Tag: Department

  • Education Department staff anxiously await sweeping cuts

    Education Department staff anxiously await sweeping cuts

    It’s been a whirlwind week at the Department of Education, and some career staffers are anguished over its bleak, uncertain future.

    On Monday, the Senate confirmed Linda McMahon as the new secretary of education, and shortly afterward, she released a memo laying out department personnel’s “final mission”: “the elimination of bureaucratic bloat here at the Department of Education.”

    The next day, department leaders scheduled a meeting to announce a major reduction in force, which current staffers say is rumored to include layoffs of nearly 50 percent of the workforce—but the meeting was canceled at the last minute, according to a department employee.

    Then, on Wednesday, media outlets, citing sources in the administration, reported that President Trump would sign an executive order to abolish the Education Department as soon as Thursday, sending frenzied staffers scrambling to prepare.

    When White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Thursday morning on X that Trump wouldn’t be signing the order that day after all, one staffer said it felt like cruel misdirection.

    “It’s definitely feeling like whiplash,” they said. “Folks had steeled themselves for today … Everyone seems ready to rip off the Band-Aid, and the delay feels like a game to torture people.”

    Several current department employees, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on background and on the condition of anonymity, offered a chaotic picture of upheaval and uncertainty within the department, with staff scrambling to prepare for the dissolution of their offices, even as the administration’s plans and timeline remain unclear.

    One current employee told Inside Higher Ed that McMahon’s memo announcing the administration’s plan to downsize the department was “insulting and antagonizing.”

    “The notion that we should be honored to undertake this ‘final mission’ is absurd,” they said. “It’s basically saying, ‘You should thank us for firing you.’”

    One career staffer who’s been with the department for more than a decade said most employees are anxiously waiting for the other shoe to drop. Over the past few weeks, they said, anger and indignation have turned to heartbreak.

    “Reality is sinking in everywhere … Folks are seriously depressed,” they said. “And yet, working to advance the goals of this administration may actually be worse than not having a job.”

    ‘Slash and Burn’

    Trump has advocated for eliminating the 45-year-old Education Department since the early days of his campaign. When he nominated McMahon as secretary, he said he hoped she would “put herself out of a job.” Still, many department employees were taken aback by the sudden escalation.

    The longtime staffer said that when Trump was inaugurated, they anticipated some serious changes at the department. But the speed and wantonness of the move to abolish it has surprised them.

    “I foolishly believed they’d try to take a studied approach to any changes, consult with seasoned career staffers with institutional knowledge and expertise,” they said. “Instead it’s slash and burn.”

    Last week, the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management directed all federal agencies to prepare for “large-scale reductions in force” and the elimination of “non-statutorily mandated functions,” which could be a precursor to the Trump administration’s plans to heavily reduce the head count at Education Department as much as possible without congressional approval.

    A draft of Trump’s forthcoming executive order, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, includes a two-paragraph guideline for winding down department activity and little else. James Kvaal, who served as under secretary of education under President Joe Biden, said the absence of a plan is revealing and concerning.

    “[The document] reflects a lack of clarity within the Trump administration about what they’re trying to do, or even disagreement among certain elements,” Kvaal said.

    Department staffers are concerned about the administration’s strategy for implementing its ambitious spending cuts. One employee who spoke with Inside Higher Ed was placed on administrative leave last month and said their experience was “chaotic and haphazard.” The staffer said cuts to programs, contracts and personnel have been largely left up to a small group of young Department of Government Efficiency employees, whose approach has been “like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what they can get away with.”

    They said that if the Trump administration’s approach to cuts at the department so far is any indication how they will handle plans to gut the department, it could exacerbate the impact on students and educational institutions.

    “Nobody is going to know what’s happening, which means zero accountability,” they said. “It’s going to be a mess.”

    DOGE has already canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in department contracts, including some that are essential to the operation of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. And sources within the department say that hundreds of Federal Student Aid staff have either taken a buyout or been placed on leave.

    A current department employee who specializes in higher education said they fear that the department’s closure—or the major cuts that precipitate it—will have a devastating impact on the sector, and on affordability and access in particular.

    “There’s going to be a huge setback in the progress we’ve made even just in terms of who gets to go to college,” they said. “Universities are being put on such a high alert on every front … it’s a wholesale attack on the sector.”

    Kvaal said that even under Biden, the department in general—and the student aid office in particular—were severely understaffed, a problem that he has said contributed to the bungled rollout of the new FAFSA last year. He added that further reductions could hobble agencies’ capacity to perform essential duties like student loan and aid disbursement.

    “The department was thinly staffed even prior to these cuts, and as a result it was difficult to run programs smoothly and deliver benefits that students needed,” he said. “If there are, in fact, hundreds of people leaving FSA, that could put our progress with FAFSA at risk and upend our efforts to prevent student loan defaults. If nothing else, asking senior managers to focus on nudging their staff out the door and preparing for legislation that will never come is a real distraction.”

    Both Kvaal and current employees are concerned that when the Trump administration does release concrete plans for distributing the department’s responsibilities, they will welcome the private sector into administering services like student loans and financial aid.

    “It seems like the longer-term goal here would be to privatize the FSA, like they’re doing with Social Security,” one staffer said. “That’s a mess waiting to happen and would take way longer than four years. In the interim, the damage could be enormous.”

    Source link

  • Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    by CUPA-HR | March 3, 2025

    On March 1, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a Frequently Asked Questions  document providing further guidance on OCR’s February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague” letter.

    The February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    The “Dear Colleague” letter outlines OCR’s enforcement position with respect to the legal requirements “under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities,” in light of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA). The letter states SFFA “clarified that the use of racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful, sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race by state actors and entities covered by Title VI.” OCR declares in the letter that, in accordance with SFFA, federal law “prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” The letter states that OCR will “take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date,” which was February 28. OCR also notes in the letter that institutions that fail to comply “face potential loss of federal funding.”

    CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and dozens of other higher education associations in a February 25, 2025, letter to OCR noting  that the language in the “Dear Colleague” letter is ambiguous and, as a result, campuses are confused about their compliance responsibilities. CUPA-HR, ACE and the other associations requested in the letter that the department rescind the “Dear Colleague” letter and “engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of their legal obligations in this area.”

    The FAQ

    The March 1, 2025, FAQ provides details on how to file a discrimination complaint, the department’s view on what type of activity is unlawful and the department’s approach to enforcement.

    Enforcement

    With respect to the department’s approach to enforcement, the FAQ states that if OCR “determines that a school failed to comply with the civil rights laws that it enforces, [it] will contact the school and will attempt to secure its willingness to negotiate a voluntary resolution agreement.” The FAQ then states that “if a school is unwilling to negotiate a resolution agreement, OCR will inform the school of the consequences, which may result in OCR initiating enforcement through administrative proceedings or referring the case to the Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.”

    Unlawful Activity

    OCR notes in the FAQ that OCR’s assessment of whether an institution’s policies and programs are lawful “depends on the facts and circumstances of each case,” but provides more details on specific activities that do or may violate the law. The FAQ notes that it regards the following activities as unlawful:

    • preferences and stereotypes as a factor in admissions, hiring, promotion, scholarship, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and other programs and activities;
    • any programming, graduation ceremonies, housing, or any other aspect of school life that allows one race but not another or otherwise separates students, faculty, or staff based on race; and
    • policies that appear neutral on their face but are made with racially discriminatory purpose.

    With respect to the last bullet, OCR states in determining “whether a school acted with a racially discriminatory purpose, [it] may analyze different types of circumstantial evidence that, taken together, raise an inference of discriminatory intent.” OCR provides the following “non-exhaustive list,” which may include:

    • whether members of a particular race were treated differently than similarly situated students of other races;
    • the historical background or administrative history of the policy or decision;
    • whether there was a departure from normal procedures in making the policy or decision;
    • whether there was a pattern regarding policies or decisions towards members of a particular race;
    • statistics demonstrating a pattern of the policy or decision having a greater impact on members of a particular race;
    • whether the school was aware of or could foresee the effect of the policy or decision on members of a particular race; and
    • the school’s history and stated policy of using racial classifications and race-based policies to further DEI objectives, “equity,” a racially oriented vision of social justice, or similar goals.

    The FAQ also describes activities that could be unlawful. Specifically, the FAQ notes that “extreme practices at a university — such as requiring students to participate in privilege walks, segregating them by race for presentations and discussions with guest speakers, pressuring them to participate in protests or take certain positions on racially charged issues, investigating or sanctioning them for dissenting on racially charged issues through DEI or similar university offices, mandating courses, orientation programs, or trainings that are designed to emphasize and focus on racial stereotypes, and assigning them coursework that requires them to identify by race and then complete tasks differentiated by race — are all forms of school-on-student harassment that could create a hostile environment under Title VI.”

    DEI?

    The FAQ notes, “whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” but rather whether it discriminates “based on race, color, or national origin.” The FAQ notes that institutions “may not operate policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races,” or programming that “discourages members of all races from attending, either by excluding or discouraging students of a particular race or races.”

    The FAQ also notes, however, that “programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race.” OCR also states that “educational, cultural, or historical observances — such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events — that celebrate or recognize historical events and contributions, and promote awareness,” are lawful “so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination.”

    Next Steps

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor and keep members apprised of any further developments.



    Source link

  • U.S. Department of Education Launches “End DEI” Portal (US Department of Education)

    U.S. Department of Education Launches “End DEI” Portal (US Department of Education)

    WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of Education launched EndDEI.Ed.Gov, a public portal for parents, students, teachers, and the broader community to submit reports of discrimination based on race or sex in publicly-funded K-12 schools.

    The secure portal allows parents to provide an email address, the name of the student’s school or school district, and details of the concerning practices. The Department of Education will use submissions as a guide to identify potential areas for investigation.

    “For years, parents have been begging schools to focus on teaching their kids practical skills like reading, writing, and math, instead of pushing critical theory, rogue sex education and divisive ideologies—but their concerns have been brushed off, mocked, or shut down entirely,” said Tiffany Justice, Co-Founder of Moms for Liberty. “Parents, now is the time that you share the receipts of the betrayal that has happened in our public schools. This webpage demonstrates that President Trump’s Department of Education is putting power back in the hands of parents.”

    Source link

  • Last Email From A Worker at the US Department of Education

    Last Email From A Worker at the US Department of Education

    This graphic is part of an email from a US Department of Education official who was recently fired without good cause.  Our experiences with this dedicated public servant were always excellent, something we cannot say about others in the DC crowd. The graphic displays a number of important measures that have been enacted by ED-FSA (Federal Student Aid) over the last six years–and one giant failure, general debt relief for more than 30 million citizens. We wish the best for those Department of Education workers who remain, and who may see their jobs made more difficult, privatized, or moved to other agencies. The work cannot be easy for anyone–especially those who care about the folks they serve–the consumers and their families who are less likely to receive justice in the coming months and years. 

    Related link:

    Department of Education workers brace for Trump to shut agency down: ‘Everybody is distraught’ (UK Guardian)

    Department of Education contract cuts spur ‘chaos and confusion’ (The Hill)

    The Department of Education’s History Shows It is Essential (Time)

    Source link

  • Education Department Publishes Guidance Letter Deeming Race-Conscious Programs, Activities and Practices Illegal

    Education Department Publishes Guidance Letter Deeming Race-Conscious Programs, Activities and Practices Illegal

    by CUPA-HR | February 18, 2025

    On February 14, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published a “Dear Colleague” letter “to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools … that receive federal financial assistance” from the department. The letter specifically states that “Federal law … prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” (emphasis added).

    The department warns that “institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding,” and cites the government’s authority to do so under “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and other relevant authorities.”

    The letter reiterates institutions’ existing legal requirements under federal antidiscrimination laws and is intended to provide clarity to institutions of their nondiscrimination obligations. However, in addition to pointing to existing federal antidiscrimination laws, OCR expands upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) — which banned the use of race-conscious admissions practices at institutions of higher education — to apply more broadly to programs and practices at institutions. Specifically, OCR states that the court’s decision and applicable federal law prohibits covered entities “from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”

    OCR provides a few examples of practices that would be illegal under federal antidiscrimination law. One example, which was prohibited in the text of the SFFA decision, is using “students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other cues” as a means to determine a student’s race to grant preferences to that individual. Additionally, the letter states that using proxies like the one just described is illegal on the systematic level, stating that it is unlawful for institutions to eliminate standardized testing to “achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.” In both examples, OCR appears focused on the motive for the action rather than the action itself. Thus, an institution can choose to use or not use standardized tests or focus on certain criteria in applications as long it is not doing so for an impermissible reason.

    The letter also says that other programs violate antidiscrimination laws in less direct ways. Specifically, the letter states that “DEI programs … frequently preference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not” and that “such programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes.” They assert that these programs ultimately deny students the ability to fully participate in “the life of a school.”

    The letter states that the Department of Education will begin to assess institutional compliance with antidiscrimination law and regulations no later than 14 days after of the date of publication of the letter. In the letter, OCR advises schools to:

    • Ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law.
    • Cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends.
    • Cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.

    Possible Implications for Higher Education HR Professionals

    As noted above, the letter specifies using race in hiring, promotion and compensation decisions is prohibited under federal law, though the Department of Education does not provide examples of hiring and compensation practices that could be violations of such laws. While the primary federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar equal employment opportunity laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Title VI can apply to employment decisions. It is unclear how the department intends to enforce this letter with respect to hiring, promotion and compensation practices and whether the Department of Labor or the EEOC will provide further guidance. CUPA-HR intends to seek clarification from the Education Department and the other agencies.

    CUPA-HR is assessing the impact that this enforcement letter will have on institutions and will keep members apprised of further developments related to the Trump administration’s DEI orders.



    Source link

  • Education Department cancels $350M in contracts, grants

    Education Department cancels $350M in contracts, grants

    Last week, the department canceled nearly $900 million in contracts at the Institute for Education Sciences.

    J. David Ake/Getty Images

    The U.S. Education Department has canceled 10 contracts with Regional Educational Laboratories totaling $336 million and a further $33 million of grants to Equity Assistance Centers.

    The decision, announced Friday, appears to be another example of Elon Musk’s U.S. Department of Government Efficiency slashing the department’s activities and of anti–diversity, equity and inclusion activist Christopher Rufo’s continuing influence. The cuts also seem to part of the Trump administration’s crusade against programs that could be considered DEI-related, but it’s unclear what all the canceled contracts and grants were actually for.

    Regional Educational Laboratories, or RELs, have been around for more than a half century. Among other things, they contribute “research on how experiences within the nation’s education system differ by context and student group, thereby impacting outcomes,” according to the website of the Institute of Education Sciences, which administers the 10 RELs.

    On Feb. 10, the Trump administration said it canceled nearly $900 million in Institute of Education Sciences contracts. Then, on Thursday night—in a news release titled “U.S. Department of Education Cancels Additional $350 Million in Woke Spending”—the department announced the severing of the REL contracts.

    “Review of the contracts uncovered wasteful and ideologically driven spending not in the interest of students and taxpayers,” the department said. It said REL Midwest “has been advising schools in Ohio to undertake ‘equity audits’ and equity conversations.”

    But the release didn’t say how much REL Midwest was receiving for that work or further explain what the other canceled contracts were for. The department said in an email Friday that no further information was “cleared for release.”

    President Trump has said he plans to close the Education Department, but the release suggested that these contract cancellations might not be part of a permanent reduction in spending. “The department plans to enter into new contracts that will satisfy the statutory requirements, improve student learning and better serve school districts, state departments of education and other education stakeholders,” the release said.

    The release also said the department “terminated grants to four Equity Assistance Centers totaling $33 million, which supported divisive training in DEI, critical race theory and gender identity for state and local education agencies as well as school boards.” It didn’t hint at restoring this funding.

    The Equity Assistance Centers were originally referred to as the Desegregation Assistance Centers program, according to the Education Department, and help to ensure “that all students have equitable access to learning opportunities, regardless of their child’s race, sex, national origin, or religion.”

    On Thursday afternoon, Rufo, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, posted on X a few examples of what he had telegraphed as “a trove of insane videos, slides and documents from the Department of Education. The whole department functions like a Ponzi scheme for left-wing ideologies.”

    Then, roughly three hours before the department announced the cuts, he posted, “I’m hearing murmurs that the @DOGE team is following my posts about the Department of Education.” About an hour before the announcement, he posted that the department’s “DOGE team has terminated $350 million in federal contracts to the DOE’s ‘regional education laboratories’ and ‘equity assistance centers.’ We expose corruption on X, then DOGE wipes it out in D.C.”

    Rufo didn’t return requests for comment Friday. The Knowledge Alliance, a coalition advancing research that’s critical to solving education problems, said in a news release Friday that the REL contract cancellations continue “the unprecedented assault on learning and evaluation in the U.S. education system.”

    “RELs provide research and technical assistance that is tailored to specific states and communities, helping schools and districts tackle the most pressing challenges they face,” the Knowledge Alliance release said. “Working in close partnership with educators, school leaders and policymakers, RELs help design and implement approaches that meaningfully improve outcomes for everyone in our school communities.”

    Source link

  • Department of Education Orders End to Race-Based Programs Amid Fierce Pushback

    Department of Education Orders End to Race-Based Programs Amid Fierce Pushback

    The U.S. Department of Education has issued a sweeping directive ordering educational institutions to eliminate race-based considerations from admissions, hiring, and other programs, sparking immediate opposition from civil rights organizations, educational leaders, and advocacy groups.

    In a Dear Colleague Letter to schools receiving federal funding, the Department mandated the cessation of race preferences in areas ranging from admissions and hiring to scholarships and disciplinary actions. Schools that fail to comply within 14 days risk losing federal funding.

    “With this guidance, the Trump Administration is directing schools to end the use of racial preferences and race stereotypes in their programs and activities,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor, characterizing the move as “a victory for justice, civil rights laws, and the Constitution.”

    The directive, which builds on last year’s Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, extends far beyond college admissions to encompass elementary, middle, and high schools. It also targets diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which the Department claims have contributed to “widespread censorship” and a “repressive viewpoint monoculture” on campuses.

    The Department’s action specifically prohibits race-based considerations in admissions processes, hiring and promotion decisions, compensation, scholarship and prize distributions, and disciplinary actions. Schools must now evaluate students “according to merit, accomplishment, and character,” according to the directive.

    The sweeping nature of the order has raised serious concerns among education experts about its implementation timeline and scope. The 14-day compliance window, in particular, has drawn criticism from school administrators who argue that revamping entire systems of administration, hiring, and student life programs requires more time and careful consideration.

    Critics of the directive argue that it represents an overreach of the Department’s authority and misinterprets the Supreme Court’s Harvard decision. While the Court ruled against race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, many legal experts contend that the ruling’s scope was more limited than the Department’s interpretation suggests.

    The Department’s letter also takes aim at what it describes as a “DEI regime” in educational institutions, claiming these programs have fostered censorship through various mechanisms, including “deplatforming speakers who articulate a competing view” and using “bias response teams” to investigate those who object to a school’s racial ideology.

    Educational institutions now face the complex task of reviewing and potentially overhauling numerous programs and policies to ensure compliance with the new directive. This includes examining everything from recruitment strategies and scholarship criteria to student organization funding and faculty hiring practices.

    The Department has established a complaint system through its Office of Civil Rights for individuals who believe an institution has violated these new guidelines. However, education advocates warn that the rapid implementation timeline could lead to hasty decisions that might inadvertently harm educational equity and access.

    As schools scramble to interpret and implement these changes, the directive’s long-term impact on educational equity and institutional diversity remains uncertain. The Department’s enforcement approach and how it will evaluate compliance are yet to be fully detailed, leaving many institutions in a challenging position as they attempt to navigate these new requirements while maintaining their educational missions and values.

    Source link

  • Education Department lays off civil servants

    Education Department lays off civil servants

    The U.S. Department of Education laid off some civil servants on Wednesday, Politico reported, citing multiple people familiar with the matter. 

    It’s not yet clear how many employees were affected, but they worked for a range of offices within the department, from civil rights to federal student aid. Earlier that day, a federal judge approved the Trump administration’s plan to offer buyouts to vast swaths of the federal workforce. 

    The move is the latest personnel disruption at the agency. Earlier this month, dozens of employees were put on administrative leave after attending a diversity, equity and inclusion training during the first Trump administration.

    Many of the terminated department employees were still in their probationary period, according to Politico, meaning they’d been on the job for less than a year and lacked full civil service protections, though nonprobationary employees were also affected. On Thursday, the Associated Press reported that the Trump administration had ordered all federal agencies to terminate their probationary employees, part of a broader effort to reduce the federal workforce.

    Source link

  • Education Department mulls using AI chat bot for FAFSA help

    Education Department mulls using AI chat bot for FAFSA help

    The Education Department is considering terminating its contracts for thousands of call center employees hired to answer families’ questions about federal student aid, and may replace them with an artificial intelligence–powered chat bot, The New York Times reported Thursday.

    Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency apparently suggested the move, the Times reported, as part of a broader effort to reduce federal spending—which has already led to dozens if not hundreds of layoffs at the Education Department and the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts at the Institute for Education Sciences.

    The call centers employ 1,625 people who answer more than 15,000 calls per day, according to an Education Department report. The department greatly increased staffing at their call centers after last year’s bungled launch of the new FAFSA led to an overwhelming influx of calls. 

    Last September, a Government Accountability Office investigation found that in the first five months of the rollout, three-quarters of calls went unanswered. Last summer, the department hired 700 new agents to staff the lines and had planned to add another 225 after the launch of the 2024–25 FAFSA in November.

    One of the helplines DOGE is closely scrutinizing, according to the Times, is operated by the consulting firm Accenture. Accenture also operates the studentaid.gov website, which houses the online platform for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The department’s contract with the firm expires Feb. 19. According to sources in the Education Department who spoke with Inside Higher Ed, the department is considering significant reductions to its Accenture contract ahead of its renewal.

    Source link

  • McMahon confirms Trump’s plans to dismantle Department of Ed

    McMahon confirms Trump’s plans to dismantle Department of Ed

    Linda McMahon told senators Thursday that she won’t shut down the Education Department without their approval, quelling any doubt that the majority Republicans may have had about whether she deserved to be appointed to President Donald Trump’s cabinet.

    But that doesn’t mean that McMahon and the Trump administration aren’t still looking to make considerable changes to the agency’s programs and potentially dismantle it from the inside out. She said at her confirmation hearing that the department has to go, or at the very least is in need of a major makeover, because it’s rife with bureaucracy that fails to serve students well.

    The goal, the former wrestling CEO told the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, is to “reorient” the federal agency and ensure it “operate[s] more efficiently”—not defund education, as some critics have suggested.

    “We’d like to do this right,” she said. “We’d like to make sure that we are presenting a plan that I think our senators could get on board with, and our Congress to get on board with.”

    Questions about the department’s future and whether McMahon would stand up to President Trump if he tries to break the law dominated the nearly three-hour hearing. McMahon, a Trump loyalist and veteran of the first administration, weathered the hearing just fine and will likely be confirmed by the Senate. The committee will vote Feb. 20 on her nomination.

    McMahon largely stuck by Trump and defended his actions so far. She also pledged to comply with and uphold the law, respecting Congress’s power over the purse strings by disbursing funds as lawmakers order. “The president will not ask me to do anything that’s against the law,” she later added.

    McMahon’s comments break slightly from the president’s record so far. In the first three weeks alone, Trump and Elon Musk have entirely shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, cut countless contracts and attempted to freeze all federal grants. The president has said he wants to get rid of the Education Department entirely, suggesting he didn’t need congressional action to do so.

    During and after the hearing, the majority of Republicans praised McMahon as the right person for the job.

    “It is clear that our current education system isn’t working. We have the status quo and that’s actually failing our kids,” Senator Katie Britt of Alabama said in her opening remarks. “Linda McMahon is someone who knows how to reform our education system.”

    But for Democrats and Senator Susan Collins, a more centrist Republican from Maine, McMahon’s comments left quite a few questions still lingering and seemed to be, at times, self-contradictory.

    “The whole hearing right now feels kind of surreal to me,” said Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire. “It’s almost like we’re being subjected to a very eloquent gaslighting here.”

    While many of the senators’ questions focused on special education, K-12, the separation of powers and getting rid of the Education Department, colleges and universities did come up a few times, offering some insight into McMahon’s plans as secretary.

    Here are five key higher ed takeaways from the hearing:

    Commitments but Few Specifics

    Prior to the hearing, Trump’s comments suggested his Education Department would prioritize cutting red tape, returning education to the states, cracking down on campus antisemitism and banning what he calls “gender ideology,” among other things. But speculation swirled about what McMahon would put at the top of her agenda.

    On Thursday she made it clear that she’s in lockstep with the president, saying in her opening remarks that “Trump has shared his vision and I’m ready to enact it.” She failed to provide much detail beyond that.

    The business mogul, who has limited experience in education, indicated she’ll have some studying to do if she gets confirmed. When asked about topics like diversity, equity and inclusion programs or accreditation, she said, “I’ll have to learn more” or “I’d like to look into it further and get back to you on that.”

    For example, when it came to addressing civil rights complaints filed by Jewish students, McMahon was quick to assure Republican lawmakers that colleges will “face defunding” if they don’t comply with the law. She also said that international students who participate in protests Trump deems antisemitic should have their visas revoked. But she didn’t provide further detail on how exactly either repercussion would be enforced.

    Additionally, when asked about how she would address a backlog of cases at the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates complaints of discrimination, she said, “I would like to be confirmed and get into the department and understand that backlog.”

    ‘Pretty Chilling’ Approach to DEI

    McMahon declined to say what specific programs or classes might violate Trump’s recent executive order banning diversity, equity and inclusion during a tense exchange with Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut.

    Policy experts said Trump’s executive order should have had little immediate impact on higher ed, as most of its provisions require agency action, but several colleges and universities moved quickly to comply after the order was signed Jan. 21, canceling events and scrubbing websites of DEI mentions.

    Murphy highlighted one of those examples, telling McMahon that the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., had shut down a number of its student affinity groups and clubs like the Society of Black Engineers.

    He then went on to ask her, “Would public schools be in violation of this order, would they risk funding if they had clubs that students could belong to based on their racial or ethnic identity?” To which McMahon responded, “Well, I certainly today don’t want to address hypothetical situations.”

    Murphy said that should be “a pretty easy question,” adding that her lack of response was “pretty chilling.”

    “I think you’re going to have a lot of teachers and administrators scrambling right now,” he said.

    McMahon did note, however, that all schools can and should celebrate Black History Month and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. She suggested that in saying individuals should be judged by “content of their character,” King was supporting a colorblind approach to policy and looking at all populations as the same, rather than addressing systemic inequities.

    Dems Take Issue With DOGE

    Several lawmakers had questions for McMahon about Trump’s efforts to cut spending via the Elon Musk–led Department of Government Efficiency, but she didn’t have many answers.

    Democrats, in particular, took issue with recent reports that DOGE staffers have access to sensitive student data and recently canceled $881 million in contracts at the Institute of Education Sciences. The Education Department is just one of several agencies under DOGE’s microscope. The Trump administration is also laying off employees at the agency or putting them on administrative leave as part of a broader plan to shrink the federal workforce.

    McMahon said she didn’t know “about all the administrative people who have been put on leave,” adding she would look into that. She also didn’t have more information about the IES cuts. But she defended DOGE’s work as an audit.

    “I do think it’s worthwhile to take a look at the programs before money goes out the door,” she said.

    But Democrats countered that Congress, not the executive branch, has the authority to direct where federal funds should go.

    “When Congress appropriates money, it is the administration’s responsibility to put that out as directed by Congress, who has the power of the purse,” said Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat. “If you have input, if you have programs you have looked at that you believe are not effective, then it is your job to come to us, explain why and get the support for that.”

    Brief Mention of Accreditation

    Despite Trump’s promise to fire accreditors, the accreditation system and the federal policies that govern it received little attention during the hearing—aside from one round of questions.

    Senator Ashley Moody, a Florida Republican, said she thinks the current system is unconstitutional, echoing claims that she made as Florida attorney general. The state argued in a 2023 lawsuit that Congress ceded power to private accrediting agencies, violating the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge rejected those claims and threw out the lawsuit in October.

    Currently, federal law requires that colleges and universities be accredited by an Education Department–recognized accreditor in order to receive federal student aid such as Pell Grants. But in recent years, Republican-led states—most notably Florida—have bristled at what they see as undue interference from the accreditors and their power to potentially take away federal aid. State lawmakers in Florida now require public colleges to change accreditors regularly. But that process has been sluggish, and officials blame the Education Department.

    Moody asked McMahon to commit to review regulations and guidance related to colleges changing accreditors.

    “I look forward to working with you on that,” McMahon said. “And there’s been a lot of issues raised about these five to seven accreditors … I think that needs to have a broad overview and review.” (McMahon didn’t specify, but she seemed to refer to the seven institutional accreditors.)

    Support for Short-Term Pell

    Throughout the hearing, McMahon also reiterated her support for expanding the Pell Grant to short-term workforce training programs that run between eight and 15 weeks, and bolstering other nontraditional means of higher education like apprenticeships.

    The nominee noted multiple times that though “college isn’t for everyone,” there should be opportunities for socioeconomic mobility and career development for all. She believes promoting programs like short-term Pell “could stimulate our economy” by providing new routes to pursue skills-based learning and promote trade careers. This mindset could likely lead to less restriction on for-profit technical institutions like cosmetology schools.

    One thing neither McMahon nor the Senate panel spent much time on, however, was the Office of Federal Student Aid, its botched rollout of a new application portal or how she would manage the government’s $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio. One of the few mentions of the student debt crisis came up in committee chair Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana’s opening remarks.

    “Too many students leave college woefully unprepared for the workforce while being saddled with overwhelming debt that they cannot pay off,” he said. “Your previous experience overseeing [Small Business Administration] loans will be a great asset as the department looks to reform its student loan program.”

    Source link