Tag: Department

  • Judge Orders Education Department Employees Reinstated

    Judge Orders Education Department Employees Reinstated

    On Thursday a judge ordered more than 2,000 fired employees of the Education Department reinstated.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images | Matveev_Aleksandr and raweenuttapong/iStock/Getty Images

    A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of employees at the Department of Education in a decisive rebuke of this spring’s sweeping reduction in force and the executive branch’s efforts to weaken the Education Department.

    Judge Myong Joun rejected the administration’s argument that the layoffs, which affected half of the department’s workforce, were part of a “reorganization” aimed at improving efficiency and said evidence showed the administration’s “true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute.” His order also prevents the department from implementing President Donald Trump’s March directive to dismantle the agency.

    Joun of the District of Massachusetts also said the injunction to rehire the fired staffers was necessary in order to restore the department’s ability to accomplish its core functions and statutorily mandated responsibilities.

    “Not only is there no evidence that Defendants are pursuing a ‘legislative goal’ or otherwise working with Congress to reach a resolution, but there is also no evidence that the RIF has actually made the Department more efficient,” Joun wrote in his 88-page ruling. “Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Department will not be able to carry out its statutory functions—and in some cases, is already unable to do so.”

    Reports of systemic failings and overloaded staff have streamed out of the beleaguered department ever since the March layoffs, from an untouched backlog of complaints at the Office for Civil Rights to the piling up of applications for student loan repayment and forgiveness plans.

    The injunction, handed down Thursday morning, means the administration must reinstate more than 2,000 Education Department employees and reopen regional offices that were shuttered during the reduction in force.

    The administration has already said it has issued a challenge to the ruling. Madi Biedermann, the department’s deputy assistant secretary for communication, said the administration has already appealed.

    In an email to Inside Higher Ed, Biedermann decried the decision, calling Joun a “far-left judge” who “dramatically overstepped his authority” and maintaining that the layoffs were “lawful efforts to make the Department of Education more efficient and functional.”

    “President Trump and the Senate-confirmed Secretary of Education clearly have the authority to make decisions about agency reorganization efforts, not an unelected Judge with a political axe to grind,” she wrote.

    A spokesperson for the Association of American University Professors, one of the plaintiffs in the case, wrote in a statement that they were “thrilled” with the decision.

    “Eliminating the [Education Department] would hurt everyday Americans, severely limit access to education, eviscerate funding for HBCUs and [tribal colleges and universities] while benefiting partisan politicians and private corporations,” they wrote.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the layoffs at a budget hearing just a day prior to the ruling. She said the goal was to “wind down the bureaucracy” of the department, and that while she hoped to have congressional support to dismantle it eventually, the administration did not intend to so on its own.

    Joun’s decision undercuts that defense. In the budget hearing, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat of Connecticut, told McMahon that the cuts were “unlawful” and a usurpation of congressional authority.

    “As long as you continue to deliberately and flagrantly defy the law, you will continue to lose in court,” DeLauro said.

    The injunction is the latest in a string of court orders challenging the Trump administration’s rapid cuts to federal agencies in its first 100 days, often under the supervision of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE was responsible for the vast majority of the Education Department layoffs, according to McMahon’s House testimony Wednesday.

    Joun’s ruling wasn’t the only one aimed at undoing the administration’s Education Department cuts. Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also ordered that the department restore grant funding to a Southern nonprofit that has helped further school desegregation efforts since the 1960s. The grant had been defunded as part of the administration’s push to eliminate spending on diversity, equity and inclusion.

    Source link

  • McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    During a hearing Wednesday, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s proposal to heavily cut funding for the U.S. Department of Education during the 2026 fiscal year, arguing the reductions were a key step toward winding down the agency. 

    “We seek to shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money and empower states who best know their local needs to manage education in this country,” McMahon said before lawmakers on the House Committee on Appropriations’s education subcommittee. 

    President Donald Trump’s budget request, released at the beginning of the month, would slash funding to the Education Department by 15.3%, or about $12 billion. 

    The plan calls for eliminating two federal programs aimed at improving college access for disadvantaged and low-income students — TRIO and Gear Up — as well as shifting the responsibility of the Federal Work-Study program to the states. And it would eliminate funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which provide need-based aid to undergraduate students. 

    It also would reduce funding for the already-diminished Office for Civil Rights, which investigates harassment and discrimination on college campuses and in K-12 schools, by about $49 million, a 35% cut from the previous year. 

    Republicans on the panel largely lauded the proposal, with many praising the Trump administration’s support for charter schools, which would receive a $60 million funding bump in the budget. 

    Democrats, however, slammed the budget, arguing the cuts would undermine student success and restrict pathways to higher education. 

    “Your visions for students aspiring to access and pay for college is particularly grim,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee, said during the hearing. “Some families do not need financial assistance to go to college, but that’s not true for the rest.” 

    ‘You will not have the partnership of Congress’

    Trump signed an executive order in March directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.” 

    His administration has shared plans to move its key functions to other agencies. In one instance, Trump suggested that operating the student loan portfolio should be the responsibility of the newly-downsized Small Business Administration.

    Some Republicans on the panel voiced support for this plan Wednesday. Rep. Jake Ellzey, from Texas, suggested the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services could take over mental health support provided by the Education Department. He also proposed that the U.S. Department of Justice could oversee civil rights matters — an option McMahon floated during her confirmation hearing in February. 

    On Wednesday, McMahon described the Education Department as a federal funding “pass-through mechanism” and said other agencies could take over the job of distributing allocations from Congress. 

    “Whether the channels of that funding are through HHS, or whether they’re funneled through the DOJ, or whether they’re funneled through the Treasury or SBA or other departments, the work is going to continue to get done,” McMahon said. 

    However, Democrats indicated they would not support those efforts. 

    “You will not have the partnership of Congress in your efforts to destroy the Department of Education,” DeLauro said. “Not on our watch.” 

    DeLauro also slammed McMahon over recent cuts to the Education Department, which has eliminated about half of its staff and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars worth of grants. 

    “By recklessly incapacitating the department you lead, you are usurping Congress’ authority and infringing on Congress’ power of the purse,” she said. 

    Democrats also took issue with the budget’s proposal to shift the responsibility of funding programs to states. 

    Along with Federal Work-Study, the 2026 proposal would cut funding for other higher education programs, including the Strengthening Institutions Program, which provides grants to help colleges become more financially stable, improve their academic quality and ability to serve low-income students. 

    Source link

  • Defense Department Caps Universities’ Indirect Cost Rates

    Defense Department Caps Universities’ Indirect Cost Rates

    The Department of Defense is planning to cap indirect cost reimbursement rates for higher education institutions at 15 percent, according to a May 14 memo signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. 

    “The Department of Defense (DoD) is the steward of the most critical budget in the Federal Government—the budget that defends our Nation, equips our warfighters, and secures our future. That stewardship demands discipline. It demands accountability. And it demands that we say no to waste,” wrote Hegseth.

    The memo directs the DOD to develop the new policy within 21 days, marking the fourth federal agency—including the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation—that has enacted a plan to cap indirect cost rates at 15 percent. For decades, universities have negotiated with the federal government to calculate bespoke indirect cost reimbursement rates to pay for research costs that support multiple grant-funded projects, such as facilities maintenance, specialized equipment and administrative personnel. (The paragraph has been updated.)

    Universities and their trade associations have already sued the NIH, DOE and NSF over these plans, arguing that capping indirect costs would hurt research production and compromise global competitiveness, all while violating multiple aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act, including bypassing congressional authority required to alter indirect cost rates. So far, federal judges have blocked indirect cost caps from taking effect at the NIH and DOE. The NSF agreed to pause the cap until June 13 in order to proceed to summary judgment, which is a way to resolve the case quickly without a full trial.

    Matt Owens, president of COGR, which represents research institutions, condemned the DOD’s newly announced plan. 

    “DOD research performed by universities is a force multiplier and has helped to make the U.S. military the most effective in the world. From GPS, stealth technology, advanced body armor, to precision guided missiles and night vision technology, university-based DOD research makes our military stronger,” Owens said in a statement. “A cut to DOD indirect cost reimbursements is a cut to national security. Less funding for research means less security for our nation.”

    Hegseth’s memo claimed that capping the Defense Department’s indirect cost rate for universities would “save up to $900 [million] per year on a go-forward basis,” while also claiming that the department’s “objective is not only to save money, but to repurpose those funds—toward applied innovation, operational capability, and strategic deterrence.” The NIH has also made similarly incompatible assertions. It touted on social media its indirect rate cap plan’s potential to save taxpayers more than $4 billion, while a lawyer for the NIH told a federal judge that the cut was simply a reallocation of funds. 

    The Defense Department’s plans “will not stop at new grants,” Hegseth wrote, adding that “meaningful savings can also be achieved by revisiting the terms of existing awards to institutions of higher education.” The memo directed the under secretary of defense for research and engineering to do the following within 30 days:

    • Initiate a departmentwide effort to renegotiate indirect cost rates on existing financial assistance awards to institutions of higher education. “Wherever cooperative, bilateral modification is possible, it shall be pursued.”
    • “Where bilateral agreement is not achieved, identify and recommend lawful paths to terminate and reissue the award under revised terms.”
    • “Complete renegotiations or terminations for all contracts by 180 days from the date of this memorandum.”

    Source link

  • Education Department retracts CTE grants for Native American and Hawaiian students

    Education Department retracts CTE grants for Native American and Hawaiian students

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

    The U.S. Department of Education canceled two grant competitions for fiscal year 2025 meant to improve career opportunities for Native American and Native Hawaiian students, according to notices published in the Federal Register earlier this month. 

    The competitions were canceled because they do not “align with the objectives established by the Trump Administration while fostering consistency across all grant programs.” The department also said in its notices that canceling the competition for the fiscal year is part of “enhancing the economic effectiveness of Federal education funding.” 

    Instead of continuing the competitions, the department will dedicate available funds to support current recipients of the grants. 

    In total, the grants provided nearly $21.6 million for the Native American Career and Technical Education Program and the Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program, according to the Education Department’s Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education. It provided nearly $18 million in Native American opportunities and $3.6 million for Native Hawaiians on an annual basis, according to the department. 

    The competitions were originally announced in the Federal Register on Jan. 7, prior to the inauguration of President Donald Trump, who has proposed a much slimmer Education Department budget that would cut its total funding by 15%. The administration has also already slashed a handful of other education grant programs. 

    In previous years, the Native American and Native Hawaiian grants have supported colleges, schools and tribes in establishing postsecondary career pathways.  

    For example, in fiscal year 2021, the department awarded 39 grants under the NACTEP program and nine grants under the NHCTEP program. 

    A NACTEP grant awarded to Chief Leschi Schools, a Native American tribal school located in Washington, allowed for work-based learning related to fisheries, medical facilities, schools and other careers.

    “The tribal connections of pathways embrace and honor the culture and identity of students and families and provide students a connection to their heritage along with a path to a successful future,” the program description states.

    In Castle High School in Hawaii, the NHCTEP program prepared students for a medical career pathway.

    “The project will provide culture-based education to Native Hawaiian students and foster a community where relationships are formed, and learning is connected to the context of students’ lives applied to the real world,” the description states. 

    In 2021-22, there were more than 8.1 million high school CTE participants out of 11.5 million participants nationwide, according to the Association for Career and Technical Education. Nationally, about 109,000 were American Indian or Alaska Native and 43,000 were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

    Source link

  • This week in 5 numbers: Trump eyes 15.3% cut for Education Department

    This week in 5 numbers: Trump eyes 15.3% cut for Education Department

    The number of college presidents who testified before the House Committee on Education and Workforce this week about how they’ve handled alleged campus incidents of antisemitism. While Republicans have said they’re trying to combat antisemitism, some Democrats accused GOP lawmakers of using those concerns to quell constitutionally protected speech during the hearing with the leaders of Haverford College, DePaul University and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

    Source link

  • Trump’s FY26 budget plan slashes Education Department programs

    Trump’s FY26 budget plan slashes Education Department programs

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

    President Donald Trump on Friday proposed wide-ranging cuts to federal higher education spending in his fiscal 2026 budget request, calling to eliminate some grant programs altogether and for states to take over others like Federal Work-Study. 

    The budget request offers a broad look at Trump’s priorities, which include shaving 15.3% off the U.S. Department of Education’s budget, a move in line with his broader plan to shutter the agency. Across the federal government, Trump’s request would eliminate some $163 billion in nondefense domestic spending, including the dramatic cuts to education programs.

    U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement Friday that the budget reflects “funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities.” 

    Presidential budget proposals are akin to executive wishlists and are never enacted as introduced. And Trump’s budget request for the 2026 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, faces key obstacles before it could be approved. Even though Republicans control both the House and Senate, at least one GOP lawmaker has already objected to some of Trump’s proposed cuts.

    But other party leaders signaled a willingness to embrace Trump’s proposals. 

    “The American people sent Republicans to Washington to lower costs and rein in wasteful government spending,” Tim Walberg, chair of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, said in a Friday statement. “The budget proposal President Trump released today not only gives us a blueprint but shows us it is possible to deliver on this promise.” 

    Student aid takes a blow

    The budget takes aim at Federal Work-Study, which provides part-time jobs to students who need help paying for college. Under the program, the federal government covers up to 75% of students’ wages. 

    Trump’s proposal calls for a $980 million reduction in funding for the program, which was appropriated $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2024. 

    In his budget plan, the president called for Federal Work-Study to be run by the states and the colleges “that financially benefit from it.” 

    “Reform of this poorly targeted program should redistribute remaining funding to institutions that serve the most low-income students and provide a wage subsidy to gain career-oriented opportunities to improve long-term employment outcomes of students,” it says. 

    Trump’s proposal would also eliminate funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which assist undergraduate students who have “exceptional financial need.” The program was allocated $910 million in fiscal 2024 — all of which would be cut under Trump’s budget. 

    The budget document accuses the grants of contributing “to rising college costs” that colleges have used to pay for a “radical leftist ideology.” Colleges that receive these grants pass the money onto students, and the institutions must contribute 25% of their own money for those awards. 

    Two other programs are on the chopping block: TRIO, which provides support for middle school through college students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Gear Up, which helps low-income students prepare for postsecondary education. Trump’s budget called these programs a “relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate” colleges to increase access to low-income students. 

    “Today, the pendulum has swung and access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means,” the budget document claims, saying higher education institutions should use their own resources to recruit students. 

    Together, the programs received nearly $1.6 billion in fiscal 2024, all of which would be cut under Trump’s plan. 

    The budget documents released Friday did not address funding for Pell Grants, the largest student aid program.

    Source link

  • Education Department unveils guidance to make switching accreditors easier

    Education Department unveils guidance to make switching accreditors easier

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

    The U.S. Department of Education unveiled guidance Thursday intended to make it easier for colleges to change accreditors and lifted a pause on its review of applications for new accrediting agencies. 

    The guidance comes a week after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reshape the accreditation system and make it easier for new agencies to come onto the scene. 

    Trump’s order also took aim at accreditor criteria related to diversity, equity and inclusion and directed U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon to ensure colleges prioritize “intellectual diversity” among their faculty — a mandate that raised concerns about academic freedom among some higher education experts. 

    “President Trump’s Executive Order and our actions today will ensure this Department no longer stands as a gatekeeper to block aspiring innovators from becoming new accreditors nor will this Department unnecessarily micromanage an institution’s choice of accreditor,” McMahon said in a Thursday statement. 

    The Education Department also revoked guidance issued in 2022 that outlined a more rigorous review process for colleges to switch accreditors. The Biden-era guidance said the department would review whether a college wanted to change accreditors to lessen oversight and if moving to a new agency would strengthen its institutional quality, among other factors. 

    At the time, the Biden administration said the guidance sought to ensure colleges weren’t attempting to evade oversight from their current accreditor by switching to a new one. 

    The Trump administration’s new guidance, however, says the agency will reestablish “a simple process that will remove unnecessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation.” Under the policy, colleges must submit a two-page form to serve as documentation of their prior accreditation, as well as “materials demonstrating reasonable cause” for changing or adding an accreditor. 

    The form includes a checklist of reasons institutions may seek to switch accreditors, along with a section requiring colleges to certify that they have not had their accreditation withdrawn or faced accreditor sanctions in the past two years. Colleges must also attach their most recent letter renewing their accreditation. 

    Wesley Whistle, project director for student success and affordability at New America, a left-leaning think tank, criticized the new process, arguing that making it easier to switch accreditors could lead institutions to move to agencies with less rigorous standards. 

    “This new guidance says all they have to do is fill out this checklist and provide them [with] their most recent letter of reaffirmation,” Whistle said. “That letter could be almost a decade old.”

    Moreover, that letter wouldn’t indicate if a college is currently under investigation by its accreditor, Whistle said. 

    “Just because an institution may not be on probation today, they could still be under investigation,” Whistle added. 

    The Education Department also said it will have 30 days to approve an application to switch accreditors. If not, the change will be automatically granted unless a college failed to meet the eligibility requirements. 

    Whistle described the policy as a “30-day rubber stamp.” 

    “It’s irresponsible,” Whistle said. “There’s nearly 6,000 colleges and universities that are eligible for Title IV aid, so conducting even a modest review takes time and expertise.”

    The Trump administration’s new guidance also permits colleges to switch to new accreditors if required by state law. Other recognized reasons include seeking an accreditor that better aligns with a college’s religious mission, changing the types of academic programs offered or objecting to current accreditation standards, including DEI requirements. 

    Source link

  • Otus Wins Gold Stevie® Award for Customer Service Department of the Year

    Otus Wins Gold Stevie® Award for Customer Service Department of the Year

    CHICAGO, IL (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Otus, a leading provider of K-12 student data and assessment solutions, has been awarded a prestigious Gold Stevie® Award in the category of Customer Service Department of the Year at the 2025 American Business Awards®. This recognition celebrates the company’s unwavering commitment to supporting educators, students, and families through exceptional service and innovation.

    In addition to the Gold award, Otus also earned two Silver Stevie® Awards: one for Company of the Year – Computer Software – Medium Size, and another honoring Co-founder and President Chris Hull as Technology Executive of the Year.

    “It is an incredible honor to be recognized, but the real win is knowing our work is making a difference for educators and students,” said Hull. “As a former teacher, I know how difficult it can be to juggle everything that is asked of you. At Otus, we focus on building tools that save time, surface meaningful insights, and make student data easier to use—so teachers can focus on what matters most: helping kids grow.”

    The American Business Awards®, now in their 23rd year, are the premier business awards program in the United States, honoring outstanding performances in the workplace across a wide range of industries. The competition receives more than 12,000 nominations every year. Judges selected Otus for its outstanding 98.7% customer satisfaction with chat interactions, and exceptional 89% gross retention in 2024. They also praised the company’s unique blend of technology and human touch, noting its strong focus on educator-led support, onboarding, data-driven product evolution, and professional development.

    “We believe great support starts with understanding the realities educators face every day. Our Client Success team is largely made up of former teachers and school leaders, so we speak the same language. Whether it’s during onboarding, training, or day-to-day communication, we’re here to help districts feel confident and supported. This recognition is a reflection of how seriously we take that responsibility and energizes us to keep raising the bar,” said Phil Collins, Ed.D., Chief Customer Officer at Otus.

    Otus continues to make significant strides in simplifying teaching and learning by offering a unified platform that integrates assessment, data, and instruction—all in one place. Otus has supported over 1 million students nationwide by helping educators make data-informed decisions, monitor progress, and personalize learning. These honors reflect the company’s growth, innovation, and steadfast commitment to helping school communities succeed.

    About Otus

    Otus, an award-winning edtech company, empowers educators to maximize student performance with a comprehensive K-12 assessment, data, and insights solution. Committed to student achievement and educational equity, Otus combines student data with powerful tools that provide educators, administrators, and families with the insights they need to make a difference. Built by teachers for teachers, Otus creates efficiencies in data management, assessment, and progress monitoring to help educators focus on what matters most—student success. Today, Otus partners with school districts nationwide to create informed, data-driven learning environments. Learn more at Otus.com.

    Stay connected with Otus on LinkedIn, Facebook, X, and Instagram.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)



    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

  • Department of Veterans Affairs Delays Answering Questions on GI Bill Complaints

    Department of Veterans Affairs Delays Answering Questions on GI Bill Complaints







    Higher Education Inquirer : Department of Veterans Affairs Delays Answering Questions on GI Bill Complaints




    Source link