Tag: adults

  • WEEKEND READING: One year until the lifelong learning entitlement kicks in – yet only 12% of adults know it is coming

    WEEKEND READING: One year until the lifelong learning entitlement kicks in – yet only 12% of adults know it is coming

    This blog was authored by Rose Stephenson, Director of Policy and Strategy at HEPI.

    In under 12 months’ time, the first cohort of students in England will begin studying courses under the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE).

    The LLE will work as follows:

    • For new learners, the LLE will provide a maximum tuition fee loan equal to four years of study.
    • For returning learners, the amount they can borrow will be reduced depending on the funding they have previously received to support study.
    • Maintenance loans and other forms of financial support will also be available, depending on individual circumstances.
    • Learners will be able to see their loan balance through their own LLE personal account, hosted by the Student Loans Company.
    • This entitlement will replace the current higher education student finance loans and Advanced Learner Loans for Levels 4, 5 and 6 qualifications.

    This streamlines the post-18 student finance system. So far, so good.

    Where it gets a little trickier is this:

    As with the previous finance system, learners can take out a loan for a full qualification; a degree or a higher technical qualification (HTQ) such as a Level 4 higher national certificate (HNC) or a Level 5 higher national diploma (HND).

    However, from January 2027, learners will also be able to take out a loan for:

    • A module or modules from an HTQ course (such as a 30-credit module of an HNC)
    • A module or modules from a full Level 6 qualification (such as a 30-credit module of a degree), providing this degree aligns with the Government’s priority skills needs or Industrial Strategy.

    Loan-based funding for modular higher education study requires a significant change to infrastructure and practice in the sector, and this blog will consider whether these elements are in place to support a concerted move towards modular-based provision.

    In 2021, the Office for Students (OfS) launched the higher education short course trial. (You can read more about this in a previous HEPI blog, here.) It was anticipated that 2,000 learners would take part in this trial. Ultimately, only 125 students took part, and only 41 students took out a loan to access their short-course.

    The trial was evaluated by the Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) which found that:

    1. There was a lack of clarity on who the target audience was.
    2. There was a lack of public awareness of the availability of short courses.
    3. The lack of an accepted credit transfer mechanism between institutions led to a reduction in the perceived value of modules.
    4. The application process for taking out loans for a short course was cumbersome.
    5. There were challenges with the curriculum development of 30-credit modules. This is not, of course, as straightforward as simply chopping a degree into modules.
    6. Institutions faced financial challenges in recruiting and onboarding students for such a small return.

    The evaluation report for this trial was published in January 2024. So, what has changed in the past two years? Are we any more ready for modular learning than we were then?

    For the modular element of the LLE to be a success, the following needs to happen:

    1. The general public needs to be aware of the LLE.
    2. Modular regulation needs to be robust, risk-based and not lead to institutional disadvantage for trailblazers of this policy.
    3. Learners need to be able to see which modules are available to them

    Let’s look at each of these issues independently.

    Are the general public aware of the LLE?

    One of the issues outlined by the short-course trial was the lack of public awareness of the availability and value of short courses.

    To understand whether this had changed in the run-up to the LLE, we posed a survey question:

    Are you aware of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement? (This is the new method for student loan funding in England, which will come into force in 2027. You will be able to access the equivalent of four years’ worth of student loan funds – minus loans already taken – to use on short courses or modules as well as full qualifications.)

    The research was conducted by Savanta using an online panel of UK respondents. Data were collected as part of a UK-wide omnibus survey between 16th and 19th January, with an overall sample size of 2,126. Data was weighted to be representative of the UK population by age, gender, region and social grade. A screening question was then applied to select respondents living in England, resulting in 1,857 respondents for our question.

    Figure 1 shows the overall results. Only 12% of the adult population of England are aware of the entitlement.

    Figure 1: Awareness of the LLE, all respondents

    There are some caveats to be applied here. First, as the LLE provides loans from Levels 4 to 6, it would be reasonable to expect that applicants may have previously gained a Level 3 qualification. Unfortunately, we could not cut the data to determine awareness based on previous qualification. However, even for learners who are yet to obtain a Level 3 qualification, awareness of the LLE may be advantageous to qualification and career planning.

    Secondly, this omnibus survey covers all adults over the age of 18, and the LLE is only applicable for those up to the age of 60. The data can be analysed by age. Figure 2 demonstrates that 13% of those aged 18 to 24 are aware of the LLE. This is concerning, given that around half of these people will be passing through the higher education system now or soon. However, many in this age bracket will already be undertaking a higher education qualification and will be likely to complete it under the previous system. There is a higher level of awareness among 25- to 34-year-olds (26%) and 35- to 44-year-olds (22%). Awareness then drops off steeply from those aged 45 and over.

    Figure 2: Awareness of the LLE by age

    The data could also be analysed by parental status. The definition of ‘parent’ in this survey is anyone with a child under the age of 18. Figure 3 shows that almost a quarter of parents (23%) are aware of the LLE, compared to only 7% of those who are not parents. There is an overlap with the responses by age.

    It is unclear from the data whether parents are more aware of this information because it will affect their children, or whether the ‘parents-of-children’ cohort is at a stage where they themselves are considering upskilling or retraining, or a combination of both.

    Figure 3: Awareness of the LLE by parental status

    There is also nuance in the data in that respondents in London are much more likely to be aware of the LLE; 27% of London-based respondents are aware of the LLE compared with 12% across England as a whole. London regularly seems to exist in its own, very successful, educational ecosystem. So perhaps this is due to higher participation rates in London, or the possible higher rates of job mobility in the capital.

    Can learners find modular provision?

    Alongside the issue of awareness is the related conundrum of how learners will find flexible, modular courses. UCAS have stated that their platform will not be covering the modular course offer ahead of 2027, although they are laying foundations that may allow for this in the future.

    Instead, students will need to search for these courses on an institution-by-institution basis. Institutions that met the criteria for offering modular provision (registered with the OfS, TEF gold or silver or an Ofsted rating of ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’) could submit an expression of interest to the Department for Education, which has been undertaking assurance processes. However, the Department for Education will not be releasing the list of successful providers until the summer of 2026. So, while applications will open in September, but potential learners will really struggle to undertake any research into course choice before this date.

    The LLE launch has been purposefully designed as a ‘soft-launch’, with restrictions on providers and courses offered, and this is arguably a sensible approach. But the additional lack of infrastructure and awareness-raising makes this feel more like a ‘quashed launch’, limiting students’ ability to engage with an educational offer that has such potential.

    What might modular regulation look like?

    It is important to remember the original policy intent of the LLE, which was described in a DfE press release in 2023 as:

    Like a flexi-travel card, it allows people to jump on and off their learning, as opposed to having a ticket with a single destination.

    For providers to embrace the LLE, the regulation of modular provision must be clear. However, the details of modular regulation have not been released by the Office for Students (OfS), who told me:

    We expect to publish further guidance and detailed regulatory information in early 2026, giving providers sufficient time to prepare ahead of implementation in January 2027. 

    Institutions will not proceed with the LLE if this puts their regulated outcome measures at risk. Given that providers needed to submit an expression of interest to the DfE by October last year, publishing guidance well after this deadline does not give providers sufficient time to prepare.

    So, how might modular regulation work, and why might this cause an issue for providers?

    The OfS also explained:

    We anticipate that providers offering LLE-funded modules will be regulated in the same way. We do not expect to introduce a separate regulatory framework specifically for modular provision. 

    This makes sense in terms of the broad conditions of registration for institutions. However, for the specific metrics used for regulation, including the B3 measures such as continuation and completion of a qualification, it is unclear how this could be the case.

    If students are divided into three ‘buckets’, this highlights the challenge:

    • Bucket One: Students who sign up for a full qualification.
    • Bucket Two: Students who want to complete a full qualification, but in a more flexible manner – let’s say a typical undergraduate degree over six years rather than three.
    • Bucket Three: Students who want to take standalone modules. 

    Continuation and completion and progression won’t apply to students in Bucket Three undertaking standalone modules – at least not in the same ways as students in Bucket One. Further, in many cases, students in Bucket Two will be considered ’non-completers’ under the current metrics.

    This poses the question of whether students will have to define which bucket they want to be in when they sign up for their course? However, this would undermine the entire LLE policy – all the students in Bucket One would have zero flexibility – or at least their institution would risk incurring regulatory penalties if it facilitates or encourages this level of flexibility. And it would be unfair, for example, for a Bucket Two student to be able to complete their modules over a longer period, but Bucket One students on the same course could not. 

    However, if students are allowed to move buckets, then the concept of completion for a full degree is null and void. If a student can choose to move from Bucket One to Bucket Two or Three (and this should be a legitimate choice under a well-implemented LLE policy), then the concept of non-completers as a negative outcome no longer exists. A student is simply choosing to finish or pause their education after one module, or when they reach a Level 4 or 5 qualification in their subject. 

    Institutions that are considering offering modular provision are planning to open these modules for application in September, in just eight months’ time. Yet how they will be judged by the regulator for doing so remains unclear.

    Conclusion

    It’s pleasing to see that several institutions are preparing to champion the LLE. This includes the colleges and universities that have taken part in the Modular Acceleration Programme (MAP) offering modular provision of higher technical qualifications and providers like University Centre Peterborough who are actively working towards the launch in 2027.

    However, this feels like a classic case of a high-potential, well-intentioned policy without the thought or investment in on-the-ground implementation. For the LLE to meet its promise, there must be more awareness, greater transparency and increased incentives (such as the MAP trial) for both students and institutions.

    Source link

  • The case for treating adults as adults when it comes to AI chatbots

    The case for treating adults as adults when it comes to AI chatbots

    For many people, artificial intelligence chatbots make daily life more efficient. AI can manage calendars, compose messages, and provide quick answers to all kinds of questions. People interact with AI chatbots to share thoughts, test ideas, and explore language. This technology, in various ways, is playing a larger and larger role in how we think, work, and express ourselves. 

    But not all the news is good, and some people want to use the law to crack down on AI.

    Recent news reports describe a wave of lawsuits alleging that OpenAI’s generative AI chatbot, ChatGPT, caused adult users psychological distress. The filings reportedly seek monetary damages for people who conversed at length with a chatbot’s simulated persona and reported experiencing delusions and emotional trauma. In one reported case, a man became convinced that ChatGPT was sentient and later took his own life. 

    These situations are tragic and call for genuine compassion. Unfortunately, if these lawsuits succeed, they’ll effectively impose an unworkable expectation on anyone creating a chatbot to scrub anything that could trigger its most vulnerable users. Everyone, even fully capable adults, would be effectively treated as if they are on suicide watch. That’s a standard that would chill open discourse.

    Adults are neither impervious to nor helpless before AI’s influence on their lives and minds, but treating them like minors is not the solution.

    Like the printing press, the telegraph, and the internet before it, artificial intelligence is an expressive tool. A prompt, an instruction, or even a casual question reflects a user’s intent and expressive choice. A constant across its many uses is human agency — because it is ultimately a person that ends up deciding what to ask, what responses to keep, what results to share, and how to use the material it develops. Just like the communicative technologies of the past, AI has the potential to amplify human speech rather than replace it, bringing more storytellers, perspectives, and critiques with it. 

    Every new expressive medium in its time has faced public scrutiny and renewed calls for government intervention. After the famous 1938 Orson Welles’ “War of the Worlds” radio broadcast about a fictional alien invasion, for example, the Federal Communications Commission received hundreds of complaints urging the government to step in. Many letters expressed fear that this technology can deceive and destabilize people. Despite the panic, neither the broadcaster nor Welles, who went on to cinematic fame, faced any formal consequences. As time went on, the dire predictions never materialized.

    Early panic rarely aligns with long-term reality. Much of what once seemed threatening eventually found its place in civic life, revolutionizing our ability to communicate and connect. This includes radio dramas, comic books, TV, and the early web. 

    The attorneys filing lawsuits against these AI companies argue that AI is a product, and if a product predictably causes harm, safeguards are expected, even for adults. But when the “product” is speech, that expectation meets real constitutional limits. Even when harm seemed foreseeable, courts have long refused to hold speakers liable for the psychological effects of their speech on people that choose to engage with it. For example, composing rap lyrics or televising reports of violence can’t get you sued for the effects of listening or viewing them, even if they trigger people to act out.

    This principle is necessary to protect free expression. Penalizing people for the emotional or psychological impact of their speech invites the government to police the ideas, too. Recent developments in the UK shows how this can play out. Under laws that criminalize speech causing “alarm or distress,” people in England and Wales can be fined, aggressively prosecuted, or both, based entirely on the state’s claimed authority to measure the emotional “impact” of what was said. That’s not a model we should import. 

    A legal framework worthy of a free society should reflect confidence in adults’ ability to pursue knowledge without government intrusion, and this includes the use of AI tools. Extending child-safety laws or similar liability standards to adult conversations with AI would erode that freedom.

    Government AI regulation could censor protected speech online

    A Texas teen’s AI deepfake ordeal inspired the Take It Down Act — but its vague wording risks sweeping censorship.


    Read More

    The same constitutional protections apply when adults interact with speech, even speech generated by AI. That’s because the First Amendment ensures that we meet challenging, misleading, or even false ideas with more speech rather than censorship. More education and debate are the best means to preserve adults’ ability to judge ideas for themselves. It also prevents the state from deciding which messages are too dangerous for people to hear — a power that, if granted, can and will almost certainly be abused and misused. This is the same principle that secures Americans’ right to read subversive books, hear controversial figures speak, and engage with ideas that offend others.

    Regulating adult conversations with AI blurs the line between a government that serves its citizens and one that supervises them. Adulthood presumes the capacity for judgment, including the freedom to err. Being mistaken or misguided is all part of what it means to think and speak for oneself.

    At FIRE, we see this dynamic play out daily on college campuses. These institutions of higher education are meant to prepare young adults for citizenship and self-governance, but instead they often treat students as if discomfort and disagreement are radioactive. Speech codes and restrictions on protests, justified as shields against harm, teach dependence on authority and distrust of one’s own resilience. That same impulse is now being echoed in calls for AI chatbot regulation.

    Yes, words can do harm, even in adulthood. Still, not every harm can be addressed in court or by lawmakers, especially not if it means restricting free expression. Adults are neither impervious to nor helpless before AI’s influence on their lives and minds, but treating them like minors is not the solution.

    Source link

  • Truth vs. risk management: How to move forward

    Truth vs. risk management: How to move forward

    Key points:

    In the world of K-12 education, teachers are constantly making decisions that affect their students and families. In contrast, administrators are tasked with something even bigger: making decisions that also involve adults (parents, staff culture, etc.) and preventing conflicts from spiraling into formal complaints or legal issues. Therefore, decisions and actions often have to balance two competing values: truth and risk management.

    Some individuals, such as teachers, are very truth-oriented. They document interactions, clarify misunderstandings, and push for accuracy, recognizing that a single misrepresentation can erode trust with families, damage credibility in front of students, or most importantly, remove them from the good graces of administrators they respect and admire. Truth is not an abstract concept–it is paramount to professionalism and reputation. If a student states that they are earning a low grade because “the teacher doesn’t like me,” the teacher will go through their grade-book. If a parent claims that a teacher did not address an incident in the classroom, the teacher may respond by clarifying the inaccuracy via summarizing documentation of student statements, anecdotal evidence of student conversations, reflective activities, etc.

    De-escalation and appeasement

    In contrast, administrators are tasked with something even bigger. They have to view scenarios from the lens of risk management. Their role requires them to deescalate and appease. Administrators must protect the school’s reputation and prevent conflicts or disagreements from spiraling into formal complaints or legal issues. Through that lens, the truth sometimes takes a back seat to ostensibly achieve a quick resolution.

    When a house catches on fire, firefighters point the hose, put out the flames, and move on to their next emergency. They don’t care if the kitchen was recently remodeled; they don’t have the time or desire to figure out a plan to put out the fire by aiming at just the living room, bedrooms, and bathrooms. Administrators can be the same way–they just want the proverbial “fire” contained. They do not care about their employees’ feelings; they just care about smooth sailing and usually softly characterize matters as misunderstandings.

    To a classroom teacher who has carefully documented the truth, this injustice can feel like a bow tied around a bag of garbage. Administrators usually err on the side of appeasing the irrational, volatile, and dangerous employee, which risks the calmer employee feeling like they were overlooked because they are “weaker.” In reality, their integrity, professionalism, and level-headedness lead administrators to trust the employee will do right, know better, maintain appropriate decorum, rise above, and not foolishly escalate. This notion aligns to the scripture “To whom much is given, much is required” (Luke 12:48). Those with great abilities are judged at a higher bar.

    In essence, administrators do not care about feelings, because they have a job to do. The employee with higher integrity is not the easier target but is easier to redirect because they are the safer, principled, and ethical employee. This is not a weakness but a strength in the eyes of the administration and that is what they prefer (albeit the employee may be dismissed, confused, and their feelings may be hurt, but that is not the administration’s focus at all).

    Finding common ground

    Neither perspective (truth or risk management) is wrong. Risk management matters. Without it, schools would be replete with endless investigations and finger-pointing. Although, when risk management consistently overrides truth, the system teaches teachers that appearances matter more than accountability, which does not meet the needs of validation and can thus truly hurt on a personal level. However, in the work environment, finding common ground and moving forward is more important than finger-pointing because the priority has to be the children having an optimal learning environment.

    We must balance the two. Perhaps, administrators should communicate openly, privately, and directly to educators who may not always understand the “game.” Support and transparency are beneficial. Explaining the “why” behind a decision can go a long way in building staff trust, morale, and intelligence. Further, when teachers feel supported in their honesty, they are less likely to disengage because transparency, accuracy, and an explanation of risk management can actually prevent fires from igniting in the first place. Additionally, teachers and administrators should explore conflict resolution strategies that honor truth while still mitigating risk. This can assist in modelling for students what it means to live with integrity in complex situations. Kids deserve nothing less.

    Lastly, teachers need to be empathetic to the demands on their administrators. “If someone falls into sin, forgivingly restore him, saving your critical comments for yourself. You might be needing forgiveness before the day’s out. Stoop down and reach out to those who are oppressed. Share their burdens, and so complete Christ’s law. If you think you are too good for that, you are badly deceived” (Galatians 6:1-3). This scripture means that teachers should focus less on criticizing or “keeping score” (irrespective of the truth and the facts, and even if false-facts are generated to manage risk), but should work collaboratively while also remembering and recognizing that our colleagues (and even administrators) can benefit from the simple support of our grace and understanding. Newer colleagues and administrators are often in survival mode.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Most adults say higher education is important but want colleges to stay out of politics

    Most adults say higher education is important but want colleges to stay out of politics

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Nearly 4 in 5 surveyed Americans, 78%, said a college education is somewhat or very important to a young person’s success, according to a new poll from researchers at Vanderbilt University.
    • Despite increasing polarization around higher ed, a significant majority of both Democrats and Republicans — 87% and 68%, respectively — said a college education was at least somewhat important.
    • The broadly favorable public sentiment comes amid the federal government’s allegations of “violations, shortcomings and biases” at colleges, John Geer, head of the nonpartisan Vanderbilt Project on Unity & American Democracy, said in a Wednesday press release.

    Dive Insight:

    The Trump administration has increasingly targeted higher education, decrying colleges as hubs of liberal indoctrination and wastes of federal funding. Against this backdrop, Vanderbilt researchers polled 1,030 adults in English and Spanish from Sept. 5 to Sept. 8.

    “Higher education has undoubtedly been a primary concern for President [Donald] Trump’s administration,” Geer said. “Certainly, people expressed areas of concern and viewed certain institutions as more problematic than others, but support for colleges and universities remains substantial, even in the midst of these many criticisms from Washington,” he said.

    Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 65%, said colleges have a positive effect on society. A large majority of Democrats agreed with this statement, as did most of the “traditional” Republicans surveyed, according to the Wednesday release. 

    A deeper schism emerged from Republican respondents who identified with the Make America Great Again movement. Among those supporting MAGA ideology, 65% said colleges have a negative effect on the U.S. 

    In a February poll, Vanderbilt found that a majority of Republicans surveyed, 52%, identified with the MAGA movement — though slight, it was the first majority since researchers began asking the question in June 2023.

    The September survey also found a broader skepticism of some aspects of higher education that transcended political divides. Among the overall respondent pool, 67% said ideological or political bias is at least somewhat of a serious problem at colleges. Within that share, 35% said bias is a problem at most institutions.

    However, the respondents who said political bias exists on campuses did not broadly fault academic instruction. About 2 in 5, or 43%, blamed administrative decisions, while 16% cited what is being taught in the classroom.

    Nearly three-quarters of respondents, 71%, said colleges should not “take official positions on controversial political issues.” Broken down by political party, 83% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats concurred with that statement. 

    “That mix of skepticism and expectation underscores how difficult it will be for colleges to persuade the public that they are neutral arbiters in a polarized environment,” Vanderbilt said.

    The public showed mixed opinions on different types of institutions, the poll found. 

    For instance, 70% of respondents expressed confidence in community colleges. Vanderbilt researchers noted that community colleges “have largely avoided the controversies embroiling larger, wealthier institutions.”

    But that confidence level dropped sharply for Ivy League institutions. Less than half of those surveyed, 48%, expressed a somewhat or very favorable opinion of those eight universities. 

    What’s more, respondents’ view of the Ivies varied significantly by their political party. Among Democrats, 72% approved of Ivy League universities, compared to just 33% of Republicans.

    Other colleges earned a similar approval rating as the Ivies but with a smaller political divide.

    Just 2 in 5 respondents expressed overall confidence in colleges in the Southeastern Conference, which includes the University of Georgia, the University of Tennessee and Mississippi State University among its 16 members.

    About half of Republicans, 51%, expressed a favorable opinion of those institutions, as did 33% of Democrats.

    Source link

  • El Paso Community College Helps Design State Program for Adults Without High School Diplomas – The 74

    El Paso Community College Helps Design State Program for Adults Without High School Diplomas – The 74


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

    Kurt Micklo lost interest in academics after he failed to make the basketball team as a sophomore at Chapin High School. Soon after, he fathered a son and began to work full time, which put him further behind in his studies.

    A counselor finally advised him during his junior year that he should withdraw and try to earn a GED. He dropped out and – through hard work – found professional success as a general manager of a subcontracting logistics company. However, the lack of a high school diploma haunted him. He wants one to give his family – especially his mother – another reason to be proud of him.

    A busy work and family schedule have kept him from returning to school, but the flexibility of a new state program aimed at people aged 18 and older without a high school diploma will allow him to earn a diploma and a college career and technical education, or CTE, credential for programs such as health care, welding or computer science at the same time.

    The concept of Opportunity High School Diploma was part of House Bill 8, which the state Legislature passed in 2023. The state funneled about $2 million into this program to help the approximately 4.3 million Texans as of 2023, including about 30,000 adult El Pasoans, without a diploma to earn the academic credits most of them will need to acquire higher-paying jobs. The program is scheduled to launch in spring 2026.

    “If I could juggle it, I’d be pretty interested” in the program, said 34-year-old Micklo, a father of three ages 15, 10 and 5. He is the general manager of three warehouses, two in El Paso and one in Laredo, Texas, as well as four sites near the international ports of entry with Mexico in El Paso, Tornillo and Santa Teresa, New Mexico, were commodities are offloaded.. “It would make my stepfather (a retired educator) and my mother happy if I earned my high school diploma.”

    El Paso Community College is one of five community college districts in the state selected for the design and implementation phases of this program. The other institutions in the design phase are Alamo Colleges District, Austin Community College, Dallas College and San Jacinto College near Houston.

    They work under the direction of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The board will review the instructional outcomes and performance expectations that the college collaborators created during an October meeting. Once finalized, the college faculty will begin to work with school districts to design the curriculum.

    The program is flexible for students who probably work full time and have family obligations. Courses would have suggested timelines, but students would turn in assignments as their schedule allowed through the end of the term.

    Micklo, a Northeast resident, said the promised flexibility is the only reason he might consider the program. As for his credential, he said he would need to review EPCC’s career and technical education options. The college offers more than 100 career programs such as HVAC, or heating, ventilation and air conditioning, and electrical, automotive or diesel technologies.

    Students will be co-enrolled in competency-based high school curriculum such as math, civics, sciences and communication, and a career and technical workforce program. Competency based courses are focused more on a students’ mastery of a skill or subject than the amount of time spent in a classroom.

    Isela Castañón Williams

    Isela Castañón Williams, professor and coordinator of EPCC’s teacher preparation programs, is in charge of the college’s 13-member team. She called the project a “monumental task” because of its scope and uniqueness. She said her team, and its counterparts, played a critical role in the design phase.

    “Faculty at EPCC are very innovative,” she said. “I think that my colleagues have approached this process with a great deal of enthusiasm. We’re always looking to provide better services and educational experiences to the community we serve.”

    EPCC faculty advocated for the program to be designed to accommodate English Second Language and English Language Learner populations, a THECB spokesman said in a July 1 statement. He said last year that the board selected EPCC for the project’s design phase because of its border insights, and because its CTE degrees and credentials are in line with the program.

    While the state wants to attract students aged 18 and older, EPCC officials will aim for people 25 and older so as to not compete with K-12 school districts that have their own dropout recovery programs. EPCC, which will offer the program at its five campuses, expects some of the program’s younger students to come from rural areas outside El Paso.

    Steven E. Smith

    Steven E. Smith, vice president of Instruction and Workforce Education at EPCC, said the state will provide funds to the colleges to cover tuition for initial cohorts. He expects the first groups will range from 30 to 50 students and scale up from there.

    “We think this is a big market in El Paso, and I think once the word starts to get out, that will grow tremendously,” Smith said.

    The administrator said that he would work on ways to market the program later this month with the college’s External Relations, Communication & Development Division. He said the college would work with school district partners to build lists of potential OHSD students.

    “As you might imagine, that is a pretty difficult population to identify and reach out to because they are not in the system anymore,” Smith said.

    This article first appeared on El Paso Matters and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


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

    Source link

  • Are misperceptions about higher education’s cost causing adults to skip college?

    Are misperceptions about higher education’s cost causing adults to skip college?

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

    A large majority of U.S. adults say the cost of attaining a college degree is more expensive than it actually is — a perception that may cause some to forgo education beyond high school, according to a May report from Strada.

    Among adults , 77% say college is unaffordable, according to Strada’s November 2024 survey of over 2,000 people. And 65% somewhat or strongly agreed that college is prohibitively expensive, regardless of how motivated the student is. But most people significantly overestimated the cost of attending both two- and four- year public institutions, the report found. 

    According to Strada’s latest report, 1 in 5 people “substantially overestimate” the cost of attending community college — reporting that the cost is more than $20,000 annually. A majority estimated that it costs more than $10,000 a year. In actuality, the average student pays about $6,000 annually, the report said, citing College Board data.

    For public four-year institutions, just 22% of the survey’s respondents correctly identified that it costs the average student between $20,000 and $30,000 annually to attend, with about 35% believing it costs $40,000 or more. 

    These misperceptions are often fueled by the complex financial aid process and a lack of transparency surrounding the true cost of attending college, as many students are unaware that the price of attendance is often much less than the sticker price, the report added. That’s an issue that many colleges have tried to address in recent years. 

    “When students and families believe that college is out of reach financially, it can influence key decisions that shape college-going behavior, from which classes they choose in high school to whether they begin saving for college,” said Justin Draeger, senior vice president of affordability at Strada and a co-author of the report. 

    Strada’s findings follow a host of other research papers and surveys indicating that a growing number of adults say the value of a college degree is not worth the cost. However, research has shown that college graduates often have better financial outcomes than those who did not receive a diploma beyond high school. 

    The cost of price misconceptions

    The cost of attending college is expensive and can be challenging for many students and families to afford, said Draeger. But when factoring in financial aid, the cost is more affordable than people realize, he said. 

    Overall, 37% of adults said the cost of college was not affordable at all, and 40% said it was not very affordable. Just 18% thought it was somewhat affordable and 5% indicated it was either extremely or very affordable. 

    A whopping 85% of adults said the cost of attending public four-year institutions is too high. And while community colleges are generally viewed as more affordable, two-thirds of adults said the cost of attending them was too expensive.

    Misperceptions abound the cost of community college undercuts one of the strongest value propositions it has: affordability, said Draeger. For four-year schools, those perceptions can compound a range of existing issues, such as declining public trust in the value of a four-year degree and public backlash that exacerbates enrollment declines, he said. 

    They could also veer some adults from higher education altogether. About 40% of people do not enroll in college immediately after graduating high school, and just 54% of U.S. adults ages 25 to 64 have a postsecondary credential, the report said.

    It also points to “a systemic failure in the way we price and market college,” said Draeger. Financial aid and financing systems are “complex, multistep and opaque, and filled with unfamiliar terminology and jargon,” he said. 

    A growing number of colleges have sought to counter sticker price misconceptions by resetting their cost of attendance to better reflect the amount students typically pay after factoring in institutional scholarships. 

    Source link

  • 56% of adults disapprove of Trump’s approach to colleges, AP-NORC poll finds

    56% of adults disapprove of Trump’s approach to colleges, AP-NORC poll finds

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

    Dive Brief:

    • More than half of Americans, 56%, disapprove of how President Donald Trump is handling issues related to colleges, according to a new poll from the Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago.
    • However, opinions varied dramatically depending on political affiliation. A strong majority of Democrats, 90%, disapprove of Trump’s response to college issues, while 67% of Independents said the same.
    • But among Republicans, 83% approve of the president’s approach, highlighting the stark political divide in how Americans believe higher education policy should be managed.

    Dive Insight:

    Trump has repeatedly criticized the higher education sector and has used much of his nascent second term to attempt to exert control over it.

    For instance, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation have moved to cap reimbursement rates for indirect research costs at 15%, though all three agencies have faced legal challenges. 

    Federal departments have also cut hundreds of millions in grant funding from colleges. In a little over a month, NIH cut $1.8 billion in grants, hitting minority health research the hardest, according to findings published in JAMA.

    Amid this fast-changing policy landscape, AP-NORC researchers interviewed 1,175 adults from May 1 to 5. Their responses offer insight into how the public views higher education and Trump’s actions in the sector.

    Overall, 62% of adults support maintaining the level of federal funding colleges receive for medical and scientific research, the poll found. And support was largely bipartisan, with 75% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans in favor.

    The Trump administration has also attempted to exert influence over Harvard and Columbia universities by demanding they complete unprecedented to-do lists — such as eliminating diversity initiatives and auditing faculty and student views — to continue to receive federal funding.

    Harvard rebuked the Trump administration’s demands and sued over what the lawsuit described as its efforts to gain “control of academic decisionmaking.” In turn, the administration has frozen $2.2 billion in Harvard’s funding and said it will cut off the university from future federal research dollars.

    Columbia initially took a different tack. After the Trump administration froze $400 million of its funding, the university complied with a similar round of demands, to the praise of federal officials. 

    But the Trump administration has yet to publicly reinstate its funding, and Columbia now appears to be following Harvard’s lead. Acting President Claire Shipman said in April that the university would reject “heavy-handed orchestration from the government” that would undercut its mission.

    Trump appears to be tightening the screws on Columbia and is pursuing a consent decree against it. A consent decree would task a federal judge with ensuring the university complies with the Trump administration’s demands. 

    About half of Republicans, 51%, said they favored the federal government withholding higher ed funding unless colleges comply with requirements related to Trump’s political goals. One-third, 32%, said they had no opinion on the matter.

    In comparison, 73% of Democrats opposed the use of federal funding as a means for Trump to achieve his goals.

    The public’s view of how the president is handling higher education falls in line with his overall approval rating of 41%, the poll said.

    Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status — a decision that is meant to fall under the independent authority of the IRS. About half of Republicans, 49%, approved of the effort, the poll found. The idea had just a 30% approval rating overall.

    Views about Trump’s specific policy goals, such as banning campus diversity efforts, also fell along party lines.

    Among Democrats, 70% supported campus services such as clubs and mentorship programs for students from underrepresented groups, and 24% had no opinion. A third of Republicans, 31%, approved of such programs, and 41% had no opinion.

    But support among conservatives fell further when pollsters asked about “diversity, equity and inclusion programs, sometimes called DEI.” A majority of Republicans, 60%, opposed programs labeled as DEI, while 23% said they neither favored nor opposed them.

    Approval among Democrats stayed largely the same, with 68% in favor.

    Republicans were also more likely to oppose classes that teach about racism than Democrats, 44% compared to 8%.

    Source link