Tag: approves

  • Lane Community College Board Approves Budget Reduction

    Lane Community College Board Approves Budget Reduction

    The Lane Community College Board of Education voted to approve college leaders’ plans for a budget reduction on Jan. 7, despite fierce pushback from the faculty union. The latest controversy comes amid a dramatic year for the Oregon community college, marked by long, fractious board meetings and an ongoing battle between administrators and faculty over stalled labor negotiations and course cuts.

    College administrators argue the approved proposal—cutting spending by $8 million over the next three years—is a financial necessity. They say the college regularly falls short of a board requirement to maintain 10 percent of its balance in reserves. Administrators also conducted a new multiyear forecast that predicted expenses are going to grow.

    The college is expected to be “in a deficit every year … if we continue on the same trends that we have been in the last two or three years,” said Kara Flath, Lane’s vice president of finance and operations. The plan also proposes using some of the freed-up money for deferred maintenance and other projects.

    But faculty union leaders disagree with the administration’s view of the college’s financial present and future. Adrienne Mitchell, president of the faculty union, the Lane Community College Education Association, believes leadership’s projections are pessimistic and that a roughly 8 percent cut to the $104 million operating budget is excessive.

    “We don’t believe any of those cuts are necessary,” Mitchell said. “Currently, all of our funding sources—state funding, property taxes and student tuition revenue—are up.”

    The union came out with an independent report last week suggesting that the college is in a sound financial position and should invest more, not less, in faculty and the campus over all. But faculty and administrators fundamentally disagree on how much spending will rise and what tranches of money the college has at its disposal.

    The union’s perspective that the college can spend less “makes the numbers look better,” Flath said. “But as finance people, we have decades of finance experience” and such cost estimates are “not fiscally viable.”

    Mitchell also argued that Oregon Local Budget Law requires the board to follow a legal process that includes forming a committee of board and nonboard members, presenting the budget and hosting a public hearing, before formally adopting a budget. The union put out a legal memo on the matter in September.

    But administrators say their overarching plan isn’t the final budget—it doesn’t specify where exactly cuts will be made—so it doesn’t need to go through such a process yet. They said they plan to review programs, solicit community feedback and draw up a list of recommended cuts in the spring.

    Board members, initially skeptical of the plan’s lack of specificity, held multiple ad hoc budget committee meetings last week to discuss it ahead of the meeting on Wednesday, which lasted almost five hours.

    Board member Zach Mulholland said at the Wednesday meeting that he still sees “red flags and concerns with regards to unspecified cuts” but concluded, “at this moment in time, this appears to be a balanced proposal.” Mulholland and other board members on the ad hoc committee recommended the board move forward with the plan, as long as it includes annual updates and regular progress reports from administrators.

    “Now maybe as a college we can work together,” Flath said.

    Fraught Faculty Relations

    But the college is also mired in other controversies. The faculty union, which represents about 525 full- and part-time professors, has been without a contract since June as administrators and faculty clash over the details.

    Discussions have soured over disagreements about workloads, class-size limits, cost-of-living adjustments, the timing of layoff notices and the college’s efforts to strike some provisions, which Mitchell says amounts to a “net divestment” of over a million dollars in spending on faculty. The administration argued some of the issues in the proposed contract aren’t directly connected to faculty benefits, including proposals to add immigration status to the college’s nondiscrimination policy and ramp up campus safety measures.

    Grant Matthews, vice president of academic affairs, said significant progress has been made since the summer, but “really, we’re stuck on economics.”

    “We’re trying to really have a fiscally sustainable institution, and the proposals that we’re receiving at the table are not fiscally responsible,” he said. He estimated that the current contract proposal could cost the college up to $61 million.

    Professors aren’t pleased with how the process is going. In a December survey of 271 faculty members, 87 percent reported low morale, 90 percent said they didn’t trust the college’s president and 69 percent reported that they fear retaliation for expressing their views. The union has also raised concerns that faculty of color are leaving the college. On Wednesday, about 75 union members and supporters picketed outside ahead of the board meeting.

    Two more bargaining sessions are planned for this month, and mediation is scheduled after.

    Recent course cuts have also frayed relations between faculty and college leaders. Lane cut about 100 course sections for the winter and spring terms after introducing a new system that allows students to sign up in the fall for courses for the entire year.

    Administrators said this is a typical number of course cuts for the college, on par with past years, to optimize their academic offerings, and advisers are ensuring students still get the classes they need. But Mitchell described the move as a blow to part-time faculty, who lost classes that might have filled up later in the year. The union filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Oregon Employment Relations Board, arguing the eliminated courses should have been a part of bargaining. Mitchell also worries the cuts are a roadblock for students who need to take certain courses, noting that a popular biology class—a prerequisite for many health professions courses—has a wait list of 168 students.

    Leadership Tensions

    The board, meanwhile, has had its own share of drama over the past year.

    The faculty union has accused administrators of encroaching on board responsibilities and criticized the board for failing to exercise its authority.

    “There’s been a lot of controversy surrounding the administration essentially taking over the role of the Board of Education,” Mitchell said.

    Meanwhile, in August, a third-party report concluded that Mulholland, formerly the board chair, and other board members discriminated against President Stephanie Bulger, a Black woman, on the basis of race and sex. The report described Mulholland and some other board members as displaying a dismissive or hostile attitude toward Bulger, cutting her off in conversations, and deferring questions to male staff. The report also found that Mulholland had intimidated a student. In September, the board censured the former board chair, who apologized, and the full board then came out with a joint apology.

    “We are deeply sorry for the negative impact our behavior has had on you and the college community at large,” said Austin Fölnagy, the current board chair, who was also accused of adopting a dismissive tone toward the president. “President Bulger, please accept the board’s apology for treating you badly.”

    Mitchell said the union is “very concerned about any type of discrimination, and we think it’s really important for everyone on the campus to feel safe.”

    The college’s accreditor, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, also deemed the college “substantially in compliance” with accreditation standards but “in need of improvement” in a notice last March. The accreditor recommended the college evaluate its internal communication and ensure decision-making processes are “inclusive of all constituents,” among other suggestions.

    Source link

  • NIH Approves 100s of Grant Applications It Shelved or Denied

    NIH Approves 100s of Grant Applications It Shelved or Denied

    The National Institutes of Health is deciding, per court agreements, whether to award or deny droves of grant applications that the agency previously either rejected or shelved. This funding was stalled last year amid the Trump administration’s blunt moves to restrict research into certain disfavored topics, such as diversity, equity and inclusion—though researchers and state attorneys general said officials shot down a greater range of projects, including ones that could save lives.

    The NIH’s agreements, laid out in court filings in two ongoing lawsuits, are already bearing fruit. A spokesperson for the Massachusetts attorney general’s office, which is leading one of the cases, said the agreement in that suit promises decisions on more than 5,000 grants nationally. On Dec. 29, the date of the agreement, the NIH issued 528 grant decisions, 499 of which were approvals, the spokesperson said.

    A spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is leading the other case, said the agreement in that case involves about 400 grants. He said the NIH awarded at least 135 out of 146 applications in a batch of decisions on Dec. 29.

    The filings set a series of dates by which the NIH agreed to decide on awarding or denying other types of grants. The last deadline is July 31.

    The agreements are another example of the Trump administration reversing many of its sweeping cuts to research funding in response to litigation. Researchers and organizations filed suit after suit last year after the NIH and other federal funding agencies abruptly terminated previously awarded grants and sat on applications for new ones.

    In a news release, the ACLU said the grants that the NIH will now decide on “address urgent public health issues, including HIV prevention, Alzheimer’s disease, LGBTQ+ health, and sexual violence.” ACLU of Massachusetts legal director Jessie Rossman said in the release that the NIH’s “unprecedented” and “unlawful” actions put “many scientists’ careers in limbo, including hundreds of members of the American Public Health Association and the UAW union.”

    ACLU lawyers are among the attorneys representing those groups, Ibis Reproductive Health and individual researchers in a suit they filed in April against the NIH and the larger Health and Human Services Department for stalling and rejecting grant funding. Democratic state attorneys general filed a similar suit in the same court, the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts.

    The agencies agreed to decide these grant applications in exchange for the plaintiffs dismissing some of their claims. The agencies didn’t admit wrongdoing.

    In a news release, the Massachusetts attorney general’s office said the Trump administration “indefinitely withheld issuing final decisions on applications that had already received approval from the relevant review panels,” leaving the states that sued “awaiting decisions on billions of dollars.”

    The release said that, for example, when the suit was filed in April, the University of Massachusetts “had 353 applications for NIH funding whose review had been delayed, signifying millions in potential grant funding that would aid in lifesaving medical research.” Massachusetts attorney general Andrea Joy Campbell said in a statement that “lifesaving studies related to Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and other devastating illnesses were frozen indefinitely—stealing hope from countless families across the country and putting lives at risk.”

    It’s unclear how much money the NIH may dole out in total. An HHS spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that the “NIH cannot comment on the status of individual grant applications or deliberations.”

    “The agency remains committed to supporting rigorous, evidence-based research that advances the health of all Americans,” the spokesperson said. HHS and the NIH didn’t provide interviews or further comment.

    Meanwhile, a legal fight continues over grants that the NIH previously approved but later canceled.

    Lingering Questions

    In June, in these same two cases, U.S. District Judge William Young ordered the NIH to restore grants the agency had awarded but then—after Trump retook the White House—terminated midgrant.

    Young, a Reagan appointee, criticized the federal government for not formally defining DEI, despite using that term to justify terminating grants. He said at a hearing that he’d “never seen racial discrimination by the government like this” during his four decades as a federal judge.

    But, two months later, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 preliminary decision, stayed Young’s ruling ordering restoration of the grants. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote for the majority that Young “likely lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to the grant terminations, which belong in the Court of Federal Claims.” However, STAT reported that the NIH had restored more than 2,000 terminated grants following Young’s ruling, and it didn’t reverse course after the Supreme Court decision.

    That question of whether researchers with canceled grants must ultimately try their luck before the Court of Federal Claims is now before the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. There’s a hearing Tuesday in that matter.

    Questions linger about when the grant fight will really end. In a video interview with journalist Paul Thacker—released Wednesday and previously reported on by STAT—NIH director Jay Bhattacharya said that, despite the grant restorations, any grants dealing with DEI that come up for renewal this year won’t be funded. Bhattacharya distinguished between cutting a grant and not renewing it.

    He said that, “as best I can understand the legal aspects,” the courts have said his agency can’t cut restored grants. “But, when it comes to renewal, those grants no longer meet NIH priorities … so when they come up for renewal over the course of the year, we won’t renew them,” he said.

    Bhattacharya said the NIH’s DEI-related work “did not actually have any chance of improving the health of minority populations.” He said, “I think that the shift away from DEI is of a piece with the rest of what we’re trying to do at the NIH, which is to do research that actually makes the lives of people better.”

    Source link

  • Iowa board approves course policy change after stripping anti-DEI references

    Iowa board approves course policy change after stripping anti-DEI references

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

    The Iowa Board of Regents on Tuesday approved a policy change that requires public university faculty to “present coursework in a way that reflects the range of scholarly views and ongoing debate in the field.” 

    Under the change, effective immediately, the board will also audit the three universities it oversees — the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa — at least every two years for compliance with the new directive.

    The policy change significantly revises the original proposal’s language, which included references to diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory. Tuesday’s 7-1 vote came after public pushback over that proposal and two postponements by the board to approve the policy.

    The initial version of the proposal would have barred Iowa university academic programs from requiring courses containing “substantial content that conveys DEI or CRT.” As examples of DEI, it lists systemic oppression, anti-racism, social justice, and unconscious or implicit bias. Universities would have been able to apply to regents for exemptions.

    The wide-reaching language prompted criticism from academic groups, students and those who argued it would undermine free speech.

    In one example, five state educator groups launched a joint petition urging “the Iowa Board of Regents to firmly reject efforts to restrict what students can learn.” The petition, which does not address the updated policy, noted that the original language would have affected at least a dozen academic programs. 

    “Students in certain fields — such as social work and nursing — would have been at a special disadvantage, since those professions’ standards require graduates to show competency in various topics banned under the policy,” it said.

    Board President Sherry Bates said the regents delayed the vote at their July meeting so they could review the policy. The board then set a special August meeting for the vote.

    In the intervening weeks, the board released a new version of the proposal. The updated language — which ultimately passed Tuesday — states that “faculty may teach controversial subjects” when relevant to course content, but they must present such topics from multiple and opposing viewpoints.

    “University teachers shall be entitled to academic freedom in the classroom in discussing the teachers’ course subject, but shall not introduce into the teaching controversial matters that have no relation to the subject,” the updated version says.

    It also states that students’ grades should reflect their “mastery of course content and skills,” not their “agreement or disagreement with particular viewpoints expressed during instruction or in their work.”

    ‘What exactly is controversial, and who will decide?’

    The new policy addresses how topics are taught rather than what is taught, Regent Robert Cramer argued.

    “Personally, I don’t want any of the DEI/CRT woke left stuff being taught in our classes,” he said. “But this policy is not my personal beliefs.

    But Regent Nancy Dunkel, the sole member of the board to vote against the policy, raised concern about the ambiguity of the policy’s language.

    “What exactly is controversial, and who will decide? Can anyone declare something as controversial?” she asked. She also noted that the policy change in and of itself has become controversial among Iowa constituents. 

    Dunkel further raised questions about the requirement for faculty to present a range of viewpoints.

    “If a professor has to present both sides to an issue, does that mean a marketing professor must also include anti-capitalist arguments to students?” she asked. “Do anti-evolution arguments have to be presented in biology classes? How do we present both sides of the Holocaust?”

    The board voted immediately after Dunkel’s comments.

    ‘I will not be passive’ 

    The regents also made clear to Iowa’s three universities — the leaders of which joined Tuesday’s meeting — that they have been put on notice regarding DEI efforts.

    Two of Iowa’s public universities have become a talking point among conservative media outlets. In recent weeks, conservative outlets and anti-DEI watchdog groups published a series of videos — the most recent of which was released Sunday — that appear to show two officials at the University of Iowa and one at Iowa State discussing how they could work around state DEI restrictions.

    Source link

  • Despite Reservations, Florida BOG Approves New Accreditor

    Despite Reservations, Florida BOG Approves New Accreditor

    Plans for a new accreditor, announced by Florida governor Ron DeSantis in June, are becoming a reality.

    The Florida Board of Governors voted Friday afternoon to create a controversial new accrediting agency, in coordination with five other state university systems. The decision came after about an hour of heated discussion between board members and the State University System of Florida’s chancellor regarding details of the plan.

    Chancellor Raymond Rodriguez argued that the new accreditor, called the Commission for Public Higher Education, would eliminate the bureaucracy that comes with existing accrediting agencies and focus specifically on the needs of public universities.

    “The Commission for Public Higher Education will offer an accreditation model that prioritizes academic excellence and student success while removing ideological bias and unnecessary financial burdens,” he said. “Through the CPHE, public colleges and universities across the country will have access to an accreditation process that is focused on quality, rooted in accountability and committed to continuous improvement.”

    But before voting in favor of the motion, board members repeatedly pushed back, arguing that the plans for starting an accreditor from scratch were half-baked. They raised a litany of questions about how the CPHE would work in practice.

    Some wanted to hash out the details of the would-be accreditor’s governance structure before voting. According to the CPHE business plan, the Florida governing board would incorporate the accreditor as a nonprofit in Florida and serve as its initial sole member, using a $4 million appropriation from the Florida Legislature for start-up costs. (Other systems are expected to put in similar amounts.) A board of directors, appointed by all the university systems, would be responsible for accrediting decisions and policies.

    But multiple BOG members worried that the roles of the governing board and board of directors were not clearly delineated.

    “With us as the sole member, it appears, or could appear, to stakeholders that the accreditor lacks independence from the institution being accredited,” said board member Kimberly Dunn.

    Alan Levine, vice chair of the Board of Governors, called for a clear “proverbial corporate veil” between the two in corporate documents.

    “Our role is not to govern or direct the activities of this body,” Levine said of CPHE. “It has to be independent or it won’t even be approvable by the Department of Education.”

    Board member Ken Jones pressed for greater detail on the governing board’s “fiduciary or governance obligation to this new entity.”

    “I’m in support of this … I really believe this is the right path,” he said. “I just want to be sure that we all go in, eyes wide-open, understanding what is our responsibility as a BOG? … We’re breaking new ground here, and we’re doing it for the right reasons. But I want to be sure that when the questions come—and I’m sure they certainly will—that we’ve got the right answers.”

    Members asked questions about the accreditor’s future cybersecurity and IT infrastructure, as well as its associated costs. Some asked whether accreditors have direct access to universities’ data systems and raised concerns about potential hacking and the board’s liability; they were given reassurance that colleges themselves report their data. Some board members also asked for budget projections of what CPHE would cost.

    “I have an internal, unofficial estimation around the funds and revenues, but nothing I’d be prepared and comfortable to put forward publicly,” said Rachel Kamoutsas, the system’s chief of staff and corporate secretary, who fielded questions about the initiative.

    The answers didn’t seem to fully satisfy the governing board.

    “I do think the chancellor and team have a lot of work to do to continue to educate this board, to be blunt,” said BOG chair Brian Lamb, “because a lot of the questions that we’re asking—forecast, IT, infrastructure, staffing—every last one of those are appropriate.”

    He emphasized to other board members, however, that voting in favor of the motion would jump-start the process of incorporating the new accreditor and provide seed money for it. But, he added, “not a penny is going anywhere until we have an agreed-upon document on how this money will be spent.”

    Accreditation expert Paul Gaston III, an emeritus trustees professor at Kent State University, raised similar questions in an interview with Inside Higher Ed.

    “The credibility of accreditation really is directly related to whether the public can accept it is an authoritative source of objective evaluation that is in the public interest,” he said. “And the question that I would ask as a member of the public is, how will an accreditor that is created by and that is answerable to the institutions being evaluated achieve that credibility?”

    Despite all the pushback, the BOG ultimately voted unanimously to approve the measure. Now CPHE can file for incorporation, establish its Board of Directors and set out on the multiyear process of securing recognition from the Department of Education.

    Source link

  • Court Approves Final Settlement Allowing Revenue Sharing Between Higher Ed Institutions and College Athletes – CUPA-HR

    Court Approves Final Settlement Allowing Revenue Sharing Between Higher Ed Institutions and College Athletes – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 9, 2025

    On June 6, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement in House v. NCAA, which will allow higher education institutions to share revenue with student-athletes directly.

    The settlement creates a 10-year revenue-sharing model that will allow the athletic departments of the higher education institutions in the Power Five conferences (the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC) and any other Division I institutions that opt in to distribute approximately $20.5 million in name, image, and likeness (NIL) revenue during the 2025-2026 season. The revenue-sharing cap will increase annually and be calculated as 22.5% of the Power Five schools’ average athletic revenue. The settlement also includes an enforcement arm to penalize institutions that exceed the $20.5 million cap, which will be overseen by a new regulatory body, the College Sports Commission. Institutions can start to share revenue beginning on July 1, 2025.

    Additionally, the settlement requires the NCAA and Power Five conferences to pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were barred from signing NIL deals. This covers athletes dating back to 2016. It also replaces scholarship limits with roster limits.

    The settlement does not change college athletes’ ability to enter into NIL contracts with third parties, but under the settlement, all outside NIL deals valued at greater than $600 will have to go through a clearinghouse for approval. The clearinghouse will determine if the revenue is for a valid business purpose and if it reflects fair market value.

    Prior to this settlement, college athletes could only earn NIL revenue through partnerships with outside parties, such as companies or donor groups. The original case, House v. NCAA, was brought by two former college athletes in June 2020. They challenged the NCAA’s then-policy that prohibited athletes from earning NIL compensation. The case was consolidated with Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA, two similar cases. None of the cases ever made it to trial. Instead, in an effort to avoid higher damages, the NCAA and Power Five conferences agreed to a settlement in May 2024, and the court granted preliminary approval in October 2024.

    As NCAA President Charlie Baker explained in a letter, the settlement “opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports. This new framework that enables schools to provide direct financial benefits to student-athletes and establishes clear and specific rules to regulate third-party NIL agreements marks a huge step forward for college sports.”

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates related to this settlement and the future of student-athletics.

     



    Source link

  • Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay NCAA athletes millions (12 News, Phoenix, Arizona)

    Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay NCAA athletes millions (12 News, Phoenix, Arizona)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay NCAA athletes millions (12 News, Phoenix, Arizona)




    Source link

  • Senate Committee Approves Education Under Secretary Nominee

    Senate Committee Approves Education Under Secretary Nominee

    The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions voted to approve Nicholas Kent as under secretary of education, the top job in the country for higher education policy and oversight, by a narrow 12-to-11 vote. The Senate will hold a final confirmation vote at a later date.

    Kent, a former Virginia deputy secretary of education, is a vocal critic of the Biden administration and a former lobbyist for for-profit colleges and trade schools. 

    His nomination earned a mix of support and concern from higher education associations and advocates, some of whom viewed it as a worrying harbinger of the Trump administration’s plans to reduce federal regulation and oversight of for-profit colleges and credential programs.

    Kent was advanced to a full vote with a tranche of six other cabinet nominees. A few organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers and the Institute for College Access and Success, expressed concern that there was no public hearing about Kent’s ties to for-profit institutions. In 2015 Kent’s then-employer, Education Affiliates, a company that operates dozens of for-profit colleges nationwide, settled a False Claims Act case brought by the Department of Justice for $2 million.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, voted no on Kent’s nomination Thursday morning, saying, “We should not be confirming a former lobbyist who represented for-profit colleges to oversee higher education.”

    Other organizations say Kent could shake up a regulatory framework they believe has stifled innovation. The American Association of Community Colleges wrote a letter supporting Kent, saying it believes he is committed to “ensuring statutory compliance and program integrity while decreasing administrative burdens and supporting innovation.”

    If confirmed, Kent will replace acting under secretary James Bergeron as the No. 2 education policy official in the country. 

    Source link

  • Senate approves repeal of E-rate Wi-Fi hotspots for schools, libraries

    Senate approves repeal of E-rate Wi-Fi hotspots for schools, libraries

    Dive Brief:

    • The end of E-rate eligibility for Wi-Fi hotspots came one step closer Thursday as the Senate voted 50-38 along party lines to overturn a 2024 expansion of the program overseen by the Federal Communications Commission.
    • A similar House resolution was introduced in February to strike down the recent inclusion of Wi-Fi hotspots in the E-rate program, which has helped connect schools and libraries to affordable telecommunications services for the last 29 years.
    • School districts have shown high demand for using E-rate funds to purchase Wi-Fi hotspots during fiscal year 2025, the first year for which the devices were eligible.  

    Dive Insight:

    In fiscal year 2025, schools and districts requested a total of $27.5 million for Wi-Fi hotspots alone. The devices are often used to help students who don’t have home internet access complete homework assignments that require digital connections.

    The FCC’s decision to expand E-rate to include hotspots followed the expiration of the Emergency Connectivity Fund established by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The pandemic-era fund allocated $123 million to the FCC to purchase hotspots for schools and libraries.

    Both Senate and House measures were introduced by Republicans who say the FCC’s partisan move under the Biden administration to expand the E-rate program was overreach under the federal law that defined the Universal Service Fund’s E-rate program as intentionally providing discounts for broadband services only to “school classrooms” and libraries.

    Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced the resolution of disapproval in January under the Congressional Review Act, which gives federal lawmakers the authority to nullify a federal regulation. Cruz said in a January statement that the FCC regulation expanding E-rate “violates federal law, creates major risks for kids’ online safety, harms parental rights, and will increase taxes on working families.”

    “Every parent of a young child or teenager either worries about, or knows first-hand, the real dangers of the internet,” Cruz said. “The government shouldn’t be complicit in harming students or impeding parents’ ability to decide what their kids see by subsidizing unsupervised access to inappropriate content.”

    Before this week’s vote, several organizations representing school superintendents, K-12 business officials, rural educators, transportation providers and educational service agencies sent a letter on May 6 to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., urging him to vote against the resolution.

    The letter noted that nearly 20,000 schools and libraries are applying for several hundred thousand hotspots nationwide through the E-rate program. If passed, the education groups wrote, the resolution would “prevent millions of students and library patrons” from gaining internet access. 

    “We strongly disagree with the argument that allowing students and adults to access hotspots on buses or at home opens the door to them accessing inappropriate content online,” the letter said. “The rules adopted by the FCC require that all Wi-Fi hotspots include blocking and filtering of inappropriate material. Thus, any claim that providing home Internet access through these hotspots exposes children to pornography and other inappropriate content are completely untrue.”

    Hotspots particularly benefit low-income and rural students and educators who need internet access at home to complete homework assignments, the letter said. The groups added that passing such a resolution through the Congressional Review Act will prevent the FCC from ever approving an expansion of E-rate to include hotspots again. 

    With the end of the one-time influx of federal pandemic-era funds, a Consortium for School Networking survey released earlier this week found that 14% of district ed tech leaders said initiatives to fund broadband access off school campuses were at risk of losing future sustainable funding. 

    That same CoSN survey also revealed that most school districts are deeply concerned about the future of the E-rate program as a whole, given that the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming months whether the program’s funding mechanism is unconstitutional. Some 74% of district respondents told CoSN that should the justices strike down E-rate in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, the decision would have “catastrophic” or “major” effects for schools.

    Source link

  • Senate panel approves McMahon for education secretary

    Senate panel approves McMahon for education secretary

    Dr. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and chair of the Senate HELP Committee, led the hearing and voted to advance McMahon’s nomination to the Senate floor.

    Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Linda McMahon’s bid to become the next education secretary moved forward Thursday after a Senate committee voted 12–11 along party lines to advance her nomination.

    At the preceding committee hearing on Feb. 13, Republicans of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee largely praised McMahon, saying they couldn’t think of a better person to lead the nation’s education system.

    They used their questions to ensure the nominee recognized that only Congress has the statutory power to carry out Trump’s plan to abolish the Education Department—to which she said, “Well, certainly President Trump understands that we will be working with Congress.” In addition to shutting down or reducing the size of the department, McMahon made clear at the hearing that she supports combating campus antisemitism, prohibiting trans women from participating in sports and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

    Since the hearing, the Education Department released a sweeping Dear Colleague letter that directs colleges to end any race-based policies or programming in K-12 schools and colleges by Feb. 28. The letter, which targeted “every facet of academia,” has received significant pushback from the public but likely won’t affect McMahon’s confirmation.

    The committee’s vote advances McMahon’s confirmation to the Senate. The full Senate will now vote on McMahon’s nomination, likely in the next two weeks.

    Once formally recognized as secretary, McMahon will be an important arrow in Trump’s quiver, as she’s seen as dedicated to carrying out the president’s agenda, from abolishing the agency to stripping certain institutions of access to federal student aid when they do not align with his ideals.

    This story will be updated.

    Source link

  • Florida board approves extensive gen ed overhaul

    Florida board approves extensive gen ed overhaul

    Students at Florida State University can cheer on the Seminoles across multiple sports, but they can no longer learn about the namesake tribe of Indigenous Americans as part of FSU’s general education offerings after the Florida Board of Governors approved sweeping curriculum changes Thursday.

    Florida colleges have spent months rethinking their general education requirements following a change in state law. Thursday’s vote marked the final step in a contentious and controversial process that brought significant changes to all 12 state universities. Critics accuse the board and system officials of taking a heavy-handed approach and targeting specific topics or courses, while state officials have argued revisions were necessary both to simplify the curriculum and to strip it of “indoctrination.”

    Now, American History 583: The Seminoles and the Southeastern Indians is one of hundreds of courses across Florida’s public universities that will no longer count toward general education credit as part of the extensive overhaul. Neither will Black Women in America or LGBTQ History, both of which were previously included as general education offerings at FSU. Those are just three of numerous courses touching in some way on race, gender or sexuality that institutional boards voted in recent months to drop from general education. All 12 Boards of Trustees then submitted a pared-down list of classes to FLBOG for approval. Three Bible courses remain eligible for general education credit at FSU.

    (An FSU spokesperson noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed that American History 583, which currently has about 150 students enrolled this semester, will now be offered as an elective. Pressed on the rationale for why the course was dropped from gen eds, FSU did not respond.)

    Florida State University’s Board of Trustees dropped a course on Seminole history from the list of general education offerings, but fans can still cheer on the Seminoles.

    Chris Leduc/Icon Sportswire/Getty Image

    State lawmakers required colleges in 2023 to review general education classes in an effort to cut “courses with curriculum based on unproven, speculative or exploratory content,” according to materials shared with the Board of Governors in a presentation for Thursday’s vote.

    The Florida Board of Governors unanimously approved the new suite of gen ed classes Thursday, though some members tried to downplay the notion that the state was trying to limit knowledge.

    “We are not prohibiting universities from offering courses,” Timothy Cerio, chair of the Academic and Student Affairs committee, said at the meeting. Instead, he emphasized that those courses are just being removed from general education curriculum and will remain available as electives.

    State University System of Florida chancellor Ray Rodrigues depicted the vote on general education as stripping indoctrination from curricular offerings. Rodrigues argued that the American public has lost faith in higher education, citing a recent Gallup poll that noted shrinking public confidence in the sector. Among the reasons for that diminished confidence, particularly among Republican respondents, is the belief that colleges push liberal agendas.

    “The general education curriculum that was approved today makes Florida the only state in the nation to address the No. 1 reason why the American people have lost confidence in higher education,” Rodrigues said during the meeting. “We can confidently say that our general education courses that students have to take in order to graduate will not contain indoctrinating concepts.”

    ‘Political Overreach’

    But critics allege administrators have overstepped, as curriculum has traditionally been the faculty’s purview. They also worry that removing courses from general education will cause enrollment in such classes to plummet, limiting the number of students who will be introduced to certain majors like sociology—a discipline state officials have taken aim at for an allegedly liberal tilt—which will subsequently weaken academic departments and potentially decrease staffing levels.

    United Faculty of Florida, a union representing 25,000-plus professors, denounced the move toward scaled-back general education offerings.

    “Florida is at the forefront of an assault against public education, restricting the subjects students can study from K-12 to the colleges and universities,” UFF declared in a news release ahead of Thursday’s vote, casting FLBOG’s actions as “bureaucratic and political overreach.”

    “General education courses are the foundation of critical thinking and informed citizenship, and censoring them limits not only what students can learn but also what they can become. These proposed cuts are an insult to our students and to the world-class faculty that instruct and guide them,” UFF president Teresa M. Hodge said in a Monday webinar ahead of the meeting.

    Hodge argued that the courses being targeted were just “words and numbers on a spreadsheet” to the Florida Board of Governors, but “for the rest of us, they are the future of our students, our jobs, and our democracy” and the “foundation of critical thinking” and “informed citizenship.” She also accused Republican governor Ron DeSantis, who pushed for the legislation that led to the changes, of prioritizing “his personal political ambition” over students.

    Robert Cassanello, a history professor at the University of Central Florida, argued on the call that it was lawmakers—not professors—who were attempting to indoctrinate students.

    “They tell us that classes have to be removed from the curriculum that focus on race, gender and sexuality, but at the same time, they want courses and lessons on the centrality of Western civilization, free-market libertarianism and patriotic histories of this country infused into the general curriculum and life on our campuses,” Cassanello said.

    Students on the call also noted that general education courses set them on career pathways.

    Tessa Barber, a graduate student at the University of South Florida, began college as a biology major but is now working toward a doctorate in politics and international relations. She attributed that change to general education courses in anthropology and political science that pushed her in a different direction. She expressed concern about “political interference” in the education of undergraduates.

    Some speakers at Thursday’s meeting also pushed back on the gen ed overhaul.

    Jono Miller, president of NCF Freedom, a group that has been critical of the state’s conservative takeover of New College of Florida, alleged that the overhaul of its core curriculum was “rushed and chaotic” with “minimal faculty input” and a “lack of transparency.” Miller argued that “telling faculty what to teach translates directly to telling students what to think.”

    Thursday’s vote followed prior action on general education courses from the State Board of Education, which oversees the 28 institutions in the Florida College System. Earlier this month that board removed 57 percent of FCS general education courses, according to state officials.

    Source link