Tag: board

  • Minneapolis School Board Signals Potential School Closures – The 74

    Minneapolis School Board Signals Potential School Closures – The 74


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

    The Minneapolis school board has formally asked Superintendent Dr. Lisa Sayles-Adams for information that could lead to school closures. They passed a resolution to the effect at a recent meeting.

    The board first drafted the directive —which asks for an initial report to the board by April 2026 — at two day-long meetings in June and August. The planning follows years of discussion about closing schools in a district with 29,000 students but the capacity for 42,000 and thus a bevy of half-empty schools.

    Even as enrollment declines at a school building, the fixed expenses for building staff — like principals, secretaries, nurses, librarians, culinary workers, custodians and social workers — stay the same or go up. With so many buildings below capacity, a big portion of each Minneapolis student’s funding has to go toward covering these fixed building-level costs, draining money away from instruction and extracurricular activities.

    The board resolution comprises topics for district administrators to investigate, including efficient use of current buildings, potential changes to magnet programs, and ways to increase enrollment in the district.

    Years-long discussion about the financial burden of operating small enrollment schools

    The process for downsizing the district’s footprint has been long and circuitous.

    In October 2022, the district prepared a comprehensive financial assessment forecasting that without significant cost cutting, the district would end up draining its reserves, while expenses would exceed revenues by the end of fiscal year 2026. The district has avoided that fate by cutting services and raising class sizes, but it is still unable to balance its budget without relying on reserves and other one-time funds.

    The 2022 memo did not prescribe closing schools, but it did present an analysis showing enrollment growth alone could not overcome the district’s structural inefficiencies resulting from operating many schools with small enrollments. At the time of the analysis, Anoka-Hennepin was operating 37 school buildings while enrolling about 37,000 students. Minneapolis was operating 61 buildings while enrolling about 29,000 students. Minneapolis had about half as many students per building as Anoka-Hennepin.

    The board first publicly discussed reducing the number of schools in March 2023, when then-board Chair Sharon El-Amin asked Rochelle Cox, the then-interim superintendent, to develop a draft plan for “school transformation.” Neither Cox nor the board took action.

    Two months before current Superintendent Dr. Lisa Sayles-Adams started at the district in early 2024, the School Board passed a “transformation resolution” that directed the district to do an accounting of physical space but stopped short of calling for a timeline on school closures.

    Sayle-Adams promised to tackle “right-sizing” the district after passing a budget in June 2024, because, she said, the community asked her to address the issue.

    Low enrollment schools require more funding per student for building-level staff

    The district is contending with rising costs and operating a significant number of small buildings, as well as buildings operating below capacity. Given the rising fixed costs of operating these buildings, that leaves less money for everything else, from class size reduction to teacher pay and programs commonly found in most school districts like world languages, art, music and athletics.

    Across the district, as building-level enrollment has declined, students have lost access to services like academic support if they’re struggling; staff to address student behavior; and community liaisons to help parents connect with schools. Small elementary schools have difficulty funding full-time positions for electives like art, music and gym, while hiring part-time staff for these positions is challenging. Some elementary students have gone without these electives, or only have music or art for part of the school year.

    Enrollment declines at middle and high schools have meant fewer elective options, like world languages, dance, theater and orchestra, as well as extracurriculars. Students also lose access to advanced coursework — like AP or IB classes — when there are too few students in the school who want to enroll. Many of the district’s high schools are now sharing athletic teams because individual schools lack enough students and funding to support a robust athletics program.

    The decline in services drives some families to schools outside the district that have the services and programs they desire, compounding the enrollment declines.

    Declines in enrollment mitigated by new-to-country students

    Minneapolis Public Schools lost about 15% of its enrollment in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to a combination of factors including implementing a controversial plan redrawing school boundaries, and keeping its schools closed longer during the pandemic than any other Minnesota district, which was followed in March 2022 by a three week educator strike.

    The district has enjoyed a small enrollment increase both last year and this year. Although the district does not track the immigration status of students, the increase has been attributed almost entirely to students newly arrived to the United States from Central America. Since the 2021-22 school year, English learner students have increased from 17% of the district’s students to 23% in the 2024-25 school year, according to Minnesota Department of Education data.

    This year, the district expects to spend at least $17 million more on English learner services than it receives in funding from state and federal sources. Although the Legislature increased state aid for English learners during the 2023 legislative session, the district’s funding is insufficient to cover the cost of providing the intensive services needed by students with the lowest levels of English proficiency.

    Many of the newcomer students are also unhoused, which has led to growing costs for the district to transport students from shelters outside district boundaries, as required under the federal McKinney-Vento law. The state has started to pay the cost of this transportation under a law passed in 2023.

    It is not clear whether changes to federal immigration policy will impact the district’s ability to continue to rely on newcomers to stabilize or grow enrollment in the future.

    Future enrollment expected to decline, limiting district’s funding

    Hazel Reinhardt, a demographer hired by the district, says enrollment is likely to continue to decline in the coming years because of lower birth rates, fewer families choosing to raise children in the city, and the state’s favorable laws around charter schools and open enrollment, allowing parents to send their children to St. Paul or suburban schools.

    Reinhardt told the board in June that once parents leave for charter and private schools or open enrollment options, “precious few” districts are able to bring them back.

    Most of the district’s funding is based on enrollment, so declining enrollment has created a ballooning fiscal crisis. Growing costs for both labor and services have outpaced increases in state and local funding.

    The district continues to cut services, increase class sizes and pull from its dwindling reserve funds to balance its annual budget. The district is expected to use $25 million from its reserves this school year after using $85 million from reserves last school year.

    The district’s enrollment woes and related financial distress are not unique to Minneapolis, with similar challenges facing large urban districts like Oakland, San Francisco, Denver, Seattle and Portland. Denver and Oakland have closed a small number of schools in recent years, but not enough to stabilize district finances. And school boards in Seattle and San Francisco have walked away from closure plans after significant public pressure, leaving both districts with growing budget deficits.

    Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: [email protected].


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Community College of Philadelphia Names Dr. Alycia Marshall as Seventh President Following Board Action

    Community College of Philadelphia Names Dr. Alycia Marshall as Seventh President Following Board Action

    Dr. Alycia MarshallCommunity College of PhiladelphiaThe Community College of Philadelphia Board of Trustees has announced the appointment of Dr. Alycia Marshall as the institution’s new president.  Marshall’s selection comes after the Board’s decision to remove Dr. Donald “Guy” Generals from the presidency.

    “As Chair of the Board of Trustees, I am proud to officially welcome Dr. Alycia Marshall as the seventh president of Community College of Philadelphia,” said Harold T. Epps. “After a nationwide search, it has become evident that Dr. Marshall demonstrates the clear vision and outstanding leadership needed to guide our institution forward. I look forward to continuing to work with Dr. Marshall and to the positive impact she will have on our students, faculty, staff, and the broader community.”

     Marshall has been serving as interim president since Generals’ departure from the college in April. Prior to the interim appointment, she held the position of Provost and Vice President for Academic and Student Success, where she oversaw Academic Affairs, Workforce Development, and Student Support and Engagement.

    “I congratulate Dr. Alycia Marshall on her appointment as President of the Community College of Philadelphia,” said Cherelle Parker, Mayor of Philadelphia. “CCP is a beacon of hope and economic opportunity for our students and for everyone seeking to advance their pathways to better lives. The Parker Administration supports CCP, Dr. Marshall, and the Board in its mission.”

    Marshall brings extensive higher education experience to the presidency. She began her career at Anne Arundel Community College (AACC) in Maryland, where she served as a tenured Full Professor of Mathematics, Department Chair of Mathematics, and Associate Vice President for Learning and Academic Affairs. She holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics Education from the University of Maryland College Park, a Master of Arts degree in Teaching from Bowie State University, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Mathematics from the University of Maryland Baltimore County.

    “Community College of Philadelphia truly feels like home,” said Marshall. “Every day, I witness the extraordinary dedication of our faculty and staff who work tirelessly to ensure our students are supported, challenged, and inspired to succeed. While my time as interim president has deepened my connections with the college community and our external partners, it is my foundation as an educator that will continue to guide me. I am deeply honored to serve as president of The City’s College—a beacon of access, opportunity, and transformation—as we move forward together.”

     

    Source link

  • Lane Community College Board Apologizes to President

    Lane Community College Board Apologizes to President

    The Lane Community College Board of Education apologized to President Stephanie Bulger at its Tuesday meeting for how members disrespected her on the basis of her race and sex, Lookout Eugene-Springfield reported. 

    The board’s apology follows the findings of an investigative report released in August that determined board members were frequently dismissive of Bulger—a Black woman—and often deferred questions to male staff members. The report found that former board chair Zach Mulholland was frequently hostile toward Bulger and often cut her off in their interactions. (He was also found to have physically intimidated a student at a board meeting.) Although Mulholland was censured by the board last month, he has resisted calls to step down.

    Much of the report focused on Mulholland, but other members were also implicated.

    “The board recognizes and is accountable for the harm caused to you, President Bulger,” said Austin Fölnagy, the current board chair, who was also accused of dismissive behavior. “We are deeply sorry for the negative impact our behavior has had on you and the college community at large. President Bulger, please accept the board’s apology for treating you badly.” 

    He added that the board is “committed to learning from our shortcomings” and will take “remedial actions including training in bias, discrimination and harassment” this fiscal year.

    Bulger has been president of the Oregon community college since July 2022.

    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

  • Why Did College Board End Best Admissions Product? (opinion)

    Why Did College Board End Best Admissions Product? (opinion)

    Earlier this month, College Board announced its decision to kill Landscape, a race-neutral tool that allowed admissions readers to better understand a student’s context for opportunity. After an awkward 2019 rollout as the “Adversity Score,” Landscape gradually gained traction in many selective admissions offices. Among other items, the dashboard provided information on the applicant’s high school, including the economic makeup of their high school class, participation trends for Advanced Placement courses and the school’s percentile SAT scores, as well as information about the local community.

    Landscape was one of the more extensively studied interventions in the world of college admissions, reflecting how providing more information about an applicant’s circumstances can boost the likelihood of a low-income student being admitted. Admissions officers lack high-quality, detailed information on the high school environment for an estimated 25 percent of applicants, a trend that disproportionately disadvantages low-income students. Landscape helped fill that critical gap.

    While not every admissions office used it, Landscape was fairly popular within pockets of the admissions community, as it provided a more standardized, consistent way for admissions readers to understand an applicant’s environment. So why did College Board decide to ax it? In its statement on the decision, College Board noted that “federal and state policy continues to evolve around how institutions use demographic and geographic information in admissions.” The statement seems to be referring to the Trump administration’s nonbinding guidance that institutions should not use geographic targeting as a proxy for race in admissions.

    If College Board was worried that somehow people were using the tool as a proxy for race (and they weren’t), well, it wasn’t a very good one. In the most comprehensive study of Landscape being used on the ground, researchers found that it didn’t do anything to increase racial/ethnic diversity in admissions. Things are different when it comes to economic diversity. Use of Landscape is linked with a boost in the likelihood of admission for low-income students. As such, it was a helpful tool given the continued underrepresentation of low-income students at selective institutions.

    Still, no study to date found that Landscape had any effect on racial/ethnic diversity. The findings are unsurprising. After all, Landscape was, to quote College Board, “intentionally developed without the use or consideration of data on race or ethnicity.” If you look at the laundry list of items included in Landscape, absent are items like the racial/ethnic demographics of the high school, neighborhood or community.

    While race and class are correlated, they certainly aren’t interchangeable. Admissions officers weren’t using Landscape as a proxy for race; they were using it to compare a student’s SAT score or AP course load to those of their high school classmates. Ivy League institutions that have gone back to requiring SAT/ACT scores have stressed the importance of evaluating test scores in the student’s high school context. Eliminating Landscape makes it harder to do so.

    An important consideration: Even if using Landscape were linked with increased racial/ethnic diversity, its usage would not violate the law. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear the case Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board. In declining to hear the case, the court has likely issued a tacit blessing on race-neutral methods to advance diversity in admissions. The decision leaves the Fourth Circuit opinion, which affirmed the race-neutral admissions policy used to boost diversity at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, intact.

    The court also recognized the validity of race-neutral methods to pursue diversity in the 1989 case J.A. Croson v. City of Richmond. In a concurring opinion filed in Students for Fair Admission (SFFA) v. Harvard, Justice Brett Kavanaugh quoted Justice Antonin Scalia’s words from Croson: “And governments and universities still ‘can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.’”

    College Board’s decision to ditch Landscape sends an incredibly problematic message: that tools to pursue diversity, even economic diversity, aren’t worth defending due to the fear of litigation. If a giant like College Board won’t stand behind its own perfectly legal effort to support diversity, what kind of message does that send? Regardless, colleges and universities need to remember their commitments to diversity, both racial and economic. Yes, post-SFFA, race-conscious admissions has been considerably restricted. Still, despite the bluster of the Trump administration, most tools commonly used to expand access remain legal.

    The decision to kill Landscape is incredibly disappointing, both pragmatically and symbolically. It’s a loss for efforts to broaden economic diversity at elite institutions, yet another casualty in the Trump administration’s assault on diversity. Even if the College Board has decided to abandon Landscape, institutions must not forget their obligations to make higher education more accessible to low-income students of all races and ethnicities.

    Source link

  • College Board Ends Tool to Share Geographic Context With Colleges

    College Board Ends Tool to Share Geographic Context With Colleges

    Landscape, a College Board tool for providing colleges with information about the educational environment of an applicant’s high school and neighborhood based on publicly available information, has been discontinued, the organization announced this week.

    “As federal and state policy continues to evolve around how institutions use demographic and geographic information in admissions, we are making a change to ensure our work continues to effectively serve students and institutions,” College Board wrote in the short announcement.

    Geographic recruitment has come under fire from the Trump administration. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, in a memo declaring various diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives unconstitutional, said that recruiting from specific areas or neighborhoods could be unlawful when it’s being done as a proxy for race. Experts have said that doing so is not a standard practice for universities.

    Jon Boeckenstedt, a longtime enrollment manager, criticized the decision to discontinue Landscape in a post on LinkedIn.

    “I’m no fan of College Board of course … but I thought Landscape was a good and thoughtful product,” he wrote. “Now, it’s going away. You don’t have to be Wile E. Coyote to figure out why. Someone in DC has suggested it’s too close to ‘race based admissions’ (a thing that does not exist) and ‘it’d be a shame if something happened to your company.’ Or their lawyers rolled over voluntarily.”

    Edward Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, the group that successfully challenged affirmative action at the Supreme Court, lauded the decision.

    “Since the 2023 Supreme Court opinion in our Harvard and UNC cases, Students for Fair Admissions raised has concerns that Landscape was little more than a disguised proxy for race in the admissions process. We are gratified that this problematic tool will no longer be used to influence who is and who is not admitted to America’s colleges and universities,” he wrote in a statement. “This decision represents another important step toward ensuring that all students are treated as individuals, not as representatives of a racial or ethnic group.”

    Source link

  • George Mason University’s board looks to negotiate with Trump administration

    George Mason University’s board looks to negotiate with Trump administration

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

    Dive Brief:

    • George Mason University’s governing board said late last week that it wants to negotiate with the Trump administration to resolve allegations that it violated civil rights law. 
    • In late August, the U.S. Department of Education alleged that George Mason has illegally used race and other protected characteristics in hiring and promotions, a conclusion reached just six weeks after the agency announced a probe into the university. 
    • An attorney for university President Gregory Washington, who is at the center of the probe, has repudiated the agency’s allegations, describing them as “a legal fiction.” Washington’s attorney will also be involved in talks with the Education Department, according to the board’s statement.

    Dive Insight:

    Over a period of weeks this summer, the Trump administration ramped up pressure on George Mason. The departments of Education and Justice opened at least four probes between them into the university, often citing comment from Washington in support of diversity initiatives.

    Washington’s attorney, Douglas Gansler, took the Education Department to task for how quickly it determined George Mason violated the law.

    “It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and ‘findings’ have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process, including only two interviews with university academic deans,” Gansler wrote.

    The attorney also described some of the evidence cited by the Education Department as “gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington” that didn’t lead to policy changes. 

    For example, when the Education Department concluded that George Mason violated civil rights law, it linked to a statement Washington made in 2021 in support of having faculty reflect the diversity of the student body and broader community. The department took the statement as expressing “support for racial preferencing” in hiring. 

    But, as Gansler highlighted, Washington specifically said in the statement that the diversity principles he was promoting were “not code for establishing a quota system.”

    Gansler also warned the university’s board against requiring Washington to apologize, which was among the demands made by the Education Department. The lawyer pointed out that such an apology could open the university up to liability.

    Through all of this, George Mason’s board of visitors — headed by Charles Stimson, who holds leadership positions at The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank — has been relatively quiet. 

    To represent it in dealings with the Trump administration, the board hired Torridon Law, which was co-founded by William Barr, formerly U.S. attorney general during the first Trump administration. The firm also has several prominent Republican lawyers on staff. 

    In July, the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors voted no confidence in the board and called its response to the Trump administration’s actions to that point “inadequate and deeply troubling.”

    And yet, in August — at a meeting that the AAUP chapter warned could set the stage for Washington’s ouster — George Mason’s board voted to give the leader a raise. 

    Since then, Democrat members of a Virginia Senate committee have blocked six appointees to George Mason’s board picked by the state’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin. The move has left the board of visitors without a quorum for conducting official business. 

    In announcing plans to negotiate with the Education Department, the board said Friday that it “remains committed to ensuring that George Mason complies with all federal civil rights law and remains hopeful that a favorable resolution can be reached.”

    George Mason is just the latest in an expanding set of colleges targeted by the Trump administration over allegations related to racial preferencing, campus antisemitism and policies supporting transgender student athletes. 

    Some universities, including Columbia and Brown, have paid hefty sums to settle allegations and have at least some of their federal research funding restored. The administration is also seeking some $500 million from Harvard University and $1 billion from the University of California, Los Angeles.

    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

  • Iowa board reworks anti-DEI course policy proposal following pushback

    Iowa board reworks anti-DEI course policy proposal following pushback

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The Iowa Board of Regents has removed references to “critical race theory” and “diversity, equity and inclusion” from a controversial proposal to limit what courses the state’s three public universities can require. The regents plan to vote on the issue during a special meeting on Tuesday.
    • Under the original proposal, academic programs would not have been able to require students to take classes containing “substantial content that conveys DEI or CRT.” Universities that wanted an exemption would have had to gain board approval every other year.
    • Following public pushback, the board reworked the proposal to state that “faculty may teach controversial subjects” when relevant to course content, but they are expected to “present coursework in a way that reflects the range of scholarly views and ongoing debate in the field.” The revision also leaves the board the option to “periodically” review the universities’ compliance.

    Dive Insight:

    The Iowa Board of Regents — which oversees the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa — has so far delayed the vote on the proposal twice, last postponing the decision at its July 30 meeting. 

    The original language included extensive examples of DEI topics that would have been restricted, including anti-racism, “transgender ideology,” systemic oppression, and unconscious or implicit bias.

    “One of the primary reasons we are not taking up the DEI/CRT policy is that the discussions on how to best implement the ideas that were brought forward are still ongoing,” Board President Sherry Bates said in prepared remarks, citing responses from the community. “It has become clear that we would be better served by something more comprehensive.”

    Much of the local response has been negative.

    Five Iowa educator advocacy groups joined together to form the Iowa Higher Education Coalition to oppose the policy and launched a petition “to urge the Iowa Board of Regents to firmly reject efforts to restrict what students can learn.” The petition, which does not address the updated policy, had garnered 470 signatures as of Friday afternoon.

    The faculty union at the University of Northern Iowa, one of the members of the coalition, voiced opposition at the board’s June meeting, when it was first scheduled to vote on the proposal.

    “There is no middle position, no position of slight appeasement,” United Faculty President Christopher Martin told board members at the meeting. “Either you stand for free expression at Iowa’s universities or you don’t. And God help Iowa, its public universities and all the citizens of this state if you don’t.”

    Martin said that the proposal came from two out-of-state think tanks’  generic recommendations, and he alleged that it runs contrary to state law.

    Since that meeting, the board has reworked the language significantly.

    “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 said.

    Regardless of how the board votes next week, the Iowa Legislature may step in.

    State Rep. Taylor Collins, chair of the Legislature’s newly created Higher Education Committee and an avid opponent of DEI efforts, voiced support for the board’s original policy proposal last month.

    “If this policy is not adopted, the House Committee on Higher Education stands ready to act,” he said on social media after the board delayed a vote on the policy for the second time.

    Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill in May 2024 that prohibits public universities from maintaining or funding DEI offices or from officially weighing in on a wide array of issues. The list includes allyship, cultural appropriation, systemic oppression, social justice, racial privilege or “any related formulation” of the listed topics. 

    The law prompted PEN America, a free expression advocacy group, to include Iowa on its yearly list of states that enacted “educational gag orders.”

    The board of regents has also moved to limit diversity work on campus. In 2023, it ordered the universities under its purview to cut all campuswide DEI efforts not required to comply with the law or accreditation standards.

    Source link

  • University of Utah board moves to cut 81 academic programs

    University of Utah board moves to cut 81 academic programs

    Dive Brief: 

    • The University of Utah’s trustee board approved plans Tuesday to discontinue 81 courses and degree programs in response to a new state law ordering public colleges to cut funding for certain academic offerings and administrative functions and invest in high-demand fields. 
    • The programs up for elimination range from a bachelor’s in chemistry teaching to a Ph.D. in theater. Most of them are graduate programs, and about one-quarter are in the university’s humanities college. The programs can be discontinued once the Utah System of Higher Education and state lawmakers sign off on the plan, according to a Tuesday announcement from the university. 
    • Each of the programs graduated at most one student over the past eight years, Richard Preiss, president of the university’s Academic Senate, said in a July 22 letter to the board. Students in affected programs will either be given pathways to complete their studies or referred to “academically appropriate alternatives,” the university said. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Earlier this year, Utah lawmakers cut 10% from the instruction budgets for each of the state’s eight public colleges, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. The cuts amounted to $60.5 million, with University of Utah facing the largest budget reduction of $19.6 million. 

    To reclaim the funding, the legislation orders colleges to craft three-year plans for cutting certain academic programs and administrative expenses and redirecting the money to high-demand programs. 

    In guidance released earlier this year, the Utah System of Higher Education said the funds could be reinvested in programs that meet the state’s workforce needs, lead to high-wage careers, teach students “durable skills” such as critical thinking and problem-solving, or focus on services to increase student retention. 

    The law came on the heels of a 2024 legislative audit that said the state’s public universities were losing students to “private non-traditional” colleges, such as Western Governors University, a large online institution. The audit also found that university leaders largely weren’t able to calculate program-level data about costs, enrollment and completion rates. 

    “Because institutions currently lack metrics required to calculate program-level efficiencies — including returns on investment — presidents are unable to fully understand the degree to which programs maximize their use of student and taxpayer resources,” the audit stated. 

    The University of Utah submitted a draft of its three-year plan to the state’s higher education board in May. 

    Under the plan, the university said it would cut $7.5 million from its fiscal 2026 budget— including reductions in academic support services and administrative costs — and reallocate that money to instruction aligned with the state’s workforce needs. 

    The university said it plans to devote more money to instruction in engineering, artificial intelligence, nursing, biotechnology and behavioral health, as well as to provide more support for general education about civic engagement. 

    Utah lawmakers aren’t the only ones ordering public colleges to shed certain programs. Six of Indiana’s public institutions are moving to either cut or consolidate over 400 programs to comply with a new state law aiming to end academic offerings that award low numbers of degrees. 

    The impacted programs account for 19% of all degree offerings at Indiana’s public colleges.

    Source link