Tag: Closure

Penn State Closure Plan Prompts Sharp Reactions

As Pennsylvania State University’s Board of Trustees prepares to decide the fate of seven of its 19 Commonwealth Campuses where enrollment has collapsed over a decade, faculty, lawmakers and some board members are questioning the university’s commitment to the state and say administrators haven’t been transparent about their decision-making process.

University administrators say the enrollment numbers alone don’t support keeping open the seven campuses slated to close. Several of those campuses have seen enrollment fall by more than 40 percent since fall 2014.

Penn State’s Board of Trustees met last week in a private executive session but did not vote on the plan. They’re expected to do so Thursday.

President Neeli Bendapudi has made the case for the closures, arguing such actions are necessary, as the university can no longer sustain all of its branch campuses financially amid severe enrollment declines. She proposed closing the Dubois, Fayette, Mont Alto, New Kensington, Shenango, Wilkes-Barre and York campuses. Those campuses enroll almost 3,200 students altogether, the largest of which is Penn State York with 703 students last fall. The smallest is Shenango, which enrolled 309 students in fall 2024.

Now, as the proposal nears the finish line, its fate is up the air and Bendapudi is facing concerns about the process of reaching the seven names.

A ‘Difficult But Necessary’ Plan

University leadership began drawing up those plans in February after a difficult year for higher education across the Keystone State. Four universities in the state shut down (or ended degree programs, as in the case of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts) in 2024. The closures were mostly brought on by enrollment challenges, though some were dogged by concerns about fiscal mismanagement.

University administrators spent the last several months reviewing 12 campuses for possible closure before the list of seven leaked to media outlets last week.

Officials in a 143-page document cast the plan as “difficult but necessary decisions to ensure its long-term sustainability, allowing for continued investment in student success and dynamic learning environments for years to come” amid plunging enrollment and broad demographic challenges.

Officials argued that the seven campuses identified for closure “face overlapping challenges, including enrollment and financial decline, low housing occupancy, and significant maintenance backlog.” They added that “projected low enrollments pose challenges for creating the kind of robust on-campus student experience that is consistent with the Penn State brand” and would require significant investments, including $200 million for facilities alone.

“I believe the recommendation balances our need to adapt to the changing needs of Pennsylvania with compassion for those these decisions affect, both within Penn State and across the commonwealth,” Bendapudi said in a statement when the plan was released.

She added that there is a two-year timeline for closing campuses, so they wouldn’t shut down until the end of the spring 2027 semester.

Now the plan heads to the 36-member Board of Trustees. However, some trustees have openly expressed their opposition to the proposal.

Jay Paterno is one of several board members who have pushed back on the plan, writing an op-ed last month with four other trustees that argued Penn State should explore other options.

In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Paterno criticized the proposal as rushed.

“We’ve been presented with two options. One is the status quo, which everybody knows is not viable and is kind of a straw man. The other option is to close all seven campuses,” he said.

Given that the costs of operating those campuses comprise “less than half of 1 percent of our budget,” Paterno said the board should take more time to explore solutions. He argues that the university has not tried to leverage fundraising to support struggling Commonwealth Campuses and that the administration should slow the process down and reach out to potential donors.

“We’d rather be a year late than a day early,” Paterno said.

He also noted the decision to close campuses is not Penn State’s alone. The university is state-affiliated but not state-owned, which gives it a greater degree of autonomy than fully public institutions. But since the university receives some public funds, it must submit plans to close campuses to the Pennsylvania secretary of education, who must then approve the proposal.

‘A Betrayal’

Faculty have concerns about job losses, what will become of rural student populations and an alleged lack of transparency in the closure process.

One faculty member at Penn State Wilkes-Barre, speaking anonymously due to concerns about retribution, noted, “While most faculty saw this coming, it was heartbreaking to see it in writing.”

They questioned Penn State’s support for its Commonwealth Campuses, arguing that “the decision to decrease funding” to those locations that serve in-state students sends a strong message about where Penn State places its priorities” while it invests heavily in its main campus. They also pointed to renovations at Beaver Stadium projected to cost $700 million.

(That project is believed to be the most expensive renovation in the history of college athletics.)

“The lack of shared governance, transparency, and respect for contributions of faculty to Penn State University makes it easy to see why unionization efforts among faculty are needed,” they wrote, highlighting ongoing efforts by the Penn State Faculty Alliance and SEIU 668 to unionize.

Some state politicians have also panned the plan.

State Senator Michele Brooks, a Republican who represents a district that includes the Shenango campus, told Inside Higher Ed in an emailed statement that she recently met with trustees, who conveyed to her and others “that they feel this has been a deeply flawed process.”

She urged Penn State’s administration and governing board to re-evaluate the decision and to work “with communities on innovative ways to reinvest in these campuses and help them grow.”

Republican state representative Charity Grimm Krupa, who serves a district that includes the Fayette campus slated for closure, accused Penn State of betraying its mission in a fiery statement.

“Shutting down the Fayette campus isn’t about financial responsibility; it’s about walking away from the very students Penn State was created to serve,” Grimm Krupa said last week. “It’s a betrayal of the university’s land-grant mission and a slap in the face of rural communities. Abandoning this campus sends a clear message: if you’re not from a wealthy or urban area, Penn State doesn’t see you as worth the investment. That’s disgraceful, and I urge every trustee to vote no against these closures.”

Source link

May 20, 2025
Limestone University Announces Closure

Limestone University survived the Civil War and the Great Depression, but protracted financial struggles have proven harder to overcome: After nearly 180 years, Limestone will cease operations next week.

Officials announced the closure Tuesday night.

“Words cannot fully express the sorrow we feel in having to share this news,” Limestone president Nathan Copeland said in a statement. “Our students, alumni, faculty, staff, and supporters fought tirelessly to save this historic institution. While the outcome is not what we hoped for, we are forever grateful for the passion, loyalty, and prayers of our Saints family.”

The move follows a tumultuous period for the university. After years of financial challenges, the Board of Trustees was set to decide last week on whether to shift to online-only operations or close altogether. At the last minute it decided to hold off on the decision because a “possible funding source” had emerged.

Limestone was seeking a $6 million infusion to help facilitate the shift to a fully online model. Though the university was able to secure $2.1 million in pledged commitments from almost 200 donors, according to the closure announcement, it ultimately fell well short of the goal, prompting the board to close the private institution in South Carolina.

Now 478 employees will lose their jobs.

The closure comes on the heels of significant enrollment and financial losses. The university enrolled 3,214 students in fall 2014, according to federal data; Limestone recently noted enrollment at around 1,600.

It has also operated for years with substantial budget deficits. The latest audit for the university noted “significant doubt” about Limestone’s ability to remain open, given that it had “suffered recurring significant negative changes in net assets and cash flows from operations” and had “a net deficiency in [unrestricted] net assets.”

Limestone’s board also borrowed heavily from the university’s meager endowment in recent years.

In 2023, the South Carolina attorney general agreed to lift restrictions on Limestone’s endowment to allow the board to increase spending from those funds. As a result, the endowment collapsed in value, falling from $31.5 million at the beginning of fiscal year 2022 to $12.6 million at the end of FY23. Auditors noted that “all endowment funds are underwater” as of last June.

Auditors also expressed skepticism that Limestone would be able to pay off mounting debts.

The university had more than $30 million in outstanding debt in the last fiscal year, including $27.2 million owed to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Limestone’s latest audit shows the university listed its buildings and land as collateral for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and another bank loan.

Auditors also found that Limestone’s “internal controls over financial reporting are informal and lack formal documentation,” and that the university’s accounting department was understaffed.

Despite the abrupt nature of the closure, Limestone officials wrote in Tuesday’s announcement that the university “will proceed with an orderly wind-down process” and help students transfer to other institutions and support faculty and staff with more information to come on those efforts.

Limestone will hold its final commencement on Saturday.

“Our Limestone spirit will endure through the lives of our students and alumni who carry it forward into the world,” Limestone board chair Randall Richardson said in the closure announcement. “Though our doors may close, the impact of Limestone University will live on.”

The closure announcement comes less than a week after St. Andrews University, a private institution in North Carolina, made a similar decision to cease operations due to fiscal issues.

Source link

May 1, 2025
Limestone University may have a ‘lifeline’ to avert closure
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Limestone University may have the “financial lifeline” it needs to avoid shutting down and maintain its in-person courses and operations, its board of trustees said Tuesday. The announcement did not disclose details on the funding source.
- The private Christian institution, in South Carolina, signaled last week it could be forced to close or turn to online-only operations without an immediate cash injection. The board said it has tabled those discussions for now and plans to reconvene no later than April 29.
- However, the 179-year-old university will proceed as though it will be online-only after the semester ends, Limestone President Nathan Copeland said in a statement. “I regret the uncertainty of the situation, but we must be exceptionally cautious,” he added.
Dive Insight:

In a statement, board Chair Randall Richardson was frank about just how deep Limestone’s financial troubles run.

“Last week, we were at the brink of a possible closure or transition to online-only classes,” Richardson said. “Now, we are pausing that discussion so we can wait on more information about a potential financial lifeline.”

Officials offered no details on the financing, saying only that “a possible funding source has surfaced” that could mitigate the university’s current crisis. A university spokesperson declined Wednesday to share more information about the funding source.

Previously, officials said the university would need a $6 million emergency fund to stave off closure and keep its physical campus and activities running.

In the university’s announcement Tuesday, it said the proposed cash infusion would “stabilize operations and give the university the opportunity to pursue long-term solutions that preserve its on-campus identity.”

Richardson said the board was “cautiously optimistic about the future of Limestone,” but added a hedge: “We want to emphasize, this is just a possibility at the current time.”

Limestone attributed its financial woes in part to falling enrollment. Between 2018 and 2023, its fall headcount dropped 27% to 1,782 students, per federal data. The university said Tuesday that enrollment now stands at about 1,600 students.

High costs have also added pressure. The university has faced persistent budget deficits — $9.2 million in fiscal 2024, following an $11.4 million gap in 2023, according to its latest financials.

Limestone has tapped its endowment to fund its operations amid the financial strain. Between fiscal years 2023 and 2024, Limestone’s net assets declined by more than $12 million, to $61 million, as the university ramped spending from its endowment.

In its latest financial statement, the university’s auditors issued a “going concern” warning, indicating they found “substantial doubt” about Limestone’s ability to continue operating over the next year.

For now, Limestone’s uncertain fate remains a predicament for officials, employees and students alike as they try to plan for upcoming semesters — a challenge which the university’s leaders acknowledged.

“We will update everyone as soon as we know more,” Richardson said. “Please be patient and continue to pray for a viable solution to save this historic university.”
Source link
April 23, 2025
After a Closure, Professional Deaths and Rebirths (opinion)
Those of us who have sought a faculty position at a small, private liberal arts college do so knowing that the pay may be lower than at a research institution and that student advising and committee responsibilities are likely to be greater. However, the appeal of small colleges is the close-knit academic community: You can be a part of an academic home where colleagues find deep purpose and meaning in the institution’s teaching-centered mission and enjoy the advantage of smaller classes and more direct contact with students.

However, little of this matters if the institution fails to stay fiscally solvent—a reality that we and many others in this sector are unfortunately facing.

Perhaps those of you reading this are at institutions that may be showing signs of fiscal stress: The buildings are in need of repair, vacant faculty and staff positions are unfilled, and institutional contributions to retirement funds have been reduced. We’ve been there. We were colleagues at the now-closed College of Saint Rose: an early-career assistant professor, a midcareer faculty member and a senior faculty member nearing retirement age, all of us professors of education and teacher educators. We juxtapose the death of the institution with how each of us experienced professional deaths and rebirths into new positions. We hope you heed our warning and find some comfort in our personal journeys.

At the beginning of the 2023–24 academic year, our small private institution, like many institutions, experienced consistently low enrollment. We’d survived two iterations of cuts to programs and faculty within the previous decade. Despite these negative signs, we approached the academic term with a “business as usual” mindset. We applied for grants, worked toward reaffirmation of accreditation and drafted new initiatives.

This all came to a halt the moment the impending closure was leaked to the press.

The announcement of closure was officially communicated at the end of the fall 2023 semester. Instead of the usual joyful conclusion to student teaching, teacher performance assessments and exams, we were drowned in a sea of sadness and stress. While sending distress signals to other institutions, asking them to accept our candidates without hesitation, some institutions were circling the carcass, making empty promises to our students. Faculty were tasked with developing teach-out plans and conducting family outreach for hundreds of students at both the graduate and undergraduate level. We felt as though we were thrust into the role of hospice workers. Our own confusion, heartache and anger had to be ignored for every trip to campus and every interaction with students.

The end was coming. It was time to get our own affairs in order.

In an emergency faculty meeting, the administration asked us not to jump ship despite limited hope and feeble lifelines. The message: The college was to remain open one more semester, and all current employees were needed to support students. Here is how each of us experienced the first and only full faculty meeting regarding the closure:

“I received the news that the college was closing when I was five months pregnant with my second child. During this life experience, you hope that people say ‘congratulations’ and ask how you’re feeling in regards to growing a human; instead, they were walking on eggshells wondering if I’d have a paycheck once I’d created another mouth to feed. As they say, there’s no right time to have a baby, but I for one hoped it was at a time with a stable job and health insurance.”

—Jennifer, early-career faculty member

“I had just submitted my tenure dossier a month before, only to find out the institution would not exist past the next semester. While waiting for my tenure letter, I navigated applications, interviews and the recent passing of a colleague. As the board delayed tenure announcements, I was trying to quickly sort through my options—should I return to K-12, work as a consultant at a private firm or relocate for another professorship? With a son in college, I could not afford to start over.”

—Julienne, midcareer faculty member

“The announcement did not come as a shock to me. I recounted the significant financial cutbacks over the years. I spent 15 years in public schools and more than 20 in higher education. I was within five years of my full benefit age for Social Security, but retirement was not on my mind. I wanted to continue my dedication to scholarly work and shaping new teachers. The pressing concern in my mind was, would I experience age bias when looking for another position?”

—Terri, senior faculty member

At the time of the closure announcement, our questions were personal, but shared common themes. Where will I find work? Will I find work for the next academic year when searches are already underway? Who will hire me with my physical, age, family, etc., limitations? Should I re-enter the PK-12 classroom?

And beyond our personal worries were questions such as, what do I know about teach-out agreements? How do we work with institutions that guarantee our students on-time graduation when the programs are so different? What do we tell our longtime PK-12 partners? How does this impact my work on an IRB-approved study with colleagues? These thoughts were all-consuming, personally and professionally.

The reality for us as faculty was that there were very few open positions in higher education, and fewer yet in our field, our specialization, or our geographic area. Each of us handled this reality differently.

“I cast a wide net applying for government work, consulting jobs, K-12 positions, as well as tenure-track professor positions. I took some temporary government contract work in the interim to boost my salary. I had seven months before I knew unemployment would kick in. I mostly interviewed for higher education positions while teaching course overloads and consulting. I could not tailor my résumé and cover letters for every posting; I simply had no time. Applying for positions was another part-time job, and I did not have the energy to reinvent myself for a post on Indeed or LinkedIn. In the end, I interviewed at several institutions, public and private. I was offered a couple of positions and decided to go with a financially stable public institution, working alongside faculty with whom I’d already bonded. There was an opportunity to grow the program. There was only one catch: I had to decide if I was willing to have a very lengthy commute or move.”

—Julienne, midcareer faculty member

“I had only been in my position as assistant professor for 18 months or so when I was effectively handed my pink slip. That meant I lacked deep-seated roots. It also meant this was the second college I’d be leaving due to financial instability. Yes, I’d come to this position after leaving my previous institution when its financial outlook was too uncertain for me to stay when planning for my family’s future. Upon hearing the news of the closure, I wasn’t casting a wide net in my job search. I was apprehensive about casting a net at all. Well-meaning people offered ideas and suggestions, colleagues in the department shared links to job postings, and the college’s HR department sent around mostly useless links to job boards and resources.”

—Jennifer, early-career faculty member

Each of us is committed to teaching despite the daily realities of the profession. The question for us was never about if we would teach, but instead where and how. We landed new positions, but they have come with new challenges.

“I was offered a position to work at a local college that had adopted one of our closing college’s programs. This was a floating door in the frozen Atlantic, a silver lining. I didn’t have the need, nor the bandwidth, to negotiate. What I’m navigating now, however, is the prospect of starting over, once again.

“My friends from grad school are talking about their tenure reviews while I’m starting my clock anew. Starting over every two years means I’ve focused on getting classes established and acclimating, while regrettably letting scholarship take a back burner. At these teaching-focused institutions, tenure requirements for publications differ, and priorities are aligned with service and teaching. I always thought I had more time.”

—Jennifer, early-career faculty member

“Advocating for yourself is difficult. During negotiations, the new institution offered to honor my newly acquired rank as associate professor, which made the decision for me. However, given that the tenure requirements were different, I still needed to apply for tenure in the near future. Although moving to a new area was not in our family’s immediate plans, we found a house. Instead of a 90-minute commute, I had a 13-minute one—the same as for my old institution.”

—Julienne, midcareer faculty member

“I had to take what I could get. No one was offering my rank. I felt committed to living in my current home, since my children attended the local high school. All of my children are adopted or in foster care; consistency is key for them. I observed my ‘equivalent’ colleagues talk about retirement, adjunct positions, major pay cuts. Throughout my career, as a female, I have always doubted my expertise and found it difficult to say, ‘I’m worth more.’ Self- advocacy has never been my strength.”

—Terri, senior faculty member

One Year Later

We are not without hope. Despite the challenges facing higher education, and teacher-preparation programs in particular, we have each been reinvigorated beyond what we could have imagined.

Jennifer found a tenure-track position at a neighboring private institution and has a beautiful new son. Her advice might speak to other early-career faculty.

“I was once told not to say yes to everything in order to protect my time and energy. This has been sound advice, and I strive for work-life balance. I have benefited, however, from saying yes to some key opportunities. Taking on leadership and collaborative opportunities, such as IRB chair or assessment coordinator, or serving on collegewide committees even when feeling like a novice, have provided personal and professional growth.”

—Jennifer, early-career faculty member

Julienne received a promotion to associate professor just prior to the closure of the former institution. She negotiated with that advanced rank and relocated to a regional public comprehensive institution.

“As new faculty in an unfamiliar area, I am once again forging new relationships with other departments, staff and local school teachers and school officials. In many ways I am starting anew. However, my diverse skill set has served me well. I have extensive experience with online teaching, curriculum design and facilitating professional development, and have kept abreast of instructional technologies. I have turned those prior leadership skills into opportunities for research and program development. I continue to grow and learn from my colleagues.”

—Julienne, midcareer faculty member

Terri was sought by a fully online public comprehensive institution for her knowledge regarding accreditation, assessment and certification. She was granted assistant professor status and is restarting both the rank and tenure process. As the most senior of the authors of this article, her perspective might give reason for hope for other senior faculty.

“As I look back, I think we all failed to recognize how deeply troubled the institution was, how we each lost a bit of our passion and how stressful the work environment was. Now, six months removed and working without those previous stressors, I feel more focused and energetic. I didn’t know that my curiosity regarding online pedagogy, assessment and accreditation might lead me to this new opportunity. Diversification, like an investment portfolio, might serve us all well in academia—especially at small liberal arts institutions.”

—Terri, senior faculty member

We all believe the actions you take now may help you find your next position. So, we provide our limited experience advice below:
- Diversify your academic portfolio. Develop a secondary passion in online pedagogy, accreditation or program assessment. These diversified interests may create new possibilities in policy development, technology or research roles in state government.
- Become involved in and network within professional organizations, including, for teacher educators and state and local teacher-preparation organizations. Meaningful connections are often forged within those networks. Tenure is nice, but diversified interests and a record of leadership in professional activities can go a long way.
- Develop a track record demonstrating a strong work ethic and responsiveness to the learning needs of a diverse student body. Create peer-mentor programs, develop tutoring programs at local schools and help the college provide strong mentorship to students who might be underperforming. It will prove extremely beneficial for others and for you.
- Help your institution become more nimble. Take a direct role in responding to societal changes with urgency; the survival of the institution depends on flexible delivery while staying true to the mission.
As the three of us adjust to our new environments, we wonder why so little research explores the realities of college closure for tenured and tenure-track faculty. We are now considering research that might delve into deeper questions.
1. Do faculty outside our field of teacher education experience the closure of an institution, the employment search and re-employment in similar ways?
2. Has the trend of college closures impacted women in higher education differently and/or disproportionally than our male counterparts?
3. What elements of ageism, sexism, racism, etc., are impacting job searches and negotiating processes for faculty after a closure?
4. Are early-career faculty more likely to experience multiple closures?
5. What impact might multiple closures have on one’s career and identity?
While it is an area of study filled with turmoil, we envision continuing this line of research. We believe many college faculty members might benefit from the collective wisdom of colleagues caught in the same situation. We hope to continue to provide direction and support for our colleagues who might need to find a new academic home.

Jennifer N. Suriano is an assistant professor of education at Siena College. Terri Ward is an assistant professor at Empire State University. Julienne Cuccio Slichko is an associate professor of special education at the State University of New York at Oneonta. All three previously served as faculty at the College of Saint Rose, which closed in 2024.
Source link
April 8, 2025
OfS insight on institutional closure lacks a firm statutory foundation

The Office for Students’ (OfS) insight briefing “Protecting the interests of students when universities and colleges close” is as much a timely reminder of where the law falls short when providers are at risk of closure as it is a briefing on how to protect the student interest under the current policy framework.

As we set out in our Connect more report which explored, among other things, the legal framework for institutional insolvency, market exit and/or merger, the role of OfS in any institution at risk situation is already unhelpfully ambiguous. Its concern may be the student interest, but it is not empowered to prevent institutional closure (even if, as is often likely to be the case, the student interest would be best served by completing the course they registered for at the institution they enrolled in) – or even to impose order on a disorderly market exit.

In the absence of express powers or an insolvency or special administration regime for higher education, OfS’ role becomes one of a point person, facilitating conversations with other agencies and stakeholders, but with no powers itself to prevent a disorderly closure. The tone of the briefing is collaborative and collegiate but, in a world where students are no better protected than any other unsecured creditor if a provider becomes insolvent, it’s doubtful that, under the law as it currently stands, the interests of students will be protected to the degree to which OfS desires.

While OfS may be primarily concerned with protecting students’ interests, the trustees of those providers that are constituted as charities have a statutory duty to act in the best interests of the charity and to pursue their charity’s purposes. This duty will, of course, encompass the needs of present students but will also encompass past students, future students, research activities and much more besides. While no one would disagree with the general sentiment that “throughout the process [of institutional closure] the interests of students, and their options for continued study, must be kept in mind” – and the briefing does offer lots of useful ideas for how to ensure sufficient attention is given to the many types of students who will be affected – the elevation of student interest to a pre-eminent concern is not what the law generally, nor what OfS’ statutory duties currently require.

University executive teams and boards may wish, therefore, to read OfS guidance in light of these realities, and be aware of the limits of what is realistically possible or likely to occur in giving consideration to the sort of scenario planning and preparation OfS advocates in the briefing.

A herd of elephants

OfS’ recommendations about the need to have suitably durable and maintained student records and to have entered into binding contracts with validating and subcontracting partners that contain clauses that deal realistically with the end of the relationship and contain adequate data sharing agreements clauses are all well made.

But once things actually start to get tricky in real life there is a level of reliance on transparency, for example, in sharing information both with OfS but also with other organisations such as funding or regulatory bodies, or government departments, or even other institutions who might be prevailed upon to welcome displaced students. In the absence of a systematised notification process, any ambiguity about whose role it is to liaise with the various potentially affected stakeholders or the timing of any such communication has high potential to create problems. There are obvious issues raised by disclosing or revealing another institution’s “at risk” status, some of which may have the effect of accelerating the very process everyone is seeking to avoid.

If OfS considers a registered institution is at risk of closure, it can impose a student protection direction under condition C4 of the conditions of registration. The briefing provides a helpful reminder of what a student protection direction might include and encourages regular thought about these issues to avoid the need for a provider to “improvise at speed and under stress if an institutional closure becomes possible.” That sounds very laudable at first glance, but it confuses the regulatory obligation with the real-world outcome. A provider at risk of closure may well come under pressure from OfS to produce a market exit plan and to map courses at a time when university teams have the least bandwidth to undertake such tasks. In any case, it is highly doubtful whether an insolvency practitioner would be bound by such planning in the event that a provider goes into an insolvency process.

In scenario planning, OfS moots the idea that higher education providers might consider setting up “agreements in principle” with other institutions “to take on relevant students if one or the other closes” or even “possibly multiple agreements, for different courses and subjects.” It is surprising not to see competition law mentioned in this context. The higher education sector contains a broad range of institution types, with varied teaching and delivery methods, attracting students with different needs and expectations as regards learning and study.

This means that in practice the providers that pair up to take on one another’s students in the event of institutional failure will need to be similar types of provider – precisely those that are in competition for students in the first place. As Kate Newman has argued in an article on the impact of competition law on higher education collaboration, it would be helpful if OfS and the Competition and Markets Authority could jointly consider these kinds of circumstances for the sector as a whole rather than providers having to navigate this complex legal territory on an individual basis.

We’re also concerned that any such “agreement in principle” will not be legally binding and will have been reached at a single point in time, when conditions may be quite different to the time when the institutions seek to rely on them. There is a very real risk that unless these agreements are refreshed annually (a time consuming and potentially collusive activity) they will turn out to be like the original student protection plans in being not terribly helpful.

A sector like no other

In issuing its briefing OfS argues that “this sort of risk and contingency planning is normal in other regulated sectors,” citing the examples of customer supply contingency plans for energy suppliers and the need for banks to have recovery and resolution plans. However, both of these sectors have highly developed insolvency regimes. Drafting recovery and resolution plans is much easier to achieve when there is a viable insolvency process in place. Both the energy and banking sectors have special administration processes in place and there has been much recent press coverage on the water sector special administration process, in light of Thames Water’s difficulties.

OfS encourages institutions to undertake extensive course mapping. However, given the scale of the financial pressures facing the sector, it’s doubtful how valuable such course mapping is likely to be where potential recipient institutions are perhaps equally likely to be at risk of closure. To be fair to OfS, the briefing stresses that mapping is particularly relevant for those institutions that offer specialist provision.

And here, of course, lies the essential problem. As OfS states: “We have drawn on our experience of managing two relevant cases at small and specialist higher education providers during the past year, and of instances where there was a serious risk of a closure which did not materialise.” The counterfactual – closure of a large and generalist provider which does materialise – remains the biggest elephant in the room. While OfS’ openness in sharing its insights is to be welcomed, it does nothing to diminish the need for urgent structural change.

Source link

April 5, 2025
House Democrats push for Education Department closure transparency
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Democrats on the House Education and Workforce Committee introduced a resolution on Friday calling for transparency and information from the Trump administration and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon on their efforts to shutter the U.S. Department of Education.
- Specifically, the resolution requests unredacted copies of all documents from the administration that refer to the Education Department’s closure, including decisions around workforce reductions and those that could affect the agency’s ability to carry out education laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
- The resolution will be taken to the House floor for a vote if the Education and Workforce Committee, led by Chair Tim Walberg, R-Mich., does not adopt it within 14 legislative days.
Dive Insight:

The resolution’s introduction comes one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing McMahon to close the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

“Abolishing a federal agency requires an Act of Congress,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in a Friday statement. “President Trump’s executive order has little regard for the irreparable harm it will cause to students, educators, our future workforce, and parents, who are already struggling.”

After the Trump administration announced massive layoffs that cut the Education Department’s workforce in half earlier this month, the agency has denied that its key functions would be impacted.

“Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs,” said McMahon in a Thursday statement praising the executive order.

Additionally, Trump said before signing Thursday’s executive order that he plans to redistribute the department’s primary responsibilities to other parts of the government. That includes Pell Grants, Title I funding and resources for students with disabilities, he said.

The resolution introduced Friday appears to be part of a broader effort by Democrats in the House and Senate to challenge and seek more information over the slew of changes being made to the Education Department.

On March 17, leading Democrats on the congressional appropriations committees demanded details on the Education Department’s mass layoffs in a letter to the agency. The requested information included details on the number of staff terminated in each office and the expected savings from the staffing cuts.
Source link
March 21, 2025
Trump Signs Executive Order Directing Closure of the Department of Education

by CUPA-HR | March 20, 2025

On March 20, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” The order directs the secretary of education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

The order additionally states that the secretary of education “shall ensure that the allocation of any Federal Department of Education funds is subject to rigorous compliance with Federal law and Administration policy.” According to the order, this includes compliance with federal requirements to terminate “illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’” and to terminate programs that promote gender ideology.

With respect to higher education, the executive order asserts that closure of the ED “would drastically improve program implementation.” It specifically discusses ED’s role in managing the federal student loan debt portfolio, and it claims that ED “is not a bank, and it must return bank functions to an entity equipped to serve America’s students.”

It is still unknown how Secretary McMahon will execute this order. Despite Trump’s clear intentions to close ED, Congress would still need to pass legislation to officially dissolve the department. It remains to be seen whether McMahon and the Trump administration will move ED’s subagencies and their functions to other federal agencies as speculated.

More information is needed from ED to understand how this order will be implemented. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for additional news and guidance from ED as it relates to the order.

Share This Article:

Source link

March 20, 2025