Blog

  • A bone of contention with secondary legislation

    A bone of contention with secondary legislation

    Statutory instruments – sometimes described as secondary legislation – sit on the boundary between lawmaking and regulation.

    Unlike primary legislation (the Bills we all know and follow diligently through various stages of parliamentary scrutiny before they become Acts), statutory instruments (SIs) are discussed by MPs and Lords only in rare (and usually carefully specified) cases.

    Most of the time, a Secretary of State decides to make regulations (yes, that’s another name for SIs) and publishes them – they become law immediately, although there is a nominal 40 day period for people to complain about them.

    On this basis, you’d expect SIs to be used only in uncontroversial circumstances – to enact previously agreed policy. And that’s the way it is meant to work – policy on the face of the bill, practical implementation in the SIs. And for stuff that is too technical (or dull) to be in an SI – an independent, arms-length regulator, makes the call.

    Spooky, scary

    A “skeleton bill” is a piece of primary legislation that is primarily concerned with giving the Secretary of State powers to do things via SIs. These are unpopular among parliamentarians and informed observers because they put the thing that is meant to be discussed – the policy – out of bounds during parliamentary scrutiny.

    In 2021 the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee (DPRRC) defined a skeleton bill as:

    where the provision on the face of the bill is so insubstantial that the real operation of the act, or sections of an act, would be entirely by the regulations or orders made under it

    As with other parliamentary bodies (the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee) it is of the belief that skeleton legislation should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances – the pandemic was cited as one example of such a situation.

    Skeletons on parade

    In higher education and skills we’ve had more than our fair share of skeletons: very short, technical, bills where the policy action is primarily in SIs. Let’s run them down, from newest to oldest.

    The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill 2024 is supposed to be bringing about a new agency, Skills England. However, you will look in vain for the words “Skills England” on the face of the bill: what is there generally tidies up the implications of getting rid of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education by assigning powers and responsibilities to the Department for Education.

    The Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 was promoted as providing the underpinnings of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement – in practice everything from fee levels to regulation to the speed of implementation is at the whim of the Secretary of State and a selection of SIs.

    The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 provides further initial LLE underpinnings, alongside a grab bag of other higher education and skills related interventions (LSIPs, essay mills, new and scary powers for OfS). But you’d be hard pushed to identify, much less offer scrutiny to, a central animating policy idea.

    The Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 was fairly clear in bringing about a new research funding body, ARIA. However, if you want to know what it might research, to what level it will be funded, how it relates to other research funding or research performing bodies, or how it will be held to account for the way it uses public funds, you will be disappointed.

    Let battle commence

    And the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 is short, and technical, but arguably it is not a skeleton bill. There is plenty of policy in there to get stuck into – indeed, it spent a day under two years before parliament (a record for the modern era). But, as it turns out, SIs held the key to the extent to which measures are implemented, and when.

    It illustrates a point at which every bill may be seen as a skeleton bill of a sort: the use of SIs for commencement.

    In broad terms a bill becomes law at the moment it is given Royal Assent – if the King signs it off (metaphorically) on a Tuesday morning at 10am, it is the law of the land from Tuesday morning at 10am onwards.

    There may be some circumstances where this is not appropriate – for instance if a bill sets up a duty on something or someone, and then provides consequences regarding the way this duty is discharged. For this reason, you sometimes see relative (six months after assent, for example) or absolute (1 August 2025) dates in the “commencement” section of the act, allowing for a delay to get things in order or to give a grace period to allow time to comply with the new rules.

    Even then, it may not always be possible to put a precise date on these things. Perhaps an act makes a new public appointment – this might need time to recruit, interview, and approve a person – and then give that person new powers. As you can’t really give powers to something, or someone, that doesn’t yet exist a Secretary of State may commence these powers only when the post is filled, and (yes) an SI is the tool to do this.

    (as a fun aside, the reason I keep capitalising Secretary of State in this piece is because when an act gives powers to a secretary of state it doesn’t just mean the secretary of state of the department that “owns” the bill – it means any secretary of state. It’s a hangover from a time when there was only one secretary of state for the whole government – and the upshot of this is that, technically, Nadine Dorries could have made regulations about the use of the UK’s nuclear deterrent while she was Secretary of State for Culture. It really is a wonder that we still all exist)

    I choose not to choose

    As I noted the other week, a Secretary of State is equally able to decide not to use their commencement powers. There’s not really any formal or legal comeback on a choice like this – although there could be noisy complaints where the decision is a high profile one and can be seen as the expressed will of parliament. In the comments, Julian Gravatt correctly notes that the Easter Act 1928, which would sensibly fix the date of Easter as being the second Sunday in April each year, has yet to be commenced – I have yet to hear from the Free Speech Union on this breach of the democratic will of the people.

    If it sounds like I’m being flippant here, be aware that there is a serious point too. If you take the fundamental standpoint that policy gets better with scrutiny and that ultimately parliament expresses the will of the people, the idea that a minister could just ignore stuff is a bit of a worry.

    There are sensible reasons for this – I don’t want every element of the HESA Student specification to be discussed on the floor of the commons, I don’t really want the minister explaining to parliament why she wants to give OfS another month to properly make sense of consultation responses – but if you cast your mind over the list of acts above it does feel like an unpleasantly long time since the Commons or the Lords had a serious discussion about higher education policy that had any chance of having an impact on the way things work.

    There’s a part of me that still remembers the low information nature of some of the conversations that did happen during the extended stay of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act – but if you think back even further (to the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act) it is possible, especially in the Lords, for the government to get useful and meaningful advice on their proposed actions which will have the pleasing upshot of making higher education work better.

    And perhaps we need more of that as we design the next phase of higher education policy.

    Source link

  • PowerSchool Got Hacked. Now What? – The 74

    PowerSchool Got Hacked. Now What? – The 74


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

    Were you a current or former student in the last few decades? Or a parent? Or an educator? 

    If so, your sensitive data — like Social Security numbers and medical records — may have fallen into the hands of cybercriminals. Their target was education technology behemoth PowerSchool, which provides a centralized system for reams of student data to damn near every school in America.

    Given the cyberattack’s high stakes and its potential to harm millions of current and former students, I teamed up Wednesday with Doug Levin of the K12 Security Information eXchange to moderate a timely webinar about what happened, who was affected — and the steps school districts must take to keep their communities safe.

    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.

    Concern about the PowerSchool breach is clearly high: Some 600 people tuned into the live event at one point and pummeled Levin and panelists Wesley Lombardo, technology director at Tennessee’s Maryville City Schools; Mark Racine, co-founder of RootED Solutions; and Amelia Vance, president of the Public Interest Privacy Center, with questions. 

    PowerSchool declined our invitation to participate but sent a statement, saying it is “working to complete our investigation of the incident and [is] coordinating with districts and schools to provide more information and resources (including credit monitoring or identity protection services if applicable) as it becomes available.”

    The individual or group who hacked the ed tech giant has yet to be publicly identified.

    Asked and answered: Why has the company’s security safeguards faced widespread scrutiny? What steps should parents take to keep their kids’ data secure? Will anyone be held accountable?

    Watch the webinar here.


    In the news

    Oklahoma schools Superintendent Ryan Walters, who says undocumented immigrants have placed “severe financial and operational strain” on schools in his state, proposed rules requiring parents to show proof of citizenship or legal immigration status when enrolling their kids — a proposal that not only violates federal law, but is likely to keep some parents from sending their children to school. | The 74

    • Not playing along: Leaders of the state’s two largest school districts — Oklahoma City and Tulsa — rebuked the proposal and said they would not collect students’ immigration information. Educators nationwide fear the incoming Trump administration could carry out arrests on campuses. | Oklahoma Watch
       
    • Walters filed a $474 million federal lawsuit this week alleging immigration enforcement officials mismanaged the U.S.-Mexico border, leading to “skyrocketing costs” for Oklahoma schools required “to accommodate an influx of non-citizen students.” | The Oklahoman
       
    • Timely resource guide: With ramped-up immigration enforcement on the horizon — and with many schools already sharing student information with ICE — here are the steps school administrators must take to comply with longstanding privacy and civil rights laws. | Center for Democracy & Technology

    A federal judge in Kentucky struck down the Biden administration’s Title IX rules that enshrined civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students in schools, siding with several conservative state attorneys general who argued that harassment of transgender students based on their gender identity doesn’t constitute sex discrimination. Mother Jones

    Fires throw L.A. schools into chaos: As fatal wildfires rage in California, the students and families of America’s second-largest school district have had their lives thrown into disarray. Schools serving thousands of students were badly damaged or destroyed. Many children have lost their homes. Hundreds of kids whose schools burned down returned to makeshift classrooms Wednesday after losing “their whole lifestyle in a matter of hours.” | The Washington Post 

    • At least seven public schools in Los Angeles that were destroyed, damaged or threatened by flames will remain closed, along with campuses in other districts. | The 74

    Has TikTok’s time run out? With a national ban looming for the popular social media app, many teens say they’re ready to move on (and have already flocked to a replacement). | Business Insider

    Instagram and Facebook parent company Meta restricted LGBTQ+-related content from teens’ accounts for months under its so-called sensitive content policy until the effort was exposed by journalist Taylor Lorenz. | Fast Company

    Students’ lunch boxes sit in a locker at California’s Marquez Charter Elementary School, which was destroyed by the Palisades fire on Jan. 7. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

    The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday announced the participants in a $200 million pilot program to help schools and libraries bolster their cybersecurity defenses. They include 645 schools and districts and 50 libraries. | FCC

    Scholastic falls to “furry” hackers: The education and publishing giant that brought us Harry Potter has fallen victim to a cyberattacker, who reportedly stole the records of some 8 million people. In an added twist, the culprit gave a shout-out to “the puppygirl hacker polycule,” an apparent reference to a hacker dating group interested in human-like animal characters. | Daily Dot

    Not just in New Jersey: In a new survey, nearly a quarter of teachers said their schools are patrolled by drones and a third said their schools have surveillance cameras with facial recognition capabilities. | Center for Democracy & Technology

    The number of teens abstaining from drugs, alcohol and tobacco use has hit record highs, with experts calling the latest data unprecedented and unexpected. | Ars Technica


    ICYMI @The74

    Librarians Gain Protections in Some States as Book Bans Soar

    RFK Jr. Could Pull Many Levers to Hinder Childhood Immunization as HHS Head

    Feds: Philadelphia Schools Failed to Address Antisemitism in School, Online


    Emotional Support

    New pup just dropped.

    Meet Woodford, who, at just 9 weeks, has already aged like a fine bourbon. I’m told that Woody — and the duck, obviously — have come under the good care of 74 reporter Linda Jacobson’s daughter.


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

    Source link

  • A Solicitation for Black Scholars to Shine Amidst the Storms and Sickness

    A Solicitation for Black Scholars to Shine Amidst the Storms and Sickness

    In this season of ongoing celebrations, as we remember and reflect on the life and legacy of the late civil rights icon and leader, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,Dr. Ronald W. Whitaker, II we position this op-ed as a prophetic call to Black scholars. This call draws inspiration from Dr. King’s last public address on April 3, 1968, affectionately known as his Mountaintop Speech

    Upon arriving in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 3, 1968, King was physically exhausted, weighed down by the burdens of leadership, and grappling with his lifelong struggle with depression. What is less widely known; however, is that King arrived in Memphis the day before his assassination, in the midst of a fierce storm and tornado warnings.

    Indeed, King began his address to the crowd that evening with the words, “I’m delighted to see each of you here tonight in spite of a storm warning. You reveal that you are determined to go on anyhow. Something is happening in Memphis, something is happening in our world” (King, 1968). The storm King referred to that night symbolizes the socio-political storms that many Black scholars are currently navigating, as turbulence and change rage both inside and outside of campus environments.

    Twelve years ago, in his book Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education, DEI scholar and thought leader Dr. Damon A. Williams issued a warning to academics and campus leaders about what he termed a “perfect storm.”Dr. Adriel A. HiltonDr. Adriel A. Hilton

    Williams writes: “The degree shortfall, along with changing demographics and an increasingly turbulent political landscape, has created a ‘perfect storm’ for leaders contemplating the role of diversity in higher education. To understand and overcome the challenges of this perfect storm, academic leaders must fundamentally reframe how they approach issues of diversity in our colleges and universities” (Williams, 2013, p. 31).

    According to Williams, several “critical pressures” are fueling the perfect storm on college campuses. However, one of the most concerning threats, particularly for those advocating for authentic justice within higher education, is the ongoing legal and political assault on diversity and affirmative action. Following the second presidential election of Donald J. Trump, we have already begun to see the promised reverse of DEI initiatives within some of the country’s largest corporations. Similarly, as argued in this article, there is a continued effort to dismantle DEI programs in higher education.     

    Yet, on the evening of April 3, 1968, King was not only confronting a storm; he was also addressing a deeper, more pervasive, and pernicious problem, which he framed as a “sickness.” After introducing the historical context and poetic reflections on the movement, King did not mince words, asserting, “the nation is sick. Trouble is in the land; confusion all around.” 

    At the core of King’s assertion that “the nation is sick” was his identification of three major evils: (1) “the evil of racism,” (2) “the evil of poverty,” and (3) “the evil of war.” As a leading figure within the Black Prophetic Tradition, King understood that a nation rooted in systemic injustice, economic inequity, and racial oppression is inherently “sick.”

    Unfortunately, as we write this article today, we are still confronting a serious “sickness” on campuses. Systemic equity gaps and disparities continue to persist across demographic groups, particularly impacting our most vulnerable students. Additionally, the rising cost of college tuition disproportionately affects students from lower-income families, further exacerbating the barriers to higher education. Economic inequities within higher education also highlight broader systemic inequalities, such as the underfunded programs designed to support vulnerable student populations (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2018).

    Despite the rhetoric suggesting that we have entered a “post-racial” society, studies present counternarratives expose widening gap on racial inequality in higher education. In the face of the storms and sickness described in this op-ed, it is easy to feel discouraged and downtrodden.

    This is why we draw from the wisdom and courage of King, who, even in the midst of adversity, possessed the uncanny ability to speak the painful truth while simultaneously offering hope for a better tomorrow. For example, after asserting that the nation is sick, King reminded us that “only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.” 

    We believe this is the focal point of King’s message. Specifically, despite the dark storms and sicknesses in society and within the academy, this may be the moment for us as Black scholars and leaders to shine. Our call to shine is not rooted in the pursuit of promotions, tenure, senior administrator positions, or the building of our professional brands. No, we argue that we must authentically shine in order to critically reflect on the issues plaguing campuses and, more importantly, to find the courage to stand for truth and justice.

    We shine when we, as King urged America to do on April 3, 1968, remind campus leaders and colleagues to be “true to what you said on paper.” Each college has a mission statement, vision statement, code of ethics, values, and strategic plan that underscores the importance of moral behavior. Therefore, when we receive reports and data suggesting that vulnerable populations are being targeted within social catalytic spaces on college campuses, it is an urgent call to remind leadership to adhere to the values stated in official documents, such as websites, marketing materials, and other institutional communications.

    Lastly, we shine when we confront the existential realities of our existence. As those closest to King have shared, on the night of April 3, 1968, he knew his time on earth was short. Similarly, despite our accolades and titles, our time in academia is relatively brief, and we must decide what legacy we wish to leave. In honoring our ancestors, elders, students, and communities we serve, we must stay focused on the promised land—a promised land rooted in justice, democracy, freedom, safety, security, opportunity, and solidarity. As such, we must not lose hope in the belief that things will get better for “we as a people!” 

    In closing, do not give in to pessimism and fear. Instead, choose to shine. By doing so, we might not only be saving the soul of our institutions of higher education, but collectively, we might be saving the soul of this nation.

    Dr. Ronald W. Whitaker, II, is a Visiting Associate Professor of Education at Arcadia University, Director of the MEd in Educational Leadership Program, and Co-Director of the Social Action and Justice Education Fellowship Program at Arcadia University.  Additionally, Dr. Whitaker is an inaugural faculty fellow at Vanderbilt University for the Initiative for Race, Research, and Justice. 

    Dr. Adriel A. Hilton serves as Director of Programs, Transition and Youth Success Planning (staffing the Assistant Secretary of Juvenile Rehabilitation) in the Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families. Most recently, he served as vice-chancellor for student affairs & enrollment management and associate professor of education at Southern University at New Orleans.

     

    Source link

  • The US is leading us closer to nuclear war (Jeffrey Sachs)

    The US is leading us closer to nuclear war (Jeffrey Sachs)

    Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs says that the United States is steering the world toward disaster. Sachs served as the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University from 2002 to 2016 and is considered one of the world’s leading experts on
    economic development, global macroeconomics, and the fight against
    poverty.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Why Scotland’s student funding system is “unfair, unsustainable, unaffordable” and needs to be replaced with a graduate contribution model

    WEEKEND READING: Why Scotland’s student funding system is “unfair, unsustainable, unaffordable” and needs to be replaced with a graduate contribution model

    • These are the remarks by Alison Payne, Research Director at Reform Scotland, at the HEPI / CDBU event on funding higher education, held at Birkbeck, University of London, on Thursday of this week.
    • We are also making available Johnny Rich’s slides on ‘Making graduate employer contributions work’ from the same event, which are available to download here.

    Thanks to the CDBU and to HEPI for the invitation to attend and take part in today’s discussion. 

    My speech today has been titled ‘A graduate contribution model’. Of course, for UK graduates not from Scotland, I’m sure they would make the point that they very much do contribute through their fees, but the situation is very different in Scotland and I’m really grateful that I have the opportunity to feed the Scottish situation into today’s discussion.

    I thought it may be helpful if I gave a quick overview of the Scottish situation, as it differs somewhat to the overview Nick gave this morning covering the rest of the UK. 

    Although tuition fees were introduced throughout the UK in 1998, the advent of devolution in 1999 and the passing of responsibility for higher education to Holyrood began the period of diverging funding policies.

    The then Labour / Lib Dem Scottish Executive, as it was then known, scrapped tuition fees and replaced them with a graduate endowment from 2001-02, with the first students becoming liable to pay the fee from April 2005. The scheme called for students to pay back £2,000 once they started earning over £10,000. 

    The graduate endowment was then scrapped by the SNP in February 2008. A quirk of EU law meant that students from EU countries could not be charged tuition fees if Scottish students were not paying them but students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland could be charged. This meant that from 2008 to 2021/22 EU students did not need to pay fees to attend Scottish universities, though students from the rest of the UK did. 

    We’re used to politics in Scotland being highly polarised and often toxic with few areas of commonality, but for the most part the policy of ‘free’ higher education has been supported by all of the political parties. Indeed at the last Scottish election in 2021 all parties committed to maintaining the policy in their manifestos. It is only recently that the Scottish Tories have suggested a move away from this following the election of their new leader, Russell Finlay.

    But behind this unusual political consensus, the ‘free’ policy is becoming increasingly unsustainable and unaffordable. Politicians will privately admit this, but politics, and a rock with an ill-advised slogan, have made it harder to have the much needed debate.

    The Cap

    While we don’t have tuition fees, we do have a cap on student numbers. And while more Scots are going to university, places are unable to keep up with demand. Since 2006 there has been a 56% increase in applicants, but an 84% increase in the number refused entry. 

    It is increasingly the case that students from the rest of the UK or overseas are accepted on to courses in Scotland while their Scottish counterparts are denied. For example, when clearing options are posted, often those places at Scotland’s top universities are only available to students from the rest of the UK and not to Scottish students, even if the latter have better grades. As a result, Scots can feel that they are denied access to education on their doorstep that those from elsewhere can obtain. Indeed, there are growing anecdotes about those who can afford it buying or renting property elsewhere in the UK so that they can attend a Scottish university, pay the higher fee and get around the cap.

    Basically, more people want to go to university, but the fiscal arrangements are holding ambition them back. This problem was highlighted by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee’s report on Universities from 2021.

    Some commentators in Scotland have blamed the lack of places on widening access programmes, but I would challenge this. It is undoubtedly a good thing that more people from non-traditional backgrounds are getting into university, it is the cap that is limiting Scottish places, not access programmes. This is a point that has been backed by individuals such as the Principal of St Andrews, Professor Dame Sally Mapstone [who also serves as HEPI’s Chair].

    Financial Woes

    The higher education sector in Scotland, as with elsewhere in the UK, is not in great financial health. Audit Scotland warned back in 2019 that half of our institutions were facing growing deficits. Pressures including pensions contributions, Brexit and estate maintenance have all played a role and in the face of this decline, but nothing has changed and we’re now seeing crisis like those at Dundee emerge. Against this backdrop, income from those students who pay higher fees is an important revenue stream.

    There is obviously a huge variation in what the fees are to attend a Scottish university, considerably more so than in the rest of the UK.

    For example, to study Accounting and Business as an undergraduate at Edinburgh University, the cost for a full-time new student for 2024/25 is £1,820 per year for a Scottish-domiciled student (met by the Scottish Government), £9,250 per year for someone from the rest of the UK and £26,500 for an international student. 

    It is clear why international students and UK students from outside Scotland are therefore so much more attractive than Scottish students.

    However, there is by no means an equal distribution of higher fee paying students among our institutions.

    For example, at St Andrews about one-third of undergraduate full-time students were Scots, with one-third from the rest of the UK and one-third international. The numbers for Edinburgh are similar.  

    At the other end of the scale, at the University of the Highlands and Islands and Glasgow Caledonian, around 90% of students are Scottish, with only around only 1% being international.  

    So it is clear that institutions’ ability to raise money from fee-paying students varies very dramatically, increasing the financial pressures on those with low fee income.

    However, when looking at the issue, it is important to recognise that it is not just our universities who are struggling, Scotland’s colleges are facing huge financial pressures as well. 

    The current proposed Scottish budget would leave colleges struggling with a persistent, real-terms funding cut of 17 per cent since 2021/22. Our college sector is hugely important in terms of the delivery of skills, working with local economies and as a route to university for so many, but for too long colleges have been treated like the Cinderella service in Scotland. The prioritising of ‘free’ university tuition over the college sector is adding to this problem.

    Regardless of who wins the Holyrood election next year, money is, and will remain, tight for some time. It would be lovely to be able to have lots of taxpayer funded ‘free’ services, but that is simply unsustainable and difficult choices need to be made. 

    This is why we believe that the current situation is unfair, unsustainable, unaffordable and needs to change.

    Reform Scotland would offer another alternative solution. We believe that there needs to be a better balance between the individual graduate and Scottish taxpayers in the contribution towards higher education. 

    One way this could be achieved is through a fee after graduation, to be repaid once they earn more than the Scottish average salary. This would not be a fee incurred on starting university and deferred until after graduation, rather the fee would be incurred on graduation.

    In terms of what that fee could be, the Cubie report over 25 years ago suggested a graduate fee of £3,000, which would be about £5,500 today.  This could perhaps be the starting point for consideration.  

    Any figure should take account of different variations in terms of the true cost of the course and potential skill shortages. 

    However, introducing a graduate fee would not necessarily mean an end to ‘free’ tuition. 

    Rather it provides an opportunity to look at the skills gaps that exist in Scotland and the possibility of developing schemes which cut off or scrap repayments for graduates who work in specific geographic areas or sectors of Scotland for set periods of time. 

    Such schemes could also look to incorporate students from elsewhere for Scotland is facing a demographic crisis. Our population is set to become older and smaller, and we are the only part of the UK projected to have a smaller population by 2045. 

    We desperately need to retain and attract more working-age people. Perhaps such graduate repayment waiver schemes could also be offered to students from the rest of the UK who choose to study in Scotland – stay here and work after graduation and we will pay a proportion of your fee. A wide range of different schemes could be considered and linked into the wider policy issues facing Scotland. 

    According to the Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA) there were 3,370 graduates from the rest of the UK who attended a Scottish institution in 2020/21. Of those, only 990 chose to remain in Scotland for work after graduation. Could we encourage more people to stay after studying?

    Conclusion

    A graduate fee is only one possible solution, but I would argue that it is also one with a short shelf life. As graduates would not incur the fee until they graduated, there would be a four-year delay between the change in policy and revenue beginning to be received. Our institutions are facing very real fiscal problems and there is a danger of a university going to the wall. 

    If we get to the 2026 election and political parties refuse to shift the dial and at least recognise that the current system is unsustainable, then there is a danger that nothing will change for another Parliamentary term. I don’t think we can afford to wait until 2031.

    There is another interesting dynamic now as well. Labour in Scotland currently, publicly at least, oppose tuition fees. However, there are now 37 Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster who are backing the increase of fees on students from outside Scotland, or Scottish students studying down south. Given the unpopularity of the Labour government as well as the tight contest between the SNP and Labour for Holyrood, it seems unlikely that position can be maintained.

    All across the UK there are increasing signs of the stark financial situation we are facing. Against that backdrop, along with the restrictions placed on the number being able to attend, free university tuition is unsustainable and unaffordable. People outside Scottish politics seem to be able to see this reality, privately so do many of our politicians. We need to shift this debate in to the public domain in Scotland and develop a workable solution.

    Source link

  • Social Security Offsets and Defaulted Student Loans (CFPB)

    Social Security Offsets and Defaulted Student Loans (CFPB)

    Executive Summary

    When
    borrowers default on their federal student loans, the U.S. Department
    of Education (“Department of Education”) can collect the outstanding
    balance through forced collections, including the offset of tax refunds
    and Social Security benefits and the garnishment of wages. At the
    beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Education paused
    collections on defaulted federal student loans.
    This year, collections are set to resume and almost 6 million student
    loan borrowers with loans in default will again be subject to the
    Department of Education’s forced collection of their tax refunds, wages,
    and Social Security benefits.
    Among the borrowers who are likely to experience forced collections are
    an estimated 452,000 borrowers ages 62 and older with defaulted loans
    who are likely receiving Social Security benefits.

    This
    spotlight describes the circumstances and experiences of student loan
    borrowers affected by the forced collection of Social Security benefits.
    It also describes how forced collections can push older borrowers into
    poverty, undermining the purpose of the Social Security program.

    Key findings

    • The
      number of Social Security beneficiaries experiencing forced collection
      grew by more than 3,000 percent in fewer than 20 years; the count is
      likely to grow as the age of student loan borrowers trends older.

      Between 2001 and 2019, the number of Social Security beneficiaries
      experiencing reduced benefits due to forced collection increased from
      approximately 6,200 to 192,300. This exponential growth is likely driven
      by older borrowers who make up an increasingly large share of the
      federal student loan portfolio. The number of student loan borrowers
      ages 62 and older increased by 59 percent from 1.7 million in 2017 to
      2.7 million in 2023, compared to a 1 percent decline among borrowers
      under the age of 62.
    • The total amount
      of Social Security benefits the Department of Education collected
      between 2001 and 2019 through the offset program increased from $16.2
      million to $429.7 million
      . Despite the exponential increase in
      collections from Social Security, the majority of money the Department
      of Education has collected has been applied to interest and fees and has
      not affected borrowers’ principal amount owed. Furthermore, between
      2016 and 2019, the Department of the Treasury’s fees alone accounted for
      nearly 10 percent of the average borrower’s lost Social Security
      benefits.
    • More than one in three
      Social Security recipients with student loans are reliant on Social
      Security payments, meaning forced collections could significantly
      imperil their financial well-being.
      Approximately 37 percent of the
      1.3 million Social Security beneficiaries with student loans rely on
      modest payments, an average monthly benefit of $1,523, for 90 percent of
      their income. This population is particularly vulnerable to reduction
      in their benefits especially if benefits are offset year-round. In 2019,
      the average annual amount collected from individual beneficiaries was
      $2,232 ($186 per month).
    • The physical well-being of half of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans in default may be at risk.
      Half of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans in default and
      collections skipped a doctor’s visit or did not obtain prescription
      medication due to cost.
    • Existing minimum income protections fail to protect student loan borrowers with Social Security against financial hardship.
      Currently, only $750 per month of Social Security income—an amount that
      is $400 below the monthly poverty threshold for an individual and has
      not been adjusted for inflation since 1996—is protected from forced
      collections by statute. Even if the minimum protected income was
      adjusted for inflation, beneficiaries would likely still experience
      hardship, such as food insecurity and problems paying utility bills. A
      higher threshold could protect borrowers against hardship more
      effectively. The CFPB found that for 87 percent of student loan
      borrowers who receive Social Security, their benefit amount is below 225
      percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), an income level at which
      people are as likely to experience material hardship as those with
      incomes below the federal poverty level.
    • Large
      shares of Social Security beneficiaries affected by forced collections
      may be eligible for relief or outright loan cancellation, yet they are
      unable to access these benefits, possibly due to insufficient
      automation or borrowers’ cognitive and physical decline.
      As many as
      eight in ten Social Security beneficiaries with loans in default may be
      eligible to suspend or reduce forced collections due to financial
      hardship. Moreover, one in five Social Security beneficiaries may be
      eligible for discharge of their loans due to a disability. Yet these
      individuals are not accessing such relief because the Department of
      Education’s data matching process insufficiently identifies those who
      may be eligible.

    Taken together,
    these findings suggest that the Department of Education’s forced
    collections of Social Security benefits increasingly interfere with
    Social Security’s longstanding purpose of protecting its beneficiaries
    from poverty and financial instability.

    Introduction

    When
    borrowers default on their federal student loans, the Department of
    Education can collect the outstanding balance through forced
    collections, including the offset of tax refunds and Social Security
    benefits, and the garnishment of wages. At the beginning of the COVID-19
    pandemic, the Department of Education paused collections on defaulted
    federal student loans. This year, collections are set to resume and
    almost 6 million student loan borrowers with loans in default will again
    be subject to the Department of Education’s forced collection of their
    tax refunds, wages, and Social Security benefits.

    Among
    the borrowers who are likely to experience the Department of
    Education’s renewed forced collections are an estimated 452,000
    borrowers with defaulted loans who are ages 62 and older and who are
    likely receiving Social Security benefits.
    Congress created the Social Security program in 1935 to provide a basic
    level of income that protects insured workers and their families from
    poverty due to situations including old age, widowhood, or disability.
    The Social Security Administration calls the program “one of the most
    successful anti-poverty programs in our nation’s history.”
    In 2022, Social Security lifted over 29 million Americans from poverty,
    including retirees, disabled adults, and their spouses and dependents.
    Congress has recognized the importance of securing the value of Social
    Security benefits and on several occasions has intervened to protect
    them.

    This
    spotlight describes the circumstances and experiences of student loan
    borrowers affected by the forced collection of their Social Security
    benefits.
    It also describes how the purpose of Social Security is being
    increasingly undermined by the limited and deficient options the
    Department of Education has to protect Social Security beneficiaries
    from poverty and hardship.

    The forced collection of Social Security benefits has increased exponentially.

    Federal
    student loans enter default after 270 days of missed payments and
    transfer to the Department of Education’s default collections program
    after 360 days. Borrowers with a loan in default face several
    consequences: (1) their credit is negatively affected; (2) they lose
    eligibility to receive federal student aid while their loans are in
    default; (3) they are unable to change repayment plans and request
    deferment and forbearance; and (4) they face forced collections of tax refunds, Social Security benefits, and wages among other payments.
    To conduct its forced collections of federal payments like tax refunds
    and Social Security benefits, the Department of Education relies on a
    collection service run by the U.S. Department of the Treasury called the
    Treasury Offset Program.

    Between
    2001 and 2019, the number of student loan borrowers facing forced
    collection of their Social Security benefits increased from at least
    6,200 to 192,300.
    That is a more than 3,000 percent increase in fewer than 20 years. By
    comparison, the number of borrowers facing forced collections of their
    tax refunds increased by about 90 percent from 1.17 million to 2.22
    million during the same period.

    This exponential growth of Social Security offsets between 2001 and 2019 is likely driven by multiple factors including:

    • Older
      borrowers accounted for an increasingly large share of the federal
      student loan portfolio due to increasing average age of enrollment and
      length of time in repayment.
      Data from the Department of Education
      (which is only available since 2017), show that the number of student
      loan borrowers ages 62 and older, increased 24 percent from 1.7 million
      in 2017 to 2.1 million in 2019, compared to less than 1 percent among
      borrowers under the age of 62.
    • A larger number of borrowers, especially older borrowers, had loans in default.
      Data from the Department of Education show that the number of student
      loan borrowers with a defaulted loan increased by 230 percent from 3.8
      million in 2006 to 8.8 million in 2019. Compounding these trends is the fact that older borrowers are twice as likely to have a loan in default than younger borrowers.

    Due
    to these factors, the total amount of Social Security benefits the
    Department of Education collected between 2001 and 2019 through the
    offset program increased annually from $16.2 million to $429.7 million
    (when adjusted for inflation).
    This increase occurred even though the average monthly amount the
    Department of Education collected from individual beneficiaries was the
    same for most years, at approximately $180 per month.

    Figure 1: Number of Social Security beneficiaries and total amount collected for student loans (2001-2019)

    Source: CFPB analysis of public data from U.S. Treasury’s Fiscal Data portal. Amounts are presented in 2024 dollars.

    While the total collected from
    Social Security benefits has increased exponentially, the majority of
    money the Department of Education collected has not been applied to
    borrowers’ principal amount owed. Specifically, nearly three-quarters of
    the monies the Department of Education collects through offsets is
    applied to interest and fees, and not towards paying down principal
    balances.
    Between 2016 and 2019, the U.S. Department of the Treasury charged the
    Department of Education between $13.12 and $15.00 per Social Security
    offset, or approximately between $157.44 and $180 for 12 months of
    Social Security offsets per beneficiary with defaulted federal student
    loans. As a matter of practice, the Department of Education often passes these fees on directly to borrowers.
    Furthermore, these fees accounted for nearly 10 percent of the average
    monthly borrower’s lost Social Security benefits which was $183 during
    this time.
    Interest and fees not only reduce beneficiaries’ monthly benefits, but
    also prolong the period that beneficiaries are likely subject to forced
    collections.

    Forced collections are compromising Social Security beneficiaries’ financial well-being.

    Forced
    collection of Social Security benefits affects the financial well-being
    of the most vulnerable borrowers and can exacerbate any financial and
    health challenges they may already be experiencing. The CFPB’s analysis
    of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) pooled data for
    2018 to 2021 finds that Social Security beneficiaries with student
    loans receive an average monthly benefit of $1,524.
    The analysis also indicates that approximately 480,000 (37 percent) of
    the 1.3 million beneficiaries with student loans rely on these modest
    payments for 90 percent or more of their income,
    thereby making them particularly vulnerable to reduction in their
    benefits especially if benefits are offset year-round. In 2019, the
    average annual amount collected from individual beneficiaries was $2,232
    ($186 per month).

    A
    recent survey from The Pew Charitable Trusts found that more than nine
    in ten borrowers who reported experiencing wage garnishment or Social
    Security payment offsets said that these penalties caused them financial
    hardship.
    Consequently, for many, their ability to meet their basic needs,
    including access to healthcare, became more difficult. According to our
    analysis of the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economic and
    Decision-making (SHED), half of Social Security beneficiaries with
    defaulted student loans skipped a doctor’s visit and/or did not obtain
    prescription medication due to cost.
    Moreover, 36 percent of Social Security beneficiaries with loans in
    delinquency or in collections report fair or poor health. Over half of
    them have medical debt.

    Figure 2: Selected financial experiences and hardships among subgroups of loan borrowers

    Bar graph showing that borrowers who receive Social Security benefits and are delinquent or in collections are more likely to report that their spending is same or higher than their income, they are unable to pay some bills, have fair or poor health, and skip medical care than borrowers who receive Social Security benefits and are not delinquent or in collections.

    Source: CFPB analysis of the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Household Economic and Decision-making (2019-2023).

    Social Security recipients
    subject to forced collection may not be able to access key public
    benefits that could help them mitigate the loss of income. This is
    because Social Security beneficiaries must list the unreduced amount of
    their benefits prior to collections when applying for other means-tested
    benefits programs such as Social Security Insurance (SSI), Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Medicare Savings Programs.
    Consequently, beneficiaries subject to forced collections must report
    an inflated income relative to what they are actually receiving. As a
    result, these beneficiaries may be denied public benefits that provide
    food, medical care, prescription drugs, and assistance with paying for
    other daily living costs.

    Consumers’
    complaints submitted to the CFPB describe the hardship caused by forced
    collections on borrowers reliant on Social Security benefits to pay for
    essential expenses.
    Consumers often explain their difficulty paying for such expenses as
    rent and medical bills. In one complaint, a consumer noted that they
    were having difficulty paying their rent since their Social Security
    benefit usually went to paying that expense.
    In another complaint, a caregiver described that the money was being
    withheld from their mother’s Social Security, which was the only source
    of income used to pay for their mother’s care at an assisted living
    facility.
    As forced collections threaten the housing security and health of
    Social Security beneficiaries, they also create a financial burden on
    non-borrowers who help address these hardships, including family members
    and caregivers.

    Existing minimum income protections fail to protect student loan borrowers with Social Security against financial hardship.

    The
    Debt Collection Improvement Act set a minimum floor of income below
    which the federal government cannot offset Social Security benefits and
    subsequent Treasury regulations established a cap on the percentage of
    income above that floor.
    Specifically, these statutory guardrails limit collections to 15
    percent of Social Security benefits above $750. The minimum threshold
    was established in 1996 and has not been updated since. As a result, the
    amount protected by law alone does not adequately protect beneficiaries
    from financial hardship and in fact no longer protects them from
    falling below the federal poverty level (FPL). In 1996, $750 was nearly
    $100 above the monthly poverty threshold for an individual.
    Today that same protection is $400 below the threshold. If the
    protected amount of $750 per month ($9,000 per year) set in 1996 was
    adjusted for inflation, in 2024 dollars, it would total $1,450 per month
    ($17,400 per year).

    Figure
    3: Comparison of monthly FPL threshold with the current protected
    amount established in 1996 and the amount that would be protected with
    inflation adjustment

    Image with a bar graph showing the difference in monthly amounts for different thresholds and protections, from lowest to highest: (a) existing protections ($750), (b) the federal poverty level in 2024 ($1,255), (c) the amount set in 1996 if it had been CPI adjusted ($1,450), and (e) 225% of the FPL under the SAVE Plan ($2,824).

    Source: Calculations by the CFPB. Notes: Inflation adjustments based on the consumer price index (CPI).

    Even if the minimum protected
    income of $750 is adjusted for inflation, beneficiaries will likely
    still experience hardship as a result of their reduced benefits.
    Consumers with incomes above the poverty line also commonly experience
    material hardship. This suggests that a threshold that is higher than the poverty level will more effectively protect against hardship.
    Indeed, in determining an income threshold for $0 payments under the
    SAVE plan, the Department of Education researchers used material
    hardship (defined as being unable to pay utility bills and reporting
    food insecurity) as their primary metric, and found similar levels of
    material hardship among those with incomes below the poverty line and
    those with incomes up to 225 percent of the FPL.
    Similarly, the CFPB’s analysis of a pooled sample of SIPP respondents
    finds the same levels of material hardship for Social Security
    beneficiaries with student loans with incomes below 100 percent of the
    FPL and those with incomes up to 225 percent of the FPL.
    The CFPB found that for 87 percent of student loan borrowers who
    receive Social Security, their benefit amount is below 225 percent of
    the FPL.
    Accordingly, all of those borrowers would be removed from forced
    collections if the Department of Education applied the same income
    metrics it established under the SAVE program to an automatic hardship
    exemption program.

    Existing options for relief from forced collections fail to reach older borrowers.

    Borrowers
    with loans in default remain eligible for certain types of loan
    cancellation and relief from forced collections. However, our analysis
    suggests that these programs may not be reaching many eligible
    consumers. When borrowers do not benefit from these programs, their
    hardship includes, but is not limited to, unnecessary losses to their
    Social Security benefits and negative credit reporting.

    Borrowers who become disabled after reaching full retirement age may miss out on Total and Permanent Disability

    The
    Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge program cancels federal
    student loans and effectively stops all forced collections for disabled
    borrowers who meet certain requirements. After recent revisions to the
    program, this form of cancelation has become common for those borrowers
    with Social Security who became disabled prior to full retirement age. In 2016, a GAO study documented the significant barriers to TPD that Social Security beneficiaries faced.
    To address GAO’s concerns, the Department of Education in 2021 took a
    series of mitigating actions, including entering into a data-matching
    agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to automate the
    TPD eligibility determination and discharge process.
    This process was expanded further with new final rules being
    implemented July 1, 2023 that expanded the categories of borrowers
    eligible for automatic TPD cancellation. In total, these changes successfully resulted in loan cancelations for approximately 570,000 borrowers.

    However,
    the automation and other regulatory changes did not significantly
    change the application process for consumers who become disabled after
    they reach full retirement age or who have already claimed the Social
    Security retirement benefits. For these beneficiaries, because they are
    already receiving retirement benefits, SSA does not need to determine
    disability status. Likewise, SSA does not track disability status for
    those individuals who become disabled after they start collecting their
    Social Security retirement benefits.

    Consequently,
    SSA does not transfer information on disability to the Department of
    Education once the beneficiary begins collecting Social Security
    retirement.
    These individuals therefore will not automatically get a TPD discharge
    of their student loans, and they must be aware and physically and
    mentally able to proactively apply for the discharge.

    The
    CFPB’s analysis of the Census survey data suggests that the population
    that is excluded from the TPD automation process could be substantial.
    More than one in five (22 percent) Social Security beneficiaries with
    student loans are receiving retirement benefits and report a disability
    such as a limitation with vision, hearing, mobility, or cognition.
    People with dementia and other cognitive disabilities are among those
    with the greatest risk of being excluded, since they are more likely to
    be diagnosed after the age 70, which is the maximum age for claiming
    retirement benefits.

    These
    limitations may also help explain why older borrowers are less likely
    to rehabilitate their defaulted student loans. Specifically, 11 percent
    of student loan borrowers ages 50 to 59 facing forced collections
    successfully rehabilitated their loans, while only five percent of borrowers over the age of 75 do so.

    Figure
    4: Number of student loan borrowers ages 50 and older in forced
    collection, borrowers who signed a rehabilitation agreement, and
    borrowers who successfully rehabilitated a loan by selected age groups

    Age Group Number of Borrowers in Offset Number of Borrowers Who Signed a Rehabilitation Agreement Percent of Borrowers Who Signed a Rehabilitation Agreement Number of Borrowers Successfully Rehabilitated Percent of Borrowers who Successfully Rehabilitated
    50 to 59 265,200 50,800 14% 38,400 11%
    60 to 74 184,900 24,100 11% 18,500 8%
    75 and older 15,800 1,000 6% 800 5%

    Source: CFPB analysis of data provided by the Department of Education.

    Shifting demographics of
    student loan borrowers suggest that the current automation process may
    become less effective to protect Social Security benefits from forced
    collections as more and more older adults have student loan debt. The
    fastest growing segment of student loan borrowers are adults ages 62 and
    older. These individuals are generally eligible for retirement
    benefits, not disability benefits, because they cannot receive both
    classifications at the same time. Data from the Department of Education
    reflect that the number of student loan borrowers ages 62 and older
    increased by 59 percent from 1.7 million in 2017 to 2.7 million in 2023.
    In comparison, the number of borrowers under the age of 62 remained
    unchanged at 43 million in both years.
    Furthermore, additional data provided to the CFPB by the Department of
    Education show that nearly 90,000 borrowers ages 81 and older hold an
    average amount of $29,000 in federal student loan debt, a substantial
    amount despite facing an estimated average life expectancy of less than
    nine years.

    Existing exceptions to forced collections fail to protect many Social Security beneficiaries

    In
    addition to TPD discharge, the Department of Education offers reduction
    or suspension of Social Security offset where borrowers demonstrate
    financial hardship.
    To show hardship, borrowers must provide documentation of their income
    and expenses, which the Department of Education then uses to make its
    determination.
    Unlike the Debt Collection Improvement Act’s minimum protections, the
    eligibility for hardship is based on a comparison of an individual’s
    documented income and qualified expenses. If the borrower has eligible
    monthly expenses that exceed or match their income, the Department of
    Education then grants a financial hardship exemption.

    The
    CFPB’s analysis suggests that the vast majority of Social Security
    beneficiaries with student loans would qualify for a hardship
    protection. According to CFPB’s analysis of the Federal Reserve Board’s
    SHED, eight in ten (82 percent) of Social Security beneficiaries with
    student loans in default report that their expenses equal or exceed
    their income.
    Accordingly, these individuals would likely qualify for a full
    suspension of forced collections. Yet the GAO found that in 2015 (when
    the last data was available) less than ten percent of Social Security
    beneficiaries with forced collections applied for a hardship exemption
    or reduction of their offset.
    A possible reason for the low uptake rate is that many beneficiaries or
    their caregivers never learn about the hardship exemption or the
    possibility of a reduction in the offset amount.
    For those that do apply, only a fraction get relief. The GAO study
    found that at the time of their initial offset, only about 20 percent of
    Social Security beneficiaries ages 50 and older with forced collections
    were approved for a financial hardship exemption or a reduction of the
    offset amount if they applied.

    Conclusion

    As
    hundreds of thousands of student loan borrowers with loans in default
    face the resumption of forced collection of their Social Security
    benefits, this spotlight shows that the forced collection of Social
    Security benefits causes significant hardship among affected borrowers.
    The spotlight also shows that the basic income protections aimed at
    preventing poverty and hardship among affected borrowers have become
    increasingly ineffective over time. While the Department of Education
    has made some improvements to expand access to relief options,
    especially for those who initially receive Social Security due to a
    disability, these improvements are insufficient to protect older adults
    from the forced collection of their Social Security benefits.

    Taken
    together, these findings suggest that forced collections of Social
    Security benefits increasingly interfere with Social Security’s
    longstanding purpose of protecting its beneficiaries from poverty and
    financial instability. These findings also suggest that alternative
    approaches are needed to address the harm that forced collections cause
    on beneficiaries and to compensate for the declining effectiveness of
    existing remedies. One potential solution may be found in the Debt
    Collection Improvement Act, which provides that when forced collections
    “interfere substantially with or defeat the purposes of the payment
    certifying agency’s program” the head of an agency may request from the
    Secretary of the Treasury an exemption from forced collections.
    Given the data findings above, such a request for relief from the
    Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on behalf of Social
    Security beneficiaries who have defaulted student loans could be
    justified. Unless the toll of forced collections on Social Security
    beneficiaries is considered alongside the program’s stated goals, the
    number of older adults facing these challenges is only set to grow.

    Data and Methodology

    To
    develop this report, the CFPB relied primarily upon original analysis
    of public-use data from the U.S. Census Bureau Survey of Income and
    Program Participation (SIPP), the Federal Reserve Board Board’s Survey
    of Household Economics and Decision-making (SHED), U.S. Department of
    the Treasury, Fiscal Data portal, consumer complaints received by the
    Bureau, and administrative data on borrowers in default provided by the
    Department of Education. The report also leverages data and findings
    from other reports, studies, and sources, and cites to these sources
    accordingly. Readers should note that estimates drawn from survey data
    are subject to measurement error resulting, among other things, from
    reporting biases and question wording.

    Survey of Income and Program Participation

    The
    Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is a nationally
    representative survey of U.S. households conducted by the U.S. Census
    Bureau. The SIPP collects data from about 20,000 households (40,000
    people) per wave. The survey captures a wide range of characteristics
    and information about these households and their members. The CFPB
    relied on a pooled sample of responses from 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021
    waves for a total number of 17,607 responses from student loan borrowers
    across all waves, including 920 respondents with student loans
    receiving Social Security benefits. The CFPB’s analysis relied on the
    public use data. To capture student loan debt, the survey asked to all
    respondents (variable EOEDDEBT): Owed any money for student loans or
    educational expenses in own name only during the reference period. To
    capture receipt of Social Security benefits, the survey asked to all
    respondents (variable ESSSANY): “Did … receive Social Security
    benefits for himself/herself at any time during the reference period?”
    To capture amount of Social Security benefits, the survey asked to all
    respondents (variable TSSSAMT): “How much did … receive in Social
    Security benefit payment in this month (1-12), prior to any deductions
    for Medicare premiums?”

    The public-use version of the survey dataset, and the survey documentation can be found at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp.html

    Survey of Household Economics and Decision-making

    The
    Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Household Economics and
    Decision-making (SHED) is an annual web-based survey of households. The
    survey captures information about respondents’ financial situations. The
    CFPB relied on a pooled sample of responses from 2019 through 2023
    waves for a total number of 1,376 responses from student loan borrowers
    in collection across all waves. The CFPB analysis relied on the public
    use data. To capture default and collection, the survey asked all
    respondents with student loans (variable SL6): “Are you behind on
    payments or in collections for one or more of the student loans from
    your own education?” To capture receipt of Social Security benefits, the
    survey asked to all respondents (variable I0_c): “In the past 12
    months, did you (and/or your spouse or partner) receive any income from
    the following sources: Social Security (including old age and DI)?”

    The public-use version of the survey dataset, and the survey documentation can be found at https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed_data.htm  

    Appendix
    A: Number of student loan borrowers ages 60 and older, total
    outstanding balance, and average balance by age group, August 2024

    Age Group Borrower Count (in thousands) Balance (in billions) Average balance

    60 to 65

    1,951.4

    $87.49

    $44,834

    66 to 70

    909.8

    $39.47

    $43,383

    71 to 75

    457.5

    $18.95

    $41,421

    76 to 80

    179.0

    $6.80

    $37,989

    81 to 85

    59.9

    $1.90

    $31,720

    86 to 90

    20.1

    $0.51

    $25,373

    91 to 95

    7.0

    $0.14

    $20,000

    96+

    2.8

    $0.05

    $17,857

    Source: Data provided by the Department of Education.

    The endnotes for this report are available here

    Source link

  • College Student Satisfaction: Reflecting on 30 Years

    College Student Satisfaction: Reflecting on 30 Years

    College students have changed greatly in 30 years, but how has student satisfaction changed?

    Think back 30 years ago to 1995. What is different for you now? Where were you and what were you doing in the mid 1990s? Perhaps you were still in school and living at home, or not even born yet. Perhaps you were in your early years of working in higher education. Take a moment to reflect on what has (and has not) changed for you in that span of time. 

    Thirty years ago, I was just starting my position at what was then Noel-Levitz. What stands out for me was that I was about to become a mom for the first time. Now my baby is grown and will be a new mom herself later this year. And I find myself being on one of the “seasoned professionals” in the company, working alongside members of my team who were still in elementary school back in 1995. 

    Thirty years ago, we were just beginning to utilize email and the internet. Now they have become the primary way we do business, communicate professionally, and discover information.  Artificial intelligence (AI) is the new technology that we are learning to embrace to improve our professional and personal lives.   

    Thirty years ago, students were arriving on our campuses, seeking an education, guidance, growth, belonging, value for their investment and ultimately a better life.  That’s still the case today.  Plus, students are navigating more technology options, they are more openly seeking mental health support, and they are living in a world full of distractions. Online learning is a reality now and continues to become more accepted as a modality, especially after the experiences of 2020. As the demographic cliff looms, colleges are expanding their focus to include lifelong learners. 

    Thirty years ago is also when the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) was launched to provide four-year and two-year institutions with a tool to better understand the priorities of their students. (In the early 2000s, we added survey instruments specifically for adult and online populations.) The data identified where the college was performing well and where it mattered for them to do better in order to retain their students to graduation. The concept of looking at satisfaction within the context of the level of importance was new back then, but in the past three decades, it has become the standard for capturing student perceptions. Since 1995, we have worked with thousands of institutions and collected data from millions of individuals, documenting what is important and where students are satisfied or dissatisfied with their experience. As we reach this 30-year milestone for the SSI, I took some time to reflect on what has changed in students’ perceptions and what has stayed the same.

    Consistent priorities

    What stood out to me as I reviewed the national data sets over the past 30 years is that what matters to students has largely stayed the same. Students continue to care about good advising, quality instruction and getting access to classes. The academic experience is highly valued by students and is the primary reason they are enrolled, now and then. 

    Another observation is that there are two areas that have been consistent priorities for improvement, especially at four-year private and public institutions:

    • Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.
    • Adequate financial aid is available for most students. 

    These two items have routinely appeared as national challenges (areas of high importance and low satisfaction) over the decades, which shows that institutions continue to have opportunities to communicate value and address the financial pain points of students to make higher education accessible and affordable. 

    Campus climate is key

    One thing we have learned over the past thirty years is how students feel on campus is key to student success and retention. The research reflects the strongest links between students’ sense of belonging, feeling welcome, and enjoying their campus experience to their overall levels of satisfaction. High levels of satisfaction are linked to individual student retention and institutional graduation rates. Campuses that want to best influence students remaining enrolled are being intentional with efforts to show concern for students individually, building connections between students from day one, and continuing those activities as students progress each year. It is important for institutions to recognize that students have lots of options to receive a quality education, but the environment and the potential student “fit” is more likely to vary from location to location. What happens while a student is at the college they have selected is more impactful on them than which institution they ultimately chose. Creating welcoming environments and supporting students’ sense of belonging in the chosen college is a way for institutions to stand out and succeed in serving students. Colleges often ask, “Why do students leave?” when they could be asking, “Why do students stay?” Building positive campus cultures and expanding the “good stuff” being done for students is a way to critical way to improve student and institutional success.

    One sector where the data reflect high satisfaction scores and good consistency, especially in the past five years since the pandemic, is community colleges. Students attending their (often local) two-year institutions want to be there, with high percentages of students indicating the school is their first choice.  Community college students nationally indicate areas such as the campus staff being caring/helpful, students being made to feel welcome, and people on the campus respecting each other, as strengths (high importance and high satisfaction). These positive perceptions are also reflected with overall high levels of satisfaction and indications of a likelihood to re-enroll if the student had it to do over again. The data indicate that two-year institutions are doing a nice job of building a sense of community among primarily commuter student populations. 

    Systemic issues and pockets of improvement

    Everyone talks about “kids today,” but in reality, they have been doing that for generations. It can’t be a reason not to change and respond appropriately to the needs of current students. When we consider the priorities for improvement in higher education that have remained at the forefront, we may need to recognize that some of these areas are systemic to higher education, along with recognizing that higher education generally has not done enough to respond. There are certainly pockets of improvement at schools that have prioritized being responsive and, as a result, are seeing positive movement in student satisfaction and student retention, but that is not happening everywhere. Taking action based on student feedback is a powerful way to influence student success. The campuses that have bought into that concept are seeing the results. 

    Current student satisfaction national results

    Want to learn more about the current trends in student satisfaction?  I invite you to download the 2024 National Student Satisfaction and Priorities Report

    This year’s analysis takes a closer look at the national results by demographic subpopulations, primarily by class level, to get a clearer view on how to improve the student experience. Institutions have found that targeting initiatives for particular student populations can be an effective way to have the biggest impact on student satisfaction. Download your free copy today.

    Source link

  • Johns Hopkins, Caltech settle in antitrust lawsuit

    Johns Hopkins, Caltech settle in antitrust lawsuit

    Johns Hopkins University and the California Institute of Technology agreed to settle in a federal antitrust lawsuit that alleges 17 wealthy institutions, known as the 568 Presidents Group, illegally colluded on financial aid formulas and overcharged students for years.

    Late Friday, JHU settled for $18.5 million and Caltech for $16.7 million, according to court filings. Both were more recent additions to the group, which was established in 1998. Johns Hopkins joined in November 2021, and Caltech in 2019.

    The class action lawsuit was filed in January 2022 and initially implicated Caltech along with Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Emory, Georgetown, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Yale Universities; Dartmouth College; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and the Universities of Chicago, Notre Dame and Pennsylvania.

    Johns Hopkins was added to the lawsuit in March 2022.

    After Friday’s court filing, 12 of the 17 institutions have settled. Altogether the settlement amounts add up to nearly $320 million. Vanderbilt had the largest settlement: $55 million.

    The five remaining defendants in the lawsuit—Cornell, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame and Penn—have denied wrongdoing and continue to fight the antitrust case in court. The 568 Presidents Group name is a reference to a carve-out in federal law that allowed member institutions to discuss financial aid formulas with immunity from federal antitrust laws due to their need-blind status. Congress created that exemption following a 1991 price-fixing scandal that involved all eight Ivy League universities and MIT.

    The legislative carve-out expired in 2022, and the group subsequently dissolved.

    However, plaintiffs have argued that defendants did consider financial circumstances and made decisions based on family wealth and donation history or capacity, often admitting students on “special interest lists” with substandard transcripts compared to the rest of accepted classes.

    Source link

  • HESA’s AI Observatory: What’s new in higher education (January 17, 2025)

    HESA’s AI Observatory: What’s new in higher education (January 17, 2025)

    Transformation of education

    The McDonaldisation of higher education in the age of AI

    Yoonil Auh, J. University World News. December 11th, 2024.

    Reflection on how AI’s impact on higher education aligns with the principles of McDonaldisation (efficiency, calculability, predictability and control), what opportunities and challenges it creates, and how institutions are responding

    Decolonization

    AI and digital neocolonialism: Unintended impacts on universities

    Yoonil Auh, J. University World News. July 12th, 2024. 

    The evolution of AI risks reinforcing neocolonial patterns, underscoring the complex ethical implications associated with their deployment and broader impact

    Workforce preparation

    As workers seek guidance on AI use, employers value skilled graduates

    Ascione, L. eCampusNews. December 9th, 2024.

    A new Wiley survey highlights that 40% of respondents struggle to understand how to integrate AI into their work and 75% lack confidence in AI use, while 34% of managers feel equipped to support AI integration

    California students want careers in AI. Here’s how colleges are meeting that demand

    Brumer, D. and Garza, J. Cal Matters. October 20th, 2024. 

    California’s governor announced the first statewide partnership with a tech firm, Nvidia, to bring AI curriculum, resources and opportunities to California’s public higher education institutions. The partnership will bring AI tools to community colleges first.

    Let’s equip the next generation of business leaders with an ethical compass

    Côrte-Real, A. Times Higher Education. October 22nd, 2024. 

    In a world driven by AI, focusing on human connections and understanding is essential for achieving success. While AI can standardize many processes, it is the unique human skills – such as empathy, creativity, and critical thinking – that will continue to set individuals and organizations apart.

    How employer demand trends across two countries demonstrate need for AI skills

    Stevens, K. EAB. October 10th, 2024. 

    Study reviewing employer demands in the US and in Ireland to better understand how demand for AI skills differ across countries, and examine if these differences are significant enough to require targeted curricular design by country

    Research

    We’re living in a world of artificial intelligence – it’s academic publishing that needs to change

    Moorhouse, B. Times Higher Education. December 13th, 2024.

    Suggestions to shift mindsets towards GenAI tools to restore trust in academic publishing

    Teaching and learning

    The AI-Generated Textbook That’s Making Academics Nervous

    Palmer, K. Inside Higher Ed. December 13th, 2024. 

    A comparative literature professor at UCLA used AI to generate the textbook for her medieval literature course notably with the aim to make course material more financially accessible to her students – but the academic community reacted strongly

    GenAI impedes student learning, hitting exam performance

    Sawahel, W. University World News. December 12th, 2024.

    A study conducted in Germany using GenAI detection systems showed that students who used GenAI scored significantly lower in essays

    The renaissance of the essay starts here

    Gordon, C. and Compton, M. Times Higher Education. December 9th, 2024. 

    A group of academics from King’s College London, the London School of Economics and Political Science, the University of Sydney and Richmond American University came together to draft a manifesto on the future of the essay in the age of AI, where they highlight problems and opportunities related to the use of essays, and propose ways to rejuvenate its use

    These AI tools can help prepare future programmers for the workplace

    Rao, R. Times Higher Education. December 9th, 2024.

    Reflection on how curricula should incorporate the use of AI tools, with a specific focus on programming courses

    The future is hybrid: Colleges begin to reimagine learning in an AI world

    McMurtrie, B. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 3rd, 2024.

    Reflection on the state of AI integration in teaching and learning across the US

    Academic integrity

    Survey suggests students do not see use of AI as cheating

    Qiriazi, V. et al. University World News. December 11th, 2024. 

    Overview of topics discussed at the recent plenary of the Council of Europe Platform on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity in Education

    Focusing on GenAI detection is a no-win approach for instructors

    Berdahl, L. University Affairs. December 11th, 2024

    Reflection on potential equity, ethical, and workload implications of AI detection 

    The Goldilocks effect: finding ‘just right’ in the AI era

    MacCallum, K. Times Higher Education. October 28th, 2024. 

    Discussion on when AI use is ‘too much’ versus when it is ‘just right’, and how instructors can allow students to use GenAI tools while still maintaining ownership of their work

    Source link