrew Stettner, director of economy and jobs at the Century Foundation; and Jonathan Wolfson, chief legal officer and policy director at Cicero Institute.

    Compensatory Time

    Committee members and witnesses discussed the Working Families Flexibility Act, which would allow private sector employers, including private institutions, to offer employees the choice of compensatory time or cash wages for overtime hours worked. Currently, the FLSA only allows for employees working for the public sector, including public institutions, to choose compensatory time or cash compensation for overtime hours worked.

    Chair of the Education and Workforce Committee Tim Walburg (R-MI) expressed his support for a bill like the Working Families Flexibility Act, as it would allow employees to choose which form of compensation best suits their needs. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) argued that offering compensatory time is an attempt to force workers to work more hours for free.

    CUPA-HR submitted a letter for the record prior to the hearing in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act. The letter highlights our past support for the legislation as introduced in previous Congresses. It also draws from CUPA-HR President and CEO Andy Brantley’s testimony for a 2013 Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearing in support of compensatory time. In his testimony, he provided examples of instances where employees benefited from the option of such overtime compensation, which he witnessed while working as an HR leader at a large public university.

    Regular Rate

    The hearing also discussed the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, which would exclude the value of employer-funded child or dependent care benefits from the regular rate calculation. The FLSA requires that overtime hours are paid at one-and-one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay, which is an average hourly rate that includes certain types of compensation.

    During the hearing, Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN) argued that the regular rate calculation that is currently used to determine overtime pay discourages employers from offering certain benefits. McCutcheon stated that legislation like the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act would encourage employers to offer more benefits as they would no longer face burdensome overtime pay calculations.

    Independent Contractor Status

    During the hearing, committee members and witnesses also discussed the Modern Worker Empowerment Act (H.R. 1319), which would establish a new standard for defining an employee and an independent contractor under the FLSA. Specifically, the legislation would implement language that states workers are employees if the employer controls what work will be done and how it will be done, and workers are independent contractors if the entity under which the worker works does not exercise significant control over how the work is performed, among other things.

    Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), who introduced the bill in early February, stated that the Modern Worker Empowerment Act was needed to ensure protections for independent contractors in the FLSA. Wolfson pointed to a 2019 California law, AB 5, which implemented an “ABC” test for worker classification and stated that businesses stopped working with freelancers as a result of the law. McCutcheon explained that the Modern Worker Empowerment Act provides clarity when determining worker classification status by focusing on who controls the work being done, unlike California’s ABC test which she claimed was too complicated.

    Ranking Member of the Education and Workforce Committee Bobby Scott (D-VA) opposed the Modern Worker Empowerment Act, claiming that workers do not want to be independent contractors and that employers force workers to accept independent contractor status, thus saving employers money.

    The House Education and Workforce Committee will continue to consider these bills as they are reintroduced and marked up during the 119th Congress. CUPA-HR will monitor for future developments on the bills discussed during this hearing and keep members apprised of significant updates.



    Source link

  • Yeshiva U Accepts LGBTQ+ Student Group but Not “Pride” Clubs

    Yeshiva U Accepts LGBTQ+ Student Group but Not “Pride” Clubs

    Less than a week after Yeshiva University agreed to recognize an LGBTQ+ student club as part of a legal settlement, university president Ari Berman apologized for the way the university conveyed the announcement and stressed that “pride” clubs still run counter to the values of the Modern Orthodox Jewish university, Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported. He emphasized that the newly approved club would function “in accordance with halacha,” or Jewish law.

    “I deeply apologize to the members of our community—our students and parents, alumni and friends, faculty and Rabbis—for the way the news was rolled out,” Berman, a rabbi, wrote in an email to students Tuesday. “Instead of clarity, it sowed confusion. Even more egregiously, misleading ‘news’ articles said that Yeshiva had reversed its position, which is absolutely untrue.”

    The university has been mired in a legal battle with its LGBTQ+ student group, the YU Pride Alliance, since 2021, when the group sued for official university recognition. Yeshiva said it wasn’t legally required to recognize the club because of Orthodoxy’s stance against same-sex relations. The two parties announced a settlement last week in which students will run an LGBTQ+ club called Hareni that will “operate in accordance with the approved guidelines of Yeshiva University’s senior rabbis,” according to a joint statement issued last Thursday.

    LGBTQ+ students celebrated the settlement as a new milestone. But Berman framed the settlement as doubling down on an old proposal from 2022, when the university sought to create its own LGBTQ+ student club called Kol Yisrael Areivim. Plaintiffs rejected the plan at the time, on the grounds that the club wouldn’t be student-run. But Berman said Hareni was similarly created “to support students who are striving to live authentic, uncompromising” lives within the bounds of Jewish law, “as previously described.”

    “The Yeshiva has always conveyed that what a Pride club represents is antithetical to the undergraduate program in which the traditional view of marriage and genders being determined at birth are transmitted,” Berman wrote in his message to students. “The Yeshiva never could and never would sanction such an undergraduate club and it is due to this that we entered litigation.”

    As he sees it, “last week, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against YU accepted to run Hareni, instead of what they were originally suing us for, moved to end the case, and the case has been dismissed.”

    Source link