Tag: bill

  • Integrity Bill passes as government vows crackdown on “quick-buck” operators

    Integrity Bill passes as government vows crackdown on “quick-buck” operators

    The Albanese government has passed legislation that it says will strengthen the integrity of the international education sector, despite sector concerns about some elements of the reforms set to impact higher and international education.

    The Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 proposes amendments across several key acts within education, including the Education Services for Overseas Students Act (ESOS). 

    “With the passing of this legislation, we now have more tools to stop unscrupulous individuals in the international education system trying to make a quick buck,” said education minister Jason Clare.

    In a statement on the Bill’s passing, the federal government chose to highlight some of the changes it is set to bring about, including:

    • Enabling the banning of commissions to education agents for onshore student transfers
    • Requiring most prospective VET providers excluding TAFEs to first deliver courses to domestic students for two years before they can apply to teach overseas students as evidence of their commitment to quality education
    • Cancelling the registration of providers that fail to deliver a course to overseas students for 12 consecutive months to help deal with ‘phoenixing’
    • Giving ministers the power to limit or cancel a providers’ ability to deliver courses where it is in the public interest or there are systemic quality issues

    Education providers will also now require authorisation from TEQSA to deliver Australian degrees offshore. The government described these changes as “light-touch, set transitional arrangements and utilise information that providers already hold”.

    “Australia’s future success requires a focus on quality, integrity and a great student experience. That’s why we’re cracking down on exploitation, increasing transparency, and safeguarding the reputation of our sector,” said Julian Hill, assistant minister for international education.

    We’re cracking down on exploitation, increasing transparency, and safeguarding the reputation of our sector
    Julian Hill, assistant minister for international education

    According to Hill, the changes will “protect genuine students and support high-quality providers”.

    Ministers say the reforms are about “safeguarding” Australia’s reputation as a world leader in education but certain parts of the Bill garnered fierce criticism from the sector. A public call for submissions gathered concerns about changes to the definition of an education agent and whether ministerial intervention powers were appropriately balanced, among other changes.

    The Bill is set to tighten oversight of education agents by broadening the legal definition of who qualifies as an agent and introducing new transparency requirements around commissions and payments.

    Elsewhere, one of the most significant points of concern related to new ministerial powers over provider and course registrations. The Bill would allow the minister to make legislative instruments suspending the processing of applications for provider registration – or registration of new courses – for periods of up to 12 months.

    The new Bill closely mirrors last year’s version but drops the proposed hard cap on international student enrolments that contributed to the earlier Bill’s failure in parliament. Instead, the government is managing new enrolments through its National Planning Level and visa processing directive MD115, rather than legislated limits.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Budget, R&D, Scotland’s tertiary bill

    Podcast: Budget, R&D, Scotland’s tertiary bill

    This week on the podcast we examine how Budget 2025 reshapes the university funding model – from the international levy and modest new maintenance grants, to confirmed tuition fee uplifts and changes to pension tax arrangements that will affect institutional costs.

    We discuss what the package tells us about the government’s approach to public finances, the politics of international recruitment, and the sustainability of cross-subsidy in a tight fiscal environment for higher education.

    Plus we discuss research and innovation announcements and get across debate in Holyrood on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.

    With Ken Sloan, Vice-Chancellor and CEO at Harper Adams University, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe, David Kernohan, Deputy Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    On the site:

    Budget 2025 for universities and students

    Universities now need to be much clearer about the total cost of a course

    Student finance changes in the budget – Director’s cut

    Reclassification ghosts and jam tomorrow at stage 2 of Scotland’s tertiary bill

    A government running out of road still sets the economic weather for higher education

    A change in approach means research may never be the same again

    You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, Acast, Amazon Music, Deezer, RadioPublic, Podchaser, Castbox, Player FM, Stitcher, TuneIn, Luminary or via your favourite app with the RSS feed.

    Source link

  • Australian MPs defend education reforms as Bill progresses through parliament

    Australian MPs defend education reforms as Bill progresses through parliament

    Australia’s Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025  has cleared its second reading in the House and will progress without amendment.

    Following the government’s unsuccessful attempt in 2024 to pass reforms through a previous ESOS amendment Bill, minister for education Jason Clare has reintroduced legislation aimed at “strengthening the integrity of the international education sector”.

    Speaking in parliament on October 29, Clare said the Bill will make it “harder for bad operators to enter or remain in the sector, while also supporting the majority of providers, who do the right thing”.

    “These changes safeguard our reputation as a world leader in education, both here and overseas,” he added.

    Assistant minister for international education Julian Hill addressed some of the key points of debate in the sector regarding the Bill, including changes that relate to education agents.

    The Bill is set to tighten oversight of education agents by broadening the legal definition of who qualifies as an agent and introducing new transparency requirements around commissions and payments.

    Hill claimed this increased transparency will help providers “identify reputable agents”.

    “Education agents, counsellors, consultants – whatever they’re called in different countries – overall play a really important and constructive role,” he said.

    “But the evidence is overwhelming, from universities but also from the reputable private providers in the higher education sector and the vocational training sector, that the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market.”

    The evidence is overwhelming… the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market
    Julian Hill, assistant minister for international education

    The legislation looks to enable the banning of commissions to education agents for onshore student transfers – a measure that has been widely debated in the sector lately.

    “I absolutely understand there are some in the sector who don’t like this part of the Bill,” said Hill.

    “But, overwhelmingly, the feedback which I’ve received over years now from the reputable private providers in VET and higher education is to please do something about the behaviour of the agent commissions because they are buying and selling students.”

    Elsewhere, the legislation also sets out that education providers will require authorisation from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) — Australia’s national higher education regulator — to deliver Australian degrees offshore.

    “All that this part of the Bill is doing is making sure that TEQSA, as the regulator, has a line of sight to what providers are doing offshore – that’s all,” said Hill.

    “That’s because Australians, and all of the reputable providers and universities delivering transnationally, guarantee to the world that, when one of our Australian providers delivers a course offshore, that course is delivered to exactly the same quality standard as if the student were in Australia. That’s our promise to the world.”

    “Right now, TEQSA, as the regulator, simply doesn’t have the data-flow to know reliably which providers are delivering in which markets… There’s no more power; there’s no more red tape; it’s simply saying: ‘You need to get authorisation.’ It’s straightforward. Everyone who is currently delivering automatically gets authorised. But then they just have to tell the regulator, so that they can run their normal risk-based regulation.”

    Hill stressed that the recent expansion of transnational education (TNE) has been highly beneficial for the economy, Australia’s soft power, and, in particular, for strengthening links with Southeast Asia – a priority region for the government as it seeks to deepen trade, education and diplomatic ties.

    “But, if one of our providers does the wrong thing in a given market, it wrecks our reputation for everyone,” warned Hill.

    The Bill did face some criticism during proceedings, including from independent MP for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, who widely supports the Bill but raised concerns about new ministerial powers to cancel a class of courses or course registrations. Spender hopes these powers are used “sparingly and with clear safeguards”.

    “These powers mark a departure from existing arrangements, where cancellations are overseen by independent regulators, like TEQSA and ASQA. Under the Bill, the minister is no longer required to consult these bodies. Instead, the minister may only consult such persons or entities as the minister considers appropriate. This is a significant centralisation of power and one that carries risk.”

    “The minister may cancel courses due to systemic issues, but that threshold is vague. More worryingly, courses may simply be cancelled because they seem to offer limited value to Australia’s current or future skill needs, a narrow test which is also open to interpretation.”

    According to Spender, this overlooks the fact that more than 60% of international students return to their home countries.

    “As education expert Andrew Norton points out, why should their course choices be limited by the labour market needs of a foreign country?” she asked.

    The new Bill closely mirrors last year’s version but drops the proposed hard cap on international student enrolments that contributed to the earlier Bill’s failure in parliament. Instead, the government is managing new enrolments through its National Planning Level, a de facto cap that sets target limits for providers.

    Under these limits, publicly funded universities that diversify away from traditional markets and expand into Southeast Asia may become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places. Those that demonstrate strong student housing arrangements may also become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places.

    Source link

  • How One Big Beautiful Bill Act Threatens Student Success

    How One Big Beautiful Bill Act Threatens Student Success

    Nearly 60 percent of all college students in the U.S. experience at least one form of basic needs insecurity, lacking stable housing and/or consistent access to food, according to national surveys.

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress passed in July, creates sweeping changes to higher education—including a new tax rate for university endowments and accountability metrics for student income levels after graduation. It also directly impacts college students, threatening their access to food assistance programs and their ability to pay for college, which experts warn could hamper their persistence and completion.

    Policy and higher education leaders convened during an Oct. 28 webinar hosted by the Hope Center for Student Basic Needs at Temple University to discuss how the new legislation threatens student financial wellness and success.

    “We are very, very worried that student basic needs insecurity will be increasing dramatically over the next few years,” said Bryce McKibben, senior director of policy and advocacy at the Hope Center.

    For current students, experts outlined three major shifts in federal financial supports.

    1. Cuts to SNAP Funding

    OBBBA includes $186 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides support obtaining food for nearly three million young adults, according to U.S. Census data. The bill places more requirements on SNAP recipients; at present, all funding for SNAP is at risk due to the government shutdown. Some states expect to run out of SNAP dollars as early as Nov. 1.

    “[SNAP] is our first line of defense against hunger. It reduces health care–related issues and it bolsters local economies,” said Gina Plata-Nino, interim director of the SNAP, Food Research & Action Center. “It also provides jobs; it provides federal income taxes. And all of this is going to be threatened.”

    Under the bill, all adults ages 18 to 64 must demonstrate they work at least 20 hours per week to be eligible for SNAP, Plata-Nino said.

    Approximately one in four college students experience food insecurity. SNAP resources are largely underutilized by college students, in part because of complicated enrollment processes. Instead, many rely on campus pantries, which are mostly privately funded by individual donors or campus budgets. Plato-Nino anticipates the changes to SNAP will impact funding and capacity for higher education institutions to provide resources, “because now they have to focus on these issues,” she said.

    The federal cuts could cause further damage to an already fragile system.

    “We have a threadbare social safety net that really hits students when they can least afford to meet what are pretty acute and deep costs as they’re trying to get through their degree program,” said Mark Huelsman, director of policy and advocacy at the Hope Center.

    Many colleges and universities expanded emergency grant funding for students during the COVID-19 pandemic to address sudden expenses that could threaten a student’s ability to remain enrolled. While supplemental funding can help ease this gap, it’s not sufficient, Huelsman said.

    “Campuses don’t often have the resources to help students meet what can be an acute financial emergency,” Huelsman said.

    An August 2025 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 64 percent of respondents said they didn’t know whether their college provides emergency financial aid, and an additional 4 percent indicated that resource was not available at their institution. Only 12 percent of respondents said they knew how to apply for emergency aid at their college.

    2. Changes to Pell Grants

    The reconciliation bill also includes a variety of changes to student eligibility for the federal Pell Grant program, which provides financial aid to low-income students.

    Over one-third of Student Voice respondents indicated paying for college was a top source of stress while enrolled, second only to balancing family, academic, work and personal responsibilities.

    For the academic year 2026–27, those with a student aid index (SAI) over $14,790, as identified by the FAFSA, are no longer eligible for Pell Grants. Similarly, students who receive scholarships that meet the full cost of attendance (including books, housing, food, tuition and fees) are not eligible for Pell, regardless of their SAI.

    “We anticipate that this will affect a very small number of students,” said Jessica Thompson, senior vice president at the Institute for College Access and Success. “But this remains to be seen how this takes effect and what it looks like on the ground.”

    3. Limits on Graduate and Parent Borrowing

    OBBBA caps loans on professional degree programs (which include medical, law, veterinary and dentistry programs, among others) at $200,000, and other graduate programs at $100,000. It also eliminates Grad PLUS loans, which are unsubsidized federal loans with no borrowing limits. Students currently enrolled can borrow from Grad PLUS for three academic years or the remainder of their credential program, whichever is shorter.

    While these limits can be beneficial for keeping student borrowing down, there may be unintended consequences regarding who can access the programs, Thompson said. For example, students who enroll at historically Black colleges and universities or minority-serving institutions are more likely to utilize Parent PLUS loans to pay for college.

    “This has been a really big lifeline for accessing credit in order to cover college costs for people’s children, and there will be a disproportionate impact on these new caps on those types of institutions,” Thompson said.

    Thompson also noted that a lack of federal loan opportunities for graduate and professional students may cause a rise in private loan borrowing, which often has higher interest rates and fewer protections for borrowers.

    “We want to keep a really close eye on what it means for the availability of programs in general … but also access and looking at increasingly less diverse pipelines in terms of historically marginalized populations being able to access graduate and professional programs,” Thompson said.

    Similar to SNAP cuts, Thompson anticipates the loan caps will add significant financial pressure on colleges and universities due to loss of revenue and enrollment.

    Source link

  • California School Board Member Stipends Could Change Under New Bill – The 74

    California School Board Member Stipends Could Change Under New Bill – The 74


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

    There’s more to being a diligent school board member than attending a couple of meetings a month.

    Those meetings require preparation, research and one-on-one conversations with school leadership. There are school site visits. Many districts require regular board training. Sometimes there are spinoff committee meetings about parcel taxes or school nutrition. There’s also an expectation that board members attend events like football games, PTA meetings and retirement ceremonies. Meetings with parents and other constituents are a core part of the role, too.

    For all of this, Woodland Joint Unified School District board president Deborah Bautista Zavala says she earns a stipend of $240 a month, minus taxes — the maximum allowed by the state for her district with just under 10,000 students.

    “You don’t do it for money, but to improve the education of students,” said Bautista Zavala.

    But the lack of money, she said, is a real problem for attracting and retaining qualified school board members who truly represent the community.

    That could change if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs Assembly Bill 1390, which would raise the maximum monthly stipend for school board members in both school districts and county offices of education.

    This would be the first time in over 40 years that school board members’ compensation has been reconsidered — and the measure comes at a time when school boards are grappling with financial deficits, consolidation, uncertainty about federal funding and potential school closures.

    Proponents of the bill have argued that while school board members dedicate large amounts of time to their position, they are not compensated adequately. Currently, school board members can earn no more than $60 each month in small districts or up to $1,500 for the state’s largest districts.

    There is also a clause in the current law that allows board member stipends to be raised by 5% each year beyond the maximum, but 7 out of 10 boards still have stipends at or below the maximum, according to Troy Flint, chief information officer for the California School Boards Association.

    Raising school board compensation has been a longstanding issue for the California School Boards Association, which sponsored the bill, but it has become more pressing in the years since the pandemic, Flint said.

    “The job is vastly more complex than it used to be,” said Flint. “It requires a strong knowledge of finance, an aptitude for community engagement, a working knowledge of educational theory and an ability to deal with culture wars and political issues.”

    The role is at an inflection point: More than 6 out of 10 school board members did not run for reelection over the past three cycles, Flint said.

    Legislative analysis referenced an EdSource article, which found that 56% of 1,510 school board races across 49 California counties did not appear on a local ballot in 2024, either because there was one unopposed candidate who became a guaranteed winner or because there were no candidates at all.

    The bill’s author, Assemblymember José Luis Solache Jr., D-Lynwood, argues that increasing board members’ compensation could lead to bigger, more diverse candidate pools. School boards often attract retirees or other professionals with stable income and spare time. Low stipends put the job out of reach for those from working families or younger people who are already struggling to make ends meet, Solache said.

    Solache would know: He began serving on the board for the Lynwood Unified School District starting in 2003, when he was 23 years old. He has since worked with other young elected officials to find ways to recruit young people into office. Solache sees this bill as a way to improve recruitment for an important community role.

    “It’s an underpaid job. We compensate the president, senators, Assembly members, state senators,” Solache said. “Why can’t you compensate the school board members that have jurisdiction over your child’s education?”

    Raising the stipends of elected officials can raise eyebrows in Sacramento, Solache said. The bill set the maximums by setting an amount between inflation since 1984, when rates were set, and what the maximum would have been if the boards had raised the rates 5% annually as allowed by law.

    Maximums for board members in the smallest districts saw the greatest increase. Currently, the maximum for a board member at a school district with fewer than 150 students is $60 a month. Under this bill, that same board member could earn up to $600 monthly, which Solache said is more equitable.

    But board members won’t necessarily see raises, even if Newsom signs it into law. The bill merely raises the ceiling for compensation. The decision to actually offer raises to school board members will happen at the local level, and that could be a tough sell given the budget constraints school districts are facing in the coming year.

    “There’s no getting around that: that in a time of limited resources, adding money for board members is taking money away from other places,” said Julie Marsh, a professor at USC’s Rossier School of Education, who recently served as the lead author of a study analyzing the experiences of 10 school board members across the state.

    “We need to just really keep in mind the demands of that role and the decisions that they’re making around the superintendent, the budgets for these places, the curricular decisions that are being made. And as a state, there’s been a lot put on these positions in terms of making really important decisions,” she said.

    Bautista Zavala believes it will be tough to make the case to some of her fellow board members at Woodland Unified, which is in a community 20 miles northwest of Sacramento. The district of 9,500 students struggled to pass a facilities bond last November, despite facilities in dire need of improvement. The optics of board members giving themselves a raise could be tricky if they’re also negotiating with teachers or classified staff.

    “You have to be strategic about bringing this forward,” she said.

    She encourages board members to raise stipends to bring new voices to school boards. She says members who believe they don’t need a raise can donate the stipend.

    Some people believe serving on a board is a civic duty, and compensation shouldn’t factor into the role, said Jonathan Zachreson, board member at Roseville City School District. But he said that’s not realistic for many people. He hopes that raising the stipends for board members will also mean raising the expectations for board members.

    Zachreson is concerned that some boards outsource policymaking to groups, including the California School Boards Association, rather than doing in-depth research themselves to find a solution that works best for the community.

    “It’s worth the time commitment to actually learn and not just rubber-stamp proposals,” said Zachreson.

    But some believe there could be unintended consequences in raising the stipends of board members.

    “The worst-case scenario, I think, from a superintendent’s point of view, would be if the increase in pay becomes attractive to the wrong kind of people, who want to micromanage the superintendent and want to be well compensated for that,” said Carl Cohn, a former superintendent of the Long Beach Unified School District and State Board of Education member.

    Some boards are exempt

    Some school districts and county boards of education are exempt from this model because they have their own local charter. This includes the Los Angeles Unified School District, the state’s largest school district with an $18.8 billion budget this academic year; it won’t be impacted by the bill should it become law. A separate LAUSD Compensation Review Committee outlines board members’ salaries — a strategy that Marsh said makes the district appear less self-serving.

    In 2017, Los Angeles Unified school board members who didn’t work elsewhere received a 174% pay increase.

    “With the increase in compensation in Los Angeles Unified, we saw candidates earlier in their careers, single parents, women of color, immigrants and others with similar lived experience to our students step up,” said board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin in a statement to EdSource. “I hope that will be the trend across the state and improve decision-making for California’s public schools.”

    According to a 2023 committee resolution, Los Angeles Unified board members made $127,500 annually if they weren’t employed elsewhere and $51,000 if they had another source of income. And on July 1 until 2027, board members would receive a 1% annual increase — leading most recently to salaries of $128,775 and $51,510, depending on outside employment.

    Meanwhile, compensation in the San Francisco Unified School District, currently $500 monthly for board members, is governed by the city and county and is also exempt. The board of supervisors must approve compensation for county board members in Alpine, San Benito and San Bernardino counties.

    Beyond compensation

    Increasing school board members’ compensation might help address issues such as poor recruitment and retention, Marsh said. But professional development and other non-financial support could go a long way, since board members come in with varying degrees of knowledge on data, governance and technology.

    “With the rapidly changing context around us — whether that’s around the politics and the political climate and the divisiveness, or shifting technology — I think there’s a need to further support folks,” Marsh said.

    This story was originally published on EdSource.


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

    Source link

  • School air quality bill that aims to strengthen EPA oversight reintroduced

    School air quality bill that aims to strengthen EPA oversight reintroduced

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

    Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., on Wednesday reintroduced bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting students, teachers and others from poor indoor air quality by expanding the role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

    The Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Schools Act, first introduced in July 2024, would require a nationwide assessment of indoor air quality in schools and childcare facilities and give schools and childcare centers tools to improve IAQ conditions. 

    “No one should have to suffer the consequences of poor indoor air quality, least of all our kids and students seeking an education at school,” Tonko said a statement. “Our bipartisan Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Schools Act protects the health of our communities by establishing science-based guidelines and delivering effective tools and best practices to minimize indoor health risks.” 

    The bill would update, expand and codify the work of EPA’s Indoor Environments Division and direct the agency to develop and recognize one or more voluntary certifications for buildings designed, operated and maintained to prevent or minimize indoor air health risks. 

    “Ultimately, it tries to establish a nationwide assessment of IAQ in schools and childcare facilities,” Jason Hartke, executive vice president of external affairs and global advocacy at the International WELL Building Institute, told Facilities Dive. “It goes back to the old adage that you can’t manage what you don’t measure. As these technologies get better and cheaper, it’s a huge opportunity for folks to tune the environmental quality to human health and well-being.” 

    The EPA’s Science Advisory Board has consistently ranked poor IAQ as a top five environmental risk to public health, with over 3 million people globally dying prematurely each year from disease exposure caused by poor IAQ, according to a fact sheet on the legislation. 

    Progress has been made to address outdoor air pollution, but studies show that indoor air contaminants can be two to five times, and occasionally 100 times, higher than outdoor contaminants, the fact sheet says. 

    The legislation would also support the development of technical assistance, guidelines and best practices to improve the IAQ conditions of schools and childcare facilities.

    “It’s a big deal because it targets some new tools to better assess indoor air quality in our nation’s schools,” said Hartke. “It’s a really powerful bill supported by dozens of organizations. 

    The legislation is supported by the Allergy and Asthma Network, American Federation of Teachers, ASHRAE, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, IWBI, John Hopkins Center for Health Security and the U.S. Green Building Council, according to the lawmakers’ statements. 

    Source link

  • Bill Shorten’s fresh eyes – Campus Review

    Bill Shorten’s fresh eyes – Campus Review

    The Honourable Bill Shorten transitioned at the start of the year from cabinet to vice-chancellor and president of the University of Canberra.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

    Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

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

    The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a bipartisan fiscal year 2026 K-12 education bill that would prevent the executive branch from removing Title I and special education programs to agencies outside the U.S. Department of Education. The legislation also rejects several other funding reforms proposed by the Trump administration.

    The bill would require timely awarding of formula grants by the Education Department to states and districts. For several weeks in July, the Education Department and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget withheld $6.2 billion in grant funding that states and districts expected access to starting July 1.

    That funding at pre-approved FY 2025 spending levels was released after the Trump administration conducted a “programmatic review” and added “guardrails” to ensure the funds would not violate executive orders or administration policy, a senior administration official at OMB told K-12 Dive in an email July 25.

    Educators, parents, education organizations, and Republican and Democratic lawmakers had pressured the administration to make the funds available, citing that the disruption in funds was causing school program cuts, canceled contracts and staff layoffs. 

    In total, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommends funding the Education Department in FY 26 at $79 billion, according to the bill text. That’s $12.3 billion more than President Donald Trump’s proposal of $66.7 billion. In the current fiscal year, the Education Department is funded at $78.7 billion. 

    “The bill also supports families by investing in education and affordable child care, which promotes financial stability for working parents and benefits our economy,” said Appropriations Committee Chair Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

    The proposed education budget — which was included in funding legislation for the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and related agencies — passed the committee in a 26-3 vote. 

    “Our bills reject devastating cuts — and reject many of this administration’s absurd proposals — like dismantling the Department of Education,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in her opening remarks. 

    “We all know President Trump cannot dismantle the Department of Education or ship education programs to other agencies. Authorizing laws prevent that. Appropriations laws prevent that,” Murray said. 

    Trump has said he wants to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and give states and localities more fiscal decision-making authority while reducing bureaucracy. 

    In March, Trump signed an executive order to shutter the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate.” Congress, however, would need to approve the closing of the agency.

    Maintaining separate formula grants

    The Trump administration’s budget proposed a new K-12 Simplified Funding Program that would merge 18 current competitive formula funding grant programs into one $2 billion formula grant program. The administration said the SFP would spur innovation and give states more spending flexibility and decision-making power.

    The Senate Appropriation Committee instead rejected that plan by keeping the formula grants separate. The Senate plan would provide a $50 million increase over FY 2025 spending for both Title I-A funding for low-income schools and districts, and for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

    The bill would maintain current spending levels, except for a few reductions, across other K-12 formula and competitive grant programs targeting improvements in teaching and learning, according to a bill summary from Murray’s office. 

    Other notable spending proposals from the Senate Appropriations Committee FY 26 bill include:

    • The Office for Civil Rights would maintain level spending at $140 million.
    • The Institute of Education Sciences would be funded at $793 million, level with the FY 25 budget. 
    • Title I and IDEA would be funded at $18.5 billion and $15.2 billion, respectively. The two grant programs make up the largest share of funding for K-12 at the Education Department.
    • Under the HHS portion of the legislation, the committee recommends increasing funding for the early childhood learning programs Head Start and the Child Care and Community Block grant by $85 million each to $12.4 billion and $8.8 billion, respectively. 

    The Senate Appropriations bill will now be considered by the House and full Senate. FY 26 starts Oct. 1.

    Source link

  • Education Dept. Prepares for “Big, Beautiful Bill” Changes

    Education Dept. Prepares for “Big, Beautiful Bill” Changes

    The Education Department is moving quickly to carry out the higher ed changes in the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    The agency announced Thursday that it will convene two advisory committees to weigh in on changes to the rules and regulations for the federal student loan program, institutional and programmatic accountability, and the Pell Grant program. Officials wrote in the announcement that this round of rule-making was necessary to implement the changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill as well as “other administration priorities.”

    Many of the higher ed provisions in the legislation take effect July 1, 2026, and several experts have raised concerns about whether that’s enough time for the department to put in place the necessary regulations and guidance. Among other changes, the law ends the Graduate PLUS loan program, caps loans for graduate and professional students, and expands the Pell Grant to workforce training programs that run between eight and 15 weeks.

    To revise the regulations, the department is following its lengthy and complicated process known as negotiated rule making, which involves bringing together stakeholders to review proposed changes and then listening to public comment on the plan.

    One group, which the department is calling the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee, will focus on the student loan regulations, including creating new repayment plans and giving colleges the ability to limit how much students can borrow. The RISE Committee will meet twice in September and November for week-long sessions to negotiate policy revisions. If the committee doesn’t reach a consensus, the department is free to move forward with its own proposal, which would still be subject to public comment.

    The other policy changes in the law will fall to the other panel, known as the Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) Committee. That includes implementing the new earnings test, which requires programs to prove their graduates earn more than an adult with a high school diploma or risk losing their access to student loans, as well as revising the eligibility criteria for Pell grants to exclude students who get a full ride. The AHEAD committee will meet in December and January for week-long sessions.

    Both committees will include student borrowers, legal assistance organizations and representatives from various types of institutions, among other stakeholder groups. None specifically include the financial aid administrations who will play a key role in rolling out these changes on college campuses.

    To kick off the rule-making process, the department will hold a virtual public hearing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Aug. 7. More information is available on the department’s website.

    Source link

  • Sanders Introduces Bill Requiring $60,000 Minimum Salary for All Public School Teachers

    Sanders Introduces Bill Requiring $60,000 Minimum Salary for All Public School Teachers

    Senator Bernie SandersSenator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation last Thursday requiring all public school teachers to earn at least $60,000 annually, calling America’s teacher pay crisis a “national emergency” during a Capitol Hill town hall with more than 200 educators.

    The Pay Teachers Act, co-sponsored by eight Democratic senators including Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, would establish the first federal mandate for teacher salaries and represents the most ambitious federal intervention in educator compensation in decades.

    “Just four hedge fund managers on Wall Street make more money in a single year than every kindergarten teacher in America combined—over 120,000 teachers,” Sanders said. “No public school teacher in America should make less than $60,000 a year.”

    The legislation comes as schools nationwide face unprecedented staffing shortages, with nearly 200,000 teaching positions either vacant or filled by underqualified educators. According to the bill’s findings, 38% of teachers nationwide earn less than $60,000 annually, with starting teachers averaging $44,530.

    Maria Gonzalez, a third-grade teacher from Arizona who testified at the town hall, said she drives for Uber on weekends and tutors after school to pay rent. 

    “My students ask why I look tired. How do I tell them their teacher can’t afford to live in the community where she teaches?”

    The crisis extends beyond low pay. Twenty-one percent of elementary and middle school teachers’ families rely on public assistance programs including Medicaid, food stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, according to a University of California, Berkeley study cited in the legislation. Additionally, 44% of public school teachers quit within five years, and 17% worked multiple jobs during the 2020-2021 school year.

    The comprehensive bill would cost approximately $400 billion over five years, funded through mandatory appropriations. Beyond the $60,000 minimum salary requirement, the legislation would triple Title I funding, provide teachers with at least $1,000 annually for classroom supplies, and mandate that paraprofessionals and education support staff earn at least $45,000 annually or $30 per hour.

    States would have four years to implement the salary requirements, with extended timelines available for states demonstrating substantial financial need. The bill also includes $50 billion annually for career ladder programs allowing teachers to advance without leaving the classroom.

    The teacher shortage disproportionately affects schools serving students of color and low-income communities, which are four times more likely to employ uncertified teachers than schools with low minority enrollment, according to federal civil rights data cited in the legislation.

    James Williams, a high school mathematics teacher from North Carolina, told the town hall that his salary purchased “a decent life” 15 years ago but now forces him to choose between car repairs and classroom supplies.

    The legislation faces significant political obstacles with Republicans controlling the House. GOP lawmakers have criticized the massive federal spending, while some education policy experts question federal involvement in traditionally state and local compensation decisions.

    Major education unions endorsed the proposal. American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten called it “a crucial federal investment to help sustain the teaching profession,” while National Education Association Vice President Princess Moss praised it as legislation that “invests in our students, educators, and public schools.”

    Sanders criticized recent Republican legislation that he said provides “$900 billion in tax cuts to large, profitable corporations and a $1 trillion tax cut to the top 1%” while cutting over $300 billion in education funding. The Trump administration is also withholding nearly $5.5 billion in congressionally appropriated education funding, according to Sanders and his colleagues.

    “If we can provide over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1% and large corporations, please don’t tell me that we cannot afford to make sure that every teacher in America is paid at least $60,000 a year,” Sanders said.

     

     

    Source link