Tag: concerns

  • Trump’s Deportation Campaign Raises FAFSA Privacy Concerns

    Trump’s Deportation Campaign Raises FAFSA Privacy Concerns

    NCAN said mixed-status families must make their own decision regarding whether they feel comfortable filling out the FAFSA.

    College access organizations are raising concerns about students from mixed-status families—families with members who hold different immigration statuses—who are filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid amid the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.

    “Although the Higher Education Act prohibits the use of data for any purpose other than determining and awarding federal financial assistance, [the National College Attainment Network] cannot assure mixed-status students and families that data submitted to US Department of Education (ED), as part of the FAFSA process, will continue to be protected,” NCAN, which represents college access organizations across the nation, wrote in new guidance.

    The organization added that the Office of Federal Student Aid has said the Education Department won’t share information that breaks the law.

    But “we understand many families’ confidence in this statement may not be as certain under the current administration,” the organization continued. The post advised families to consider whether to submit a FAFSA on a “case-by-case basis.”

    The organization had previously published similar guidance before President Donald Trump even took office but updated it after the 2026–27 FAFSA opened late last month. Zenia Henderson, chief program officer for NCAN, said the organization has received a slew of questions about the security of the personal information entered into the FAFSA, and many of its member organizations are reporting that some of the families they work with are forgoing the FAFSA out of fear.

    Previously, the Trump administration has sought to use personal data from other agencies to assist in its deportation efforts, including requesting state voter rolls, public housing data, tax information and records of who applied for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Federal courts have blocked some of these requests.

    The Trump administration has also attacked programs and initiatives that help undocumented students themselves access higher education. The administration has demanded states stop offering in-state tuition to undocumented students and has attempted to eliminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects from deportation certain undocumented individuals who were brought to the country as children and has opened the door to higher education for this group.

    Other experts and advocacy groups agreed that there is cause for concern among mixed-status families.

    “Concerns are very much warranted in light of how cross-agency collaboration has been weaponized against immigrant families in recent months—including but not limited to the ostensible collusion between the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to vacate active asylum cases when parents and children are lawfully appearing in immigration court, so that they can be apprehended on the premises by immigration enforcement and placed in detention,” wrote Faisal Al-Juburi, chief external affairs officer for RAICES, a nonprofit immigrant law center in Texas, in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “There is simply no indication that the Trump administration will adhere to legal precedent.”

    Will Davies, director of policy and research for Breakthrough Central Texas, a college access organization, noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed that, even though the Trump administration’s immigration attacks have been especially worrying for mixed-status families, such families have long had to make difficult decisions about when to submit personal information to the government.

    He also noted that FAFSA data is protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and said that, to his knowledge, no undocumented parent has ever been targeted using FAFSA data.

    Cutting Off Access

    For many families, the choice is not as clear-cut as simply not filling out the FAFSA. Most institutions and states calculate their financial aid offerings using the FAFSA’s formula and require students to fill out the FAFSA to take advantage of that aid. If mixed-status families do not complete the FAFSA, they are essentially cutting themselves off from almost all sources of assistance in paying for college.

    “It has the potential to close a lot of doors in terms of accessing aid that’s needed, from last-dollar scholarships to merit-based scholarships,” Henderson said. “There are so many folks that ask for FAFSA information and that [the] application be competed in order to check eligibility, because they may not have their own systems or processes in place. FAFSA really is the default way to prove need.”

    Three states—California, New York and Washington—have developed their own financial need calculation tools for individuals who want to be considered only for state and local aid. All three address privacy concerns, stating specifically that the data will not be provided to the federal government without a court order.

    “The opportunity to pursue an education is highly valued, and financial aid is the only way many students can afford college or training,” the Washington Student Achievement Council wrote in a message, released days after Trump entered office, about aid applicant privacy. WSAC administers Washington’s state aid calculator.

    “We sympathize deeply with anyone concerned about their privacy in applying for financial aid, and we support students and families in making decisions that best fit their educational goals and risk considerations. While WSAC cannot provide guidance on what a family should do in a specific situation, we do encourage students, families, educators, and advocates to review the following resources that may provide helpful information.”

    Alison De Lucca, executive director of the Southern California College Attainment Network, told Inside Higher Ed in an email that her organization is working with several families who are uncertain if they will fill out the FAFSA this year; an estimated one in every five individuals under the age of 18 in California comes from a mixed-status family.

    One SoCal CAN student opted to fill out just California’s state aid form, the California Dream Act Application, this year in order to protect her mother—even though she thought she might have benefited from federal aid.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Institutions Raise Concerns About H-1B Visa Fee

    Higher Ed Institutions Raise Concerns About H-1B Visa Fee

    In a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, higher ed institutions say maintaining a consistent flow of international faculty and staff members is critical.

    Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    A number of higher education institutions and the associations that represent them are asking to be exempted from the new $100,000 H-1B visa application fee, saying the prohibitive cost could be detrimental to the recruitment and retention of international faculty, researchers and staff members.

    In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security last week, the American Council on Education argued that such individuals “contribute to groundbreaking research, provide medical services to underserved and vulnerable populations … and enable language study, all of which are vital to U.S. national interests.” Without them, ACE and 31 co-signers said, key jobs in high-demand sectors such as health care, information technology, education and finance will likely go unfilled. 

    The letter came just days after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services launched a new online payment website and provided an updated statement on policies surrounding the fee. UCIS clarified that the fee will apply to any new H-1B petitions filed on or after Sept. 21, and it must be paid before the petition is filed.

    The update also referenced possible “exception[s] from the fee” but said those exceptions would only be granted in an “extraordinarily rare circumstance where the Secretary has determined that a particular alien worker’s presence in the United States as an H-1B worker is in the national interest.”

    ACE said that H-1B visa recipients in higher education certainly meet those standards, citing data from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources that shows that over 70 percent of international employees at colleges and universities hold tenure-track or tenured positions. The top five disciplines they work in are business, engineering, health professions, computer science and physical
    sciences.

    “H-1B visa holders working for institutions of higher education are doing work that is crucial to the U.S. economy and national security,” the letter reads.

    Despite the clarification provided by UCIS, ACE still had several remaining questions about the fee. These included whether the $100,000 would be refunded if a petition was denied and whether individuals seeking a “change of status” from an H-1B to an F-1 or J-1 would still be required to pay the fee.

    At least two lawsuits have been filed against DHS concerning these visa fees. Neither has been issued a ruling so far.

    Source link

  • Advanced Teaching Roles Program Shows Improved Test Scores, but Faces Funding Concerns – The 74

    Advanced Teaching Roles Program Shows Improved Test Scores, but Faces Funding Concerns – The 74


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

    North Carolina’s Advanced Teaching Roles program, which allows highly effective teachers to receive salary supplements for teaching additional students or supporting other teachers, is having positive effects on math and science test scores, according to an evaluation presented by NC State University’s Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at the State Board of Education meeting last week.

    Since 2016, the ATR initiative has allowed districts to create new career pathways and provide salary supplements for highly effective teachers — or Advanced Teachers — who mentor and support other educators while still teaching part of the day. Their roles include Adult Leadership teachers, who lead small teams and receive at least $10,000 supplements, and Classroom Excellence teachers, who take on larger student loads and receive a minimum of $3,000 supplements. 

    Those in adult leadership roles teach for at least 30% of the day, lead a team of 3-8 classroom teachers, and share responsibility for the performance of all those teachers’ students. Classroom excellence teachers are responsible for at least 20% more students than before they enter the role.

    “Our ATR program was designed to allow highly effective classroom educators to reach more students and to support the professional growth of educators,” said Dr. Callie Edwards, the program’s lead evaluator, at the State Board of Education meeting last Wednesday. “ATR aims to improve the quality of classroom instruction, the recruitment and retention of teachers, as well as ultimately impact student academic achievement.”

    In the 2024-25 school year, 26 districts operated ATR programs across 400 schools — 56% of which were elementary schools — employing 1,494 Advanced Teachers who supported nearly 4,000 classroom teachers statewide, according to the evaluation. Edwards said that 88% of Adult Leadership teachers received at least $10,000, and 85% of Classroom Excellence teachers received $3,000 or more.

    Statistical analysis of the 2023-24 school year’s data found that students in ATR schools outperformed their peers in non-ATR schools in math and science, showing statistically significant learning gains. 

    “Across the various programs I’ve evaluated, these are positive results — especially in math and science — where the impact of ATR is equivalent to about a month of extra learning for students,” said Dr. Lam Pham, the leading quantitative evaluator. “The results in ELA are positive but not statistically significant, which has been consistent for the last three years,” Pham said, referring to English Language Arts.

    These effects on math and science grow over time, according to the evaluation. Math scores improved throughout schools’ first six years of ATR implementation — though they are no longer significant by the seventh year of implementation, according to the presentation. For science scores, statistically significant gains began in the fifth year after schools began implementing ATR.

    Additionally, math teachers in ATR schools reported higher EVAAS growth scores than their peers in comparable schools.

    Teachers in ATR schools also reported feeling like they have more time to do their work compared to teachers in non-ATR schools.

    This year’s report featured data on teachers supported by ATR teachers for the first time. The evaluation found no positive effects on test scores for students taught by supported teachers compared to students taught by teachers who are not in the program. The researchers also found no effect on turnover levels for teachers supported by Advanced Teachers. However, the report says additional years of data will be necessary to verify if those effects appear over time.  

    The evaluation recommended that principals in ATR schools should foster collaboration and communicate strategically about the program with staff, beginning during Advanced Teachers’ hiring and onboarding.

    “It’s important to integrate ATR into those processes,” Edwards told the Board. “That means introducing Advanced Teachers to new staff and making collaboration, especially mentoring and coaching, a structured part of the day.”

    Edwards said these practices have been adopted in some schools, but principals reported needing more time and support to build collaboration opportunities into the school schedule.

    The report also urges district administrators to coordinate with Beginning Teacher (BT) programs, advertise ATR in recruitment materials, and improve their data collection practices. It also calls on state leaders to standardize the program to ensure consistency across participating districts.

    “Districts need standardized messaging, professional learning opportunities, and technical assistance to support implementation,” Edwards said. “The state can also create more opportunities for districts to share what’s working with one another and expand the evaluation beyond test scores to capture things like classroom engagement, social, emotional development, and feedback from teachers and principals.”

    The evaluators also said “there’s more to do” to expand the program in western North Carolina after Board members raised concerns about uneven participation across the state’s regions.

    2026-27 participants

    After the Friday Institute’s presentation, Board members heard a presentation on proposals for the next round of districts to join the ATR program from Dr. Thomas R. Tomberlin, senior director of educator preparation, licensure, and performance.

    Tomberlin said DPI received 15 proposals representing 22 districts. These proposals have been evaluated by seven independent evaluators, Tomberlin said. The Board had to choose the program’s next participants by Oct. 15 to comply with a legislative requirement. 

    The state can only allocate $911,349 for new implementation grants in 2026-27 — less than one-sixth of the funding required to fund all applications. That level of funding is “very low” compared to previous years, Tomberlin said. In the 2023-25 state budget, the General Assembly appropriated $10.9 million in recurring funds for these supplements in each year of the biennium.

    Tomberlin recommended that the Board approve the three highest-scoring proposals for the 2026-27 fiscal year, and fund these districts at 85% of their request. If the Board approves this recommendation, the state would still have $37,981 in planning funds left over for districts approved during the 2026 proposal cycle.

    Tomberlin said districts are already struggling to pay for the program’s salary supplements. The Friday Institute’s report showed that, despite the high median supplements, some districts are offering supplements as little as $1,000.

    “Some districts are not able to pay the full $10,000 because they have more ATR teachers than the funding that we can give them in terms of those allotments,” Tomberlin said. “And we had requested the General Assembly, I think, an additional $14 million to cover those supplements, and we didn’t get any.”

    The Senate’s budget proposal this session included funds to expand the ATR program over the biennium, while the House proposal did not. The General Assembly has not yet passed a comprehensive state budget, and its mini-budget did not include ATR program funding.

    Tomberlin said DPI would be in touch with the three districts to verify if they can proceed with the program despite limited funding.

    This article first appeared on EdNC and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


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

    Source link

  • The Motivations and Concerns of Prospective Graduate Students

    The Motivations and Concerns of Prospective Graduate Students

    Graduate student enrollment is increasingly critical to the overall enrollment health for universities. As demographic changes make it harder to grow traditional undergraduate enrollment, institutions will need graduate student population growth to fill in those gaps.

    The good news is that the graduate student market is growing. According to National Student Clearinghouse data, graduate enrollment reached an all-time high of 3.2 million in fall 2024, with a 3.3% increase over the year before.

    However, in order to compete for these students, you need to understand their motivations, influences, and concerns when it comes to their selection of a higher educational institution. To dig into these issues, RNL surveyed 1,400 prospective and enrolled graduate students on a wide range of issues that relate to their decision to pursue graduate study. Here are some of the key findings that enrollment managers need to know.

    What is their primary motivation to study?

    Circle graph showing 74% of graduate students are primarily motivated to study to advance their current careerCircle graph showing 74% of graduate students are primarily motivated to study to advance their current career

    It’s no surprise that today’s students are career-oriented, but it’s clear that advancing their current career is the top driver, with 74% of our participants listing that as their primary motivation to study.

    What does this mean for us as practitioners in higher education? It’s critical to not only highlight career-related information, but also to make sure that information and outcomes are very easy to find. In another finding from our report, 90% of respondents indicated that it’s important for program pages to provide specific and easy-to-access information on careers related to their field.

    What influences graduate students to consider graduate study?

    Bar chart showing the greatest influences on whether to study at the graduate level: 57% personal reflection, 40% family or friends, 32% employer, 24% colleague or mentorBar chart showing the greatest influences on whether to study at the graduate level: 57% personal reflection, 40% family or friends, 32% employer, 24% colleague or mentor

    As you can see here, these decisions are largely self-motivated even if the reasons to pursue grad study are career-oriented. I find it interesting that these are not more employer-driven, especially when it comes to continuing degrees. However, it still shows that the majority of graduate students are self-motivated, intrinsic learners who see graduate study as a way to improve their lives.

    What are the most important program features to prospective graduate students?

    Circle graph showing most important program features for prospective graduate students: 84% format flexibility, 76% available specializations, 75% multiple start terms, 63% shorter course duration.Circle graph showing most important program features for prospective graduate students: 84% format flexibility, 76% available specializations, 75% multiple start terms, 63% shorter course duration.

    For our survey respondents, format flexibility was the feature that was cited as most important, followed closely by available specializations. This is interesting, as the respondents cited modality, course format, and specializations, and then flexible scheduling. This could be a reflection of the growing number of Gen Z students (those under 29) who make up 56% of the graduate student population according to the fall 2023 IPEDS snapshot. This change in student age demographic emphasizes the importance of offering and designing those programs for multiple delivery types and really meeting those students where they are.

    What are the main concerns of graduate students?

    Circle graph showing the main concerns of graduate students: 60% cost, 49% balancing responsibilities, 25% career advancement, 17% ROI uncertainty.Circle graph showing the main concerns of graduate students: 60% cost, 49% balancing responsibilities, 25% career advancement, 17% ROI uncertainty.

    I don’t think anyone will be shocked that cost is a concern for 60% of graduate students. But half of our respondents also cited balancing responsibilities as a primary concern. This is again, not shocking considering the vast majority of our participants said they worked full-time. While fewer than 20% cited ROI uncertainty, that still represents 1 in 5 of our survey takers. The bottom line is that institutions need to directly address these pain points when they conduct outreach with students. Mitigating some of those concerns right away can help students feel more comfortable in the process and be more likely to enroll in, and ultimately complete their programs.

    What will inhibit a graduate student from applying to a program?

    Finally, we asked our survey respondents which common requirements would potentially dissuade them from applying to a program.

    Table showing inhibitors to applying to graduate school: Letters of recommendation 35%, Essays 33%, Fees 31%, Standardized tests 30%, Writing sample 28%, Resume 28%, Transcripts 27%, Portfolio of work 26%, None 11%Table showing inhibitors to applying to graduate school: Letters of recommendation 35%, Essays 33%, Fees 31%, Standardized tests 30%, Writing sample 28%, Resume 28%, Transcripts 27%, Portfolio of work 26%, None 11%

    As you can see, 1 in 3 students cited letters of recommendation and essays/personal statements. This is not to say that institutions should remove these requirements, but be mindful if your program really needs them in the evaluation process. Similarly, for items such as transcripts, look for ways to make it easier for transcripts to be submitted or gathered to remove the burden from students—and a potential barrier from applying to your program.

    Read the full report for even more insights

    2025 Graduate Student Recruitment Report2025 Graduate Student Recruitment Report

    These findings represent a fraction of what you will find in the 2025 Graduate Student Recruitment Report. It’s packed with findings on the channels graduate students use to search for schools, how they use search engines for research, which digital ads they click on, and much more.

    You can also watch our webinar Keys to Engaging and Enrolling Graduate Students to hear my colleague Lori Cannistra and I discuss the findings and how you can use them to guide your strategies. And if you want to discuss graduate marketing and recruitment strategies, reach out to set up a consultation.

    Talk with our graduate and online enrollment experts

    Ask for a free consultation with us. We’ll help you assess your market and develop the optimal strategies for your prospective graduate students and online learners.

    Schedule consultation

    Source link

  • Utah State University to face state audit amid concerns about former leader’s spending

    Utah State University to face state audit amid concerns about former leader’s spending

    Dive Brief:

    • Utah State University will undergo a state audit following an initial review that found “concerns about USU’s governance, leadership, and culture of policy noncompliance.” 
    • At a Tuesday meeting, the state Legislature’s audit subcommittee voted unanimously to conduct a deeper review of the university, which will look at governance and procurement processes, particularly in the president’s office.
    • The review comes amid reporting that Elizabeth Cantwell, the university’s former president, spent heavily on office remodeling and transportation during her tenure before departing earlier this year.

    Dive Insight:

    State legislative auditors raised issues with both spending practices and oversight controls at the highest levels of Utah State. 

    Under the heading of “leadership concerns,” they pointed to institutional purchase card transactions that “significantly increased” during the past two years compared to the preceding half decade. 

    Those increases occurred during the tenure of Cantwell, who was appointed president in 2023 and stepped down unexpectedly earlier this year to serve as president of Washington State University. 

    Alan Smith, dean of Utah State’s college of education and human services, is serving as interim president while the institution searches for a permanent leader. 

    This March, shortly after the announcement of Cantwell’s departure, Cache Valley Daily obtained public records of heavy spending during her tenure. The report noted a $285,000 office remodel that included more than $184,000 in furniture costs, over $800 in spending on mirrors and a $750 bidet toilet.

    It also detailed several vehicles Cantwell used for transportation during her time at Utah State, including a new Toyota SUV and a $30,000 electric vehicle. 

    Auditors flagged purchase card spending during the past two years that “may be concerning due to the nature of the purchases, the dollar amounts involved, and the level of oversight.”

    They also noted “issues with the amount spent on presidential motor vehicle assets in the last two years being almost triple the amount for the five years before.”

    The review also raised concerns about how Utah State’s leaders acquired goods and services from third parties. Specifically, they found that some executive staff committed the university to contracts over $52,000 — and up to $430,000 — before completing the purchasing process. 

    Their report recommended a review of procurement policies, controls over open purchase orders, and spending and assets in the Utah State president’s office, as well as an evaluation of whether “governance and leadership at USU have the appropriate structure, tools, processes, culture, structure, and personnel in place to ensure success.”

    On Tuesday,  state lawmakers on the audit subcommittee called for a deep investigation of the university’s spending. 

    “I love Utah State. It’s a big part of my district, it employs a lot of people in my district,” one member told audit staff during the meeting. “But I have serious concerns about what is happening at Utah State right now, and so whatever latitude you feel that you need, I like to be part of authorizing that —  as deep as you can go.”

    Tessa White, chair of the university’s trustee board, voiced support for the state audit at the meeting. 

    “We welcome the audit,” White said. “There are areas that we are aware of and taking aggressive steps to remedy. We hope that by the time that your audit is done, we will have a whole list of things completed that will give you greater confidence in the school.”

    Procurement policies and processes have come under fire at other public institutions as politicians and auditors home in on their spending practices. 

    Early this year, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham called for Western New Mexico University’s entire board of regents to resign after an auditing report surfaced spending by leadership that showed “a concerning lack of compliance with established university policies.”

    A state audit late last year of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system found several financial transactions that violated institutional policies or lacked adequate documentation. That included some $19,000 in spending on food over two years by Chancellor Terrence Cheng. 

    In 2024, a state audit of University of Maryland Global Campus raised issues with leadership oversight of a spinoff nonprofit, pointing to — among other issues — a $25.7 million IT project that ended without a viable product.

    Source link

  • USyd responds to student concerns about ‘two-lane’ AI policy – Campus Review

    USyd responds to student concerns about ‘two-lane’ AI policy – Campus Review

    The university arguably leading the sector in its use of artificial intelligence (AI) in assessment tasks has received criticism from some students who have complained they lost marks for not using AI in a test.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Tufts PhD Student Released After Six-Week Detention Raising Academic Freedom Concerns

    Tufts PhD Student Released After Six-Week Detention Raising Academic Freedom Concerns

    Rümeysa Öztürk with her attorneyAfter six weeks in federal detention, Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk was released last Friday following a federal judge’s ruling that her continued detention potentially violated her constitutional rights and could have a chilling effect on free speech across college campuses.

    U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III ordered Öztürk’s immediate release, stating she had raised “substantial claims” of both due process and First Amendment violations. The 30-year-old Turkish national, who was arrested on March 25 outside her Somerville, Massachusetts home by masked federal agents, had been detained at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana—more than 1,500 miles from her university.

    “Continued detention potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens. Any one of them may now avoid exercising their First Amendment rights for fear of being whisked away to a detention center,” Judge Sessions stated during Friday’s hearing.

    Öztürk’s legal team argued that her detention was directly connected to her co-authoring a campus newspaper op-ed critical of Tufts University’s response to the war in Gaza. During the hearing, Judge Sessions noted that “for multiple weeks, except for the op-ed, the government failed to produce any evidence to support Öztürk’s continued detention.”

    The Trump administration had accused Öztürk of participating in activities supporting Hamas but presented no evidence of these alleged activities in court. Öztürk, who has a valid F-1 student visa, has not been charged with any crime.

    Öztürk’s case is part of what appears to be a growing pattern of detentions targeting international students involved in pro-Palestinian activism. Her arrest by plainclothes officers, captured on video showing her being surrounded as she screamed in fear, sparked national outrage and campus protests.

    “It’s a feeling of relief, and knowing that the case is not over, but at least she can fight the case while with her community and continuing the academic work that she loves at Tufts,” said Esha Bhandari, an attorney representing Öztürk.

    The same day as Öztürk’s release, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York denied an administration appeal to re-arrest Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident Mohsen Mahdawi, another case involving a student detained after pro-Palestinian advocacy.

    During her six weeks in detention, Öztürk, who suffers from asthma, experienced multiple attacks without adequate medical care, according to testimony. At Friday’s hearing, she briefly had to step away due to an asthma attack while a medical expert was testifying about her condition.

    Judge Sessions cited these health concerns as part of his rationale for immediate release, noting Öztürk was “suffering as a result of her incarceration” and “may very well suffer additional damage to her health.”

    In his ruling, Judge Sessions ordered Öztürk’s release without travel restrictions or ICE monitoring, finding she posed “no risk of flight and no danger to the community.” Despite this clear order, her attorneys reported that ICE initially attempted to delay her release by trying to force her to wear an ankle monitor.

    “Despite the 11th hour attempt to delay her freedom by trying to force her to wear an ankle monitor, Rümeysa is now free and is excited to return home, free of monitoring or restriction,” said attorney Mahsa Khanbabai.

    Source link

  • Republican lawmakers grill 3 more college presidents over antisemitism concerns

    Republican lawmakers grill 3 more college presidents over antisemitism concerns

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

    Republicans on the House’s education committee grilled three college presidents Wednesday about how they’ve handled alleged incidents of antisemitism in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war, expanding their probe beyond the Ivy League and other well-known research universities. 

    The leaders came from Haverford College, a small private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania; DePaul University, a private Catholic research university in Chicago; and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, a public institution in California. 

    All three institutions have been a hotbed of political activity for over a year. Pro-Palestinian protesters set up encampments at both Haverford and DePaul last year. Cal Poly also saw demonstrations, including a pro-Palestinian protest held around the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. 

    Republicans on the House Committee on Education and Workforce said they sought to crack down on campus antisemitism and uphold Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin in federally funded programs. 

    However, some Democrats accused the panel’s GOP members of using antisemitism concerns to quell free speech. They also blasted the Trump administration for detaining international students involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and for its heavy cuts to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which investigates antisemitism and other discrimination allegations at colleges and schools. 

    Wednesday’s hearing was the first the House education committee has held on campus antisemitism since President Donald Trump retook office. Since then, his administration has frozen funding at several high-profile institutions that have been probed by the committee, claiming the colleges haven’t done enough to protect students from antisemitism. 

    “The Trump administration has taken a sledgehammer to due process rights of institutions,” said Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top Democrat on the committee. “The public has seen a barrage of reports of this administration taking action without any investigation, such as taking away federal funding.” 

    Haverford’s federal funding threatened

    Haverford President Wendy Raymond and DePaul President Robert Manuel struck a conciliatory tone in their opening remarks, and all three leaders outlined steps they have recently taken to protect Jewish students from discrimination, including setting up an antisemitism task force and tightening protest rules.

    “I recognize that we haven’t always succeeded in living up to our ideals,” Raymond said. “I remain committed to addressing antisemitism and all issues that harm our community members. I am committed to getting this right.”

    Last year, a group of Haverford students sued the college over allegations it had denied Jewish students the ability to participate in classes and educational activities “without fear of harassment if they express beliefs about Israel that are anything less than eliminationist.” 

    The lawsuit contains accounts of several incidents and comments it says are antisemitic, including one professor sharing a social media post on Oct. 11, 2023. The post included an image the lawsuit described as Hamas breaking through the border between Gaza and Israel and stating, “We should never have to apologize for celebrating these scenes of an imprisoned people breaking free from their chains.” 

    A federal judge dismissed the case in January but allowed plaintiffs to file an amended lawsuit, which they did that month.  

    Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, asked Raymond whether the professor who shared the post had faced disciplinary action, but the Haverford president declined throughout the hearing to talk about individual cases or share specific figures on disciplinary actions. The professor, Tarik Aougab, is listed on Haverford’s website as a faculty member.

    “Many people have sat in this position who are no longer in the positions as president of universities for their failure to answer straightforward questions,” Stefanik replied. 

    Source link

  • Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns

    Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns


    The U.S. Department of Education announced Thursday it will eliminate the rigorous review process previously required for colleges and universities seeking to change accreditors, a move critics warn could undermine educational quality standards.

    The announcement, which implements parts of President Trump’s Executive Order on “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” simultaneously lifts a moratorium on reviewing applications for new accrediting bodies.

    In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the policy change as promoting competition.

    “We must foster a competitive marketplace both amongst accreditors and colleges and universities in order to lower college costs and refocus postsecondary education on improving academic and workforce outcomes for students and families.” she said.

    However, higher education policy experts expressed concerns that the streamlined process could enable institutions to evade accountability by shopping for less stringent accreditors.

    The Department’s new Dear Colleague Letter revokes guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 that had established a pre-clearance process for institutional accreditor changes. The new guidance explicitly allows institutions to change accreditors for reasons including finding one that “better aligns with a religious mission,” accommodating shifts in academic programs, complying with state law requirements, or avoiding accreditors that impose “discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices and principles.”

    Education advocates worry the policy shift prioritizes institutional freedom over student protections.

    “When we make it easier for colleges to switch accreditors without thorough vetting, we risk creating a race to the bottom where standards are compromised,” said one higher education researcher. “The students who will suffer most are often those from historically underrepresented groups who depend on accreditation as an assurance of quality.”

    The Department characterized its previous approach as overreaching, stating in the new guidance.

    “It is not the Department’s prerogative to infer any other meanings from the basic requirements or contrive a multi-step investigation. This guidance re-establishes a simple process that will remove unnecessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation.”

    The policy change also rescinds the October 2024 pause on reviewing applications for new accrediting agencies. At least one prospective accreditor that had its application temporarily paused has now been notified that its review will proceed.

    Critics contend that enabling more accreditors with potentially varying standards could fragment the higher education quality assurance landscape in ways that confuse students and employers.

    “The fundamental question is whether reducing oversight will actually improve educational outcomes or simply make it easier for underperforming institutions to avoid consequences,” said a public university president, who asked to remain anonymous, for fear of retaliation. “History suggests the latter is more likely.”

    The Department has not announced specific metrics to evaluate whether the policy changes lead to improved outcomes for students or institutions.

    Source link

  • ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    Dive Brief:

    • Some higher education experts slammed President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to reshape the accreditation system, raising warnings about government intrusion into academic matters, while the accreditation sector defended its work. 
    • The president took aim at accreditor criteria related to diversity and equity while calling for new requirements of what he called “intellectual diversity” in faculty. He also called on U.S. Secretary Linda McMahon to “resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability.” 
    • The order was part of a bevy of higher education-related executive orders that Trump signed late Wednesday night affecting different aspects of the sector, including workforce development and historically Black colleges.

    Dive Insight:

     In his order on accreditation, Trump decried the quality-control bodies as “the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year.”

    He accused the organizations of having “failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers,” and also of having “abused their enormous authority.”

    In the order, Trump launched into a 350-word castigation of accreditors’ diversity, equity and inclusion criteria. 

    He specifically named the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical programs, and the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which accredits law schools. 

    The ABA is suing the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations the department canceled federal grants as retaliation for the association “taking positions the current Administration disfavors,” including its diversity requirements. 

    “Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law,” Trump said in the order, without specifying which DEI criteria and laws may come in conflict.

    Trump also directed McMahon to hold accreditors “accountable” by denying, monitoring, suspending or terminating of accreditation powers for those who “fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law.” 

    His order specifically mandates that accreditors require institutions to use program data on student outcomes “without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.”

    Other elements of the order would smooth the path for federal recognition of new accreditors.

    The order also includes a provision directing McMahon to ensure “institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.”

    Trump also issued executive orders Wednesday on workforce development, artificial intelligence, foreign funding reporting requirements for colleges, and historically Black colleges and universities.

    Trump’s accreditation order drew a fierce rebuke from the American Association of University Professors, among others.

    Accreditors have been “important mechanisms for ensuring that academic institutions are accessible and inclusive, and provide high-quality education for all students,” the faculty group said in a statement Wednesday. 

    It added, “This executive order, however, uses the administration’s cruel and absurdist weaponization of antidiscrimination and civil rights law to prevent accrediting agencies from requiring that institutions take basic steps to ensure they are accessible to and inclusive of all students.”

    AAUP President Todd Wolfson described the order’s call for “intellectual diversity” as “code for a partisan agenda that will muzzle faculty who do not espouse Trump’s ideological agenda.”

    Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, similarly condemned the order, saying that it “undermines the aspects of the accreditation process that are designed to protect classroom instruction from political interference.”

    Gadkaree also panned the order’s ban on using demographic data to evaluate programs, warning that without that option “accreditors — along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers — will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.” 

    Responses from the accreditation sector were quieter, but they defended the work of accreditors.  

    Accreditor’s DEI standards are “predicated on institutions implementing such requirements in accordance with applicable state and federal laws,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions said in a statement Wednesday.  

    C-RAC called for the order’s required changes to be worked out through the Education Department’s negotiated rulemaking process, which brings together higher education representatives to hash out policy details. The organization also pointed to the regulated process for removing accreditor recognition, noting, “Ultimately, concerns about accreditor recognition can be escalated to federal court.”

    The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, an industry group that both vets and advocates for accrediting bodies, issued a statement Wednesday largely describing the work, standards and innovation already in place at accreditors and institutions. 

    “Our focus is and always will be academic assurances,” said Cynthia Jackson Hammond, the organization’s president. “CHEA-recognized accreditation organizations meet those standards.”

    She closed by saying, “The independence of the accreditation process is essential in order to preserve and protect the integrity of quality assurance in higher education.”

    Source link