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.
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.
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.
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.
In two separate hearings published on December 19, the OfS granted approval for the University of Bolton to be renamed the University of Greater Manchester, and for the University of Central Lancaster (UCLan) to become the University of Lancashire.
The regulator permitted Bolton becoming the University of Greater Manchester despite objections from the University of Manchester that the change would be “very confusing and misleading”. Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Salford also objected to the name change.
In a consultation on UCLan’s rebranding to the University of Lancashire, 90% of the 1,812 respondents said that the new name could be “confusing or misleading”, given that the existing Lancaster University carries the same official title.
During the ruling, the regulator considered the name change could be particularly confusing for international students “less familiar with contextual information” but concluded that it was “unlikely to lead to any material harm or detriment”.
The consultations in Bolton also garnered widespread opposition to the rebrand, with 64% of respondents saying the name change could cause confusion.
The OfS recognised that both instances could be confusing “for particular groups of stakeholders, including for example those for whom English is not their first language or who have difficulties in distinguishing or processing information”.
However, it concluded that “the range of contextual information that students use when applying to study” would help to prevent material harm arising from such confusion.
The name change is very good news for our students, very good news for the institution, very good news for the town and amazing news for jobs
Professor George Holmes, University of Greater Manchester
In both cases, the OfS ruled that its duties to protect the “institutional autonomy” of providers and “encourage competition” between universities weighted in favour of consenting to both new names.
In Bolton, the proposals to change the university’s name sparked backlash from local politicians and members of the public, with a motion put to Bolton Council in 2023 calling on the university to rethink the name change.
Announcing the news on December 19, vice chancellor Professor George Holmes told a group of staff members that he was “delighted” to announce the change.
“The name change is very good news for our students, very good news for the institution, very good news for the town and amazing news for jobs,” said Holmes, adding that it was “an important accolade to have the University of Greater Manchester based in Bolton”.
Professor Graham Baldwin, UCLan vice chancellor, also welcomed his institution’s new title, saying that it would “better reflect our regional economic importance and aid continuing efforts to raise brand awareness further afield.
“Locally the acronym UCLan was widely used but for many outside the region they didn’t know it was the title of a university nor where it was located,” said Baldwin.
On December 2, 2024 the OfS announced it was temporarily pausing the registration of new institutions, as well as suspending applications for an institution to change its name “where it already holds university title”. Applications already submitted would be completed, it said.
On April 10, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the Department of Education’s (ED) final rule to amend Title IX. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect the ED will issue the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as ED publishes the final rule.
The ED released the text of the proposed rule on June 23, 2022, though the Federal Register did not officially publish the proposal until several weeks later on July 12, 2022. The agency received over 240,000 comments in response, including CUPA-HR comments seeking clarification on the overlaps between the ED’s proposal with institutions’ existing obligations to address employment discrimination. CUPA-HR also joined comments led by the American Council on Education.
The Federal Government’s Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda had set the target release date of the final rule for May 2023, but the Department had to further delay that timeline to review all comments submitted in response to the proposed rule and address them in the final rule. Most recently, the ED indicated a March 2024 release of the final rule in the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda.
CUPA-HR plans to hold a timely webinar on the final rule after publication. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the Title IX final rule, including completion of the review and publication of the rule.
On April 11, 2024, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) final overtime pay rule. The rule is expected to increase the minimum salary threshold for the executive, administrative and professional (EAP or white collar) employee exemptions to overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect DOL will release the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as the final rule is released.
On April 4, 2024, CUPA-HR’s president and CEO, government relations team and board members met with officials from DOL and OIRA to express our concerns with the September 2023 proposed rule. The proposal sought to increase the threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 — a nearly 70% increase. DOL also proposed increasing the salary threshold automatically every three years to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers. Finally, DOL proposed that all employers would need to implement these changes within 60 days of the final rule’s release.
During our OIRA meeting, CUPA-HR reiterated the concerns that were addressed in our comments submitted in November 2023. The comments made the following four recommendations for DOL to consider prior to issuing a final rule:
DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
If DOL implements an increase, it should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.
We expect lawsuits challenging the final rule are forthcoming. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of all updates related to the overtime regulations. Once the new regulations are released, we will plan and share registration information for a webinar. We will also provide an update for members who attend the spring conference in Minneapolis next week.
