Tag: details

  • England’s international fee levy under fire after details revealed

    England’s international fee levy under fire after details revealed

    Critics of the policy – now subject to consultation – say the levy will only heap more pressure onto an already creaking higher education network. At present, only England’s universities will be subject to the charge, as the Office for Students, which will manage the charge, only regulates English institutions.

    Official modelling predicts that the change, set to come in from August 2025, will cost universities an annual £330 million. However, under the proposals, each provider will receive an annual allowance to cover their first 220 international students – a move that’s made smaller and specialist institutions breathe a sigh of relief.

    But for larger universities with high numbers of international students, the picture isn’t so rosy.

    Gary Davies, pro vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University, told The PIE News the levy would have a detrimental effect on his institution despite being brought in as a flat fee.

    “For us the levy means a cut in funding for the very students the levy proposes to support. It will impact what we can offer in relation to student hardship, careers advice, scholarships for underrepresented students,” he said.

    Diana Beech, director of the Finsbury Institute at City St George’s, said the details of the policy had been “buried in the Treasury’s Red Book” – largely dodging coverage by the mainstream media.

    “This begs the question: why undermine one of the UK’s strongest export sectors without even gaining political credit for it – whether that’s by framing the levy as a tough stance on immigration or as a much-needed boost for disadvantaged students,” she asked.

    “By going about this policy in such a hush-hush way, the levy will simply tax legitimate, highly skilled migration under the radar and heap further pressure on universities already in financial distress. Worse still, fixing it as a flat £925 fee per student risks hitting those institutions least able to absorb the cost, given the lack of price elasticity outside the elite end of the sector.”

    Why undermine one of the UK’s strongest export sectors without even gaining political credit for it?
    Diana Beech, City St George’s

    University Alliance CEO Vanessa Wilson warned the levy risked “denting [the] success story” of UK international education – even if the cash raised would go towards a goo cause like domestic maintenance grants.”

    Wilson said the move would hit universities hard, and pressed for a full assessment of the levy’s effects on higher education institutions before its proposed implementation in 2028.

    “Alongside this, the government must explore further ways to soften the blow for professional and technical universities, such as cutting costly regulation and reviewing their participation in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, which some universities are legally obliged to offer at increasingly expensive contribution rates,” she added. 

    Malcolm Press, president of Universities UK, pointed out that the UK’s international fees are already high. As a result of the proposed levy, he predicted, English universities would either have to reduce cross-subsidies that support teaching and research, or raise international fees further – which could drive down international student numbers and therefore force institutions to reduce domestic places.

    The irony of the levy – which will be used to fund maintenance grants for disadvantaged British students – actually reducing places for home students has been raised before. An analysis by the think tank Public First predicted the levy could shrink domestic places by 135,000.

    Source link

  • Virginia Giuffre’s Memoir Details Sex Abuse by Epstein, Maxwell, Prince Andrew (Democracy Now!)

    Virginia Giuffre’s Memoir Details Sex Abuse by Epstein, Maxwell, Prince Andrew (Democracy Now!)

     

    Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s posthumous memoir has just been released, detailing how she was groomed by Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, whom she met at Donald Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort. In Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, she writes that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew three times, beginning when she was 17, and was beaten and raped by a “well-known prime minister.” Virginia Giuffre died by suicide earlier this year in Australia at age 41. 

    Democracy Now! speaks with Amy Wallace, Giuffre’s ghostwriter, who says Giuffre experienced the “depths of hell” with Maxwell and Epstein. “It’s not just a catalog of horrors. It’s a woman who is terribly abused as a child, escapes from that terrible abuse … and then becomes an advocate,” says Wallace.

    Source link

  • Report Details Community College Student Parents’ Struggles

    Report Details Community College Student Parents’ Struggles

    A new report from the Center for Community College Student Engagement found that even though parenting students are especially dedicated to their studies, they face significant obstacles in college.

    The report, based on a 2024 survey of students from 164 community colleges, found that parenting students were more engaged than nonparenting students across multiple benchmarks, including coming to class prepared and never skipping classes, despite their additional responsibilities. These students were also more likely than nonparents to have earned an associate degree or certificate or to mention changing careers as a goal.

    But even with such strong drive, 71 percent of student parents reported caring for dependents could cause them to withdraw from college; 73 percent said financial circumstances might make them stop out. Student parents were also more likely than nonparents to face food and housing insecurity, but only small fractions of students reported receiving food or housing support from their college in the last month. In a similar vein, a third of students with children say that their colleges don’t adequately support them as parents. Meanwhile, these students say underutilized supports that could help them, including campus childcare services, financial advising and career counseling, the report found.

    The report also offers examples of higher ed institutions that have put in place effective supports for student parents. For example, Lee College in Texas offers weekly financial assistance for childcare and family-friendly study areas. Monroe Community College in New York created a designated student success coach role to serve single mothers.

    “Parenting students are among the most engaged learners on our campuses, but they face barriers that too often derail their progress,” Linda García, CCCSE’s executive director, said in a news release. “But when colleges take intentional steps to support them, the impact is not only on students, but on their children and communities.”

    Source link

  • Week in review: Details emerge on plans to collect new admissions data

    Week in review: Details emerge on plans to collect new admissions data

    Most clicked story of the week:

    Nearly three dozen selective colleges are facing an antitrust lawsuit alleging they used the early decision admissions process to reduce competition and inflate prices. Also named as defendants are application platforms Common App and Scoir, as well as the Consortium on Financing Higher Education, an information-sharing coalition of selective liberal arts colleges.

    By the numbers

     

    740,000

    That’s the estimated number of work hours the higher education sector can expect to add as a result of the U.S. Department of Education’s plan to cull new data from colleges on their applicants’ race and sex. Behind the push is the Trump administration’s hostility toward diversity initiatives and its aggressive approach to enforcing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ban on race-based admissions.

    Anti-DEI push in courts, board rooms and classrooms:

    • A federal judge declined to block Alabama’s governor from enforcing a new law that eliminates diversity, equity and inclusion offices and forbids colleges from requiring students to adopt a long list of “divisive concepts.” The professors and students who sued over the law expressed concerns that it is overly vague and restricts their free speech rights. 
    • The Iowa Board of Regents adopted a new policy requiring public university faculty to present controversial subjects “in a way that reflects the range of scholarly views and ongoing debate in the field.” Before last week’s vote, the board stripped the proposal’s original language around DEI and critical race theory after public pushback. But one regent noted the policy does not define “controversial” and raised questions about who would. 
    • Students for Fair Admissions dropped its lawsuits against the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the U.S. Air Force Academy over race-conscious admissions. Both academies dropped their diversity efforts in admissions earlier this year under a directive from the Trump administration. 

    Quote of the week:


    “Our actions clearly demonstrate our commitment to addressing antisemitic actions and promoting an inclusive campus environment by upholding a safe, respectful, and accountable environment.”

    George Washington University


    The private institution became one of the latest targets of the Trump administration, which claimed the university was indifferent to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its Washington, D.C., campus. As with its accusations against a handful of other colleges, the administration cited a pro-Palestinian protest encampment at GWU in spring 2024. The university asked the local police to clear the encampment shortly after it was formed.

    Source link

  • Education Department details plans to collect applicant data by race, sex

    Education Department details plans to collect applicant data by race, sex

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Under a proposed plan from the Trump administration, colleges would have to submit six years worth of application and admissions data — disaggregated by student race and sex — as part of the 2025-26 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System reporting cycle.
    • President Donald Trump last week issued a memo requiring institutions to significantly expand the parameters of the admissions data they report to the National Center for Education Statistics, which oversees IPEDS.
    • Colleges would need to submit a multi-year report “to establish a baseline of admissions practices” before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-conscious admissions, according to a notice filed Wednesday in the Federal Register. 

    Dive Insight:

     The Trump administration has repeatedly charged that diversity efforts at colleges and elsewhere violate civil rights law.

    “DEI has been used as a pretext to advance overt and insidious racial discrimination,” according to the Federal Register notice, which was signed by Brian Fu, acting chief data officer of the department’s Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

    The additional student data questions — collectively titled the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement, or ACTS — are meant to create “greater transparency” and “help to expose unlawful practices” at colleges, the notice said. It added that, with more information, the Education Department can better enforce Title VI laws, which bar discrimination based on race, color or national origin at federally funded institutions. 

    Under ACTS, colleges would have to report extensive demographic data for applicants, admitted students and those that ultimately enroll. And for the first year, they would have to do so for every academic year dating back to 2020-21.

    Colleges would also need to report on their graduation rates from 2019-20 to 2024-25, the notice said.

    Officials would be required to disaggregate student demographics by race and sex and cross-reference it with the following data points:

    • Admissions test scores.
    • GPA.
    • Family income.
    • Pell Grant eligibility.
    • Parents’ educational level.

    Previously, the Education Department only required colleges to submit data by race for enrolled students.

    Institutions would also have to report the numbers of their admitted student pool that applied via early action, early decision and regular admissions.

    Graduate student data would be required to be disaggregated by field of study, as applicants typically apply directly to departments, not to the college overall, the notice said.

    The Education Department is gearing ACTS at four-year institutions with selective admissions processes, which its notice said “have an elevated risk of noncompliance with the civil rights laws,” both in admissions and scholarships.

    The proposal says open-enrollment institutions like community colleges and trade schools are at low risk for noncompliance with Title IV in admissions.

    However, the department on Wednesday requested public comment on open enrollment colleges’ policies for awarding scholarships, an area it flagged as potentially providing “preferential treatment based upon race.” It also asked for feedback about the types of institutions that should be required to submit the additional admissions information.

    Public feedback could influence “whether we should narrow or expand the scope of institutions required to complete the ACTS component,” it said.

    The Education Department is also seeking feedback on how it could reduce the administrative cost of the increased data collection.

    It estimated that, across the higher ed sector, the change will create over 740,000 hours of new work.

    U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon fully endorsed Trump’s memo last week, saying the administration would not allow “institutions to blight the dreams of students by presuming that their skin color matters more than their hard work and accomplishments.” But it has yet to be seen how the agency will handle a dramatic increase in college data.

    The Education Department’s workforce has been greatly diminished since Trump retook office. The Trump administration laid off half of the department’s employees in March. Although a federal judge temporarily blocked the mass terminations, the Supreme Court lifted that order last month while the litigation proceeds.

    Peggy Carr, the ousted former commissioner of NCES, warned last month that the dramatic cuts to the department put it at risk of mishandling data and eroding the public’s trust in its data.

    “Accurate, reliable, nonpartisan data are the essential foundations of sound education policy,” the long-time NCES official said in a statement. “Policy that isn’t informed by good data isn’t really policy — it’s guesswork.”

    The Trump administration abruptly fired Carr in February. President Joe Biden had appointed her to the post for a six-year term in 2021. 

    Source link

  • The details behind the first national school voucher program

    The details behind the first national school voucher program

    After decades of trying, conservatives this year succeeded in creating the first national school voucher program.

    The Republican megabill that President Donald Trump signed into law in July will establish new tax credit scholarships for families to use at private schools, including religious ones — a long-held goal of school privatization advocates who argue parents should get taxpayer support if they want to opt out of their neighborhood school.

    Under the “big, beautiful bill,” donors can receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits of up to $1,700 for contributions to scholarship-granting nonprofits. Those groups then distribute the money to families seeking help paying for private school, tutoring and other educational expenses. 

    The program, while significant, is less expansive than in earlier drafts of the legislation. Previous versions gave donors larger tax credits — a match up to $5,000 or 10 percent of their income, whichever is greater — and mandated that all states participate rather than allowing them to opt in. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Here are 10 things to know about the program. If you have other questions or there’s more you’d like to know, write to us: [email protected].

    When does it start?

    Jan. 1, 2027. Families have until then to research where they might want to spend a scholarship — and if the school in mind even plans to accept one. Taxpayers who want to contribute to support the scholarships can do so beginning in late 2026.  

    How will the scholarships work?

    The law opens the door to churches, universities, education nonprofits, rotary clubs and potentially even public schools (more on that below) to accept and distribute donations for the program. These “scholarship-granting organizations,” or SGOs, can keep up to 10 percent of the donations for administrative costs.

    In some states with existing scholarship programs, families apply with a third-party contractor that works with eligible schools and selects students for awards. Other states allow religious groups and other nonprofits to create and manage their own scholarship funds. The federal bill gives states wide flexibility to make those sorts of decisions about how the program is administered, experts say.

    Who’s eligible for the scholarships?

    To qualify, students need to check these boxes: They must be eligible to attend a public school, their state must opt in to the program, and their families must earn no more than three times the area median income — a threshold that would include households with incomes nearing $500,000 in some parts of the United States.

    Students who already attend private school qualify, since they are eligible for public school, even if they don’t attend one. The scholarships also may cover home-schoolers. (Keep reading for more on that.)

    How much money will families receive? 

    While the bill set a $1,700 cap on how much individual donors can contribute through their taxes, it’s unclear whether it limits how much an individual student could collect in scholarships.

    In theory, a student could apply for several scholarships. An SGO might also offer a scholarship that reimburses a family for all costs associated with attending their preferred school. In states that already offer similar school choice programs, a student might be able to collect scholarships from both the new program and the existing state program. Still, the average cost of private school tuition is roughly $13,000, so even students who combine several scholarships may not receive enough to cover the full cost of attending.

    The Treasury Department is expected to issue regulations on the program, and we may not know these kinds of details until it does. 

    Related: Arizona gave families public money for private schools. Then private schools raised tuition

    What can the scholarship money be used for?

    Quite a lot. The legislation suggests that families could use the money not only to help pay for private school tuition, but also for room and board, services for students with disabilities, transportation, tutoring, and school supplies like books, computers and uniforms. 

    The rules may depend on the individual state and its definition of an “eligible school.” In some states, home schooling might qualify students for the scholarships, but in other states it might not, said Robert Enlow, president of EdChoice, a pro-school choice group.  

    It’s also possible that public schools could charge scholarship students — as some do with home-schoolers — for services like tutoring, special education or advanced courses. 

    So students can use the money at public schools? How would that work? 

    Yes, potentially. In some states, schools already charge activity or participation fees for non-enrolled students who want to join clubs and sports. Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, said some states may write their own rules that allow schools to extend the menu of services they could charge for.

    Meanwhile, most school districts — roughly 4 in 5 — already partner with foundations that raise money to help students with transportation, school supplies and basic needs. Both Enlow and Roza said they expected nonprofits and districts to partner on finding ways to tap the federal scholarship dollars as well.

    “Imagine you could have a public school foundation going out and helping with transportation and books and computers and tutors and all sorts of stuff, right?” Enlow said. “The potential is huge.”

    Will all private schools accept the scholarships? 

    No, private schools are not required to accept the scholarships, and many states that offer school choice don’t require private schools to participate. Private schools generally can accept or reject a student for any reason, whether they have a scholarship or not.

    In Arizona, for example, the tax credit program provided scholarships to students at 348 schools last year. More than 400 private schools operated in the state as of 2022.

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more 

    Which states will participate?

    Roughly 21 states — including Arizona, Georgia and Montana — offer their own tax credit scholarships, according to the group EdChoice, so it’s expected they would opt into the federal program. Conservative lawmakers in North Carolina already introduced a bill to allow families there to take part in the federal scholarships. 

    If public schools can benefit too, even Democratic governors may consider joining the program, said Roza.

    “Ultimately if the state can open this to summer camp and tutoring, obviously there would be a lot of pressure to unlock so much money with this,” she said.

    How much will the scholarships cost the government?

    It depends on how many taxpayers claim the credit. 

    While an earlier version of the bill would have capped the tax credits at $10 billion a year, the final legislation contains no such limit — so the exact amount in lost revenue won’t be known until much later. That said, an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that the legislation would cost the Treasury up to $4 billion per year.

    Others think the cost will be higher. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning research group, placed its projection closer to $51 billion, while Roza estimated the cost at $28 billion per year. Still, she hesitated to count that as a direct loss to K-12 funding. “It’s new money in the sense that it doesn’t go into or out of the federal pie,” Roza said.

    What’s been the reaction to the plan? 

    Critics, including teachers unions and many education experts, have been quick to raise alarms about the voucher program, arguing that it’s a handout for wealthy families and will harm public schools by reducing funding for them.

    “It’s the centerpiece of the Great American Heist — a privatization scheme wrapped in tax policy,” Denise Forte, president of the left-leaning nonprofit EdTrust, said at a hearing before the Senate Democratic Caucus in July. 

    Advocates for the separation of church and state worry about the program channeling money from government coffers to religious schools, while disability advocates note that private schools are not required to serve students with disabilities.

    Some supporters of school vouchers, meanwhile, wish the legislation had gone further.

    “This is a very positive program for taxpayers in America. You can help families get better education and claim a tax credit for it,” said EdChoice’s Enlow. “It’s going to benefit middle- and low-income families.” But he added, “It’s not as generous as we would like, which is universal.”

    Others are focused now on encouraging states to participate in the program. “The fight doesn’t end with the passing of the bill,” said Sydney Altfield, national director of Teach Coalition, which advocates for Jewish schools to get access to government funding. “States must opt into the program.”

    Contact staff writer Neal Morton at 212-678-8247, on Signal at nealmorton.99, or via email at [email protected].

    This story about school voucher programs was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • AAUP v. Rubio Reveals Details of Deportation Efforts

    AAUP v. Rubio Reveals Details of Deportation Efforts

    Today is the final day of the American Association of University Professors v. Rubio trial, in which the association, its chapters at Rutgers and Harvard Universities, and the Middle East Studies Association sued to stop the Trump administration from the “ideological deportation” of international students.

    The lawsuit argues that the deportations violate international students’ right to free expression and their Fifth Amendment right not to have laws enforced against them arbitrarily or discriminatorily. It also claims that the arrests of student protesters chilled speech on campuses—something witnesses corroborated.

    The trial, conducted during the last two weeks, revealed new details about the administration’s targeting of international students, including high profile cases like those of graduate students Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk, who were detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in March. (Both have since been released.)

    Here are some of the key takeaways from the trial ahead of the parties’ closing statements.

    1. Dossiers about the targeted students included information about their protest activities.

    On Friday, John Armstrong, the most senior official at the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that the memos written by state department officials recommending deportation actions and visa revocations contained details about student and faculty members’ activism.

    The memos have been designated as for “attorneys’ eyes only”—the most restrictive possible designation for sensitive information in a trial, which prevents even the plaintiffs and defendants from viewing them. But attorneys and witnesses quoted excerpts of them during the trial.

    The action memo for Öztürk highlighted an op-ed she had co-written supporting a call for her institution, Tufts University, to divest from companies with ties to Israel, Armstrong said, according to trial transcripts published by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which is representing the plaintiffs. But he insisted that the op-ed was not a “key factor” in the decision to revoke her visa and detain her.

    Another memo, regarding Columbia student activist Mohsen Mahdawi, specifically noted that “a court may consider his actions inextricably tied to speech protected under the First Amendment,” according to an excerpt read by Alexandra Conlon, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

    2. Investigators weren’t given guidance about what constitutes antisemitism.

    The State Department hasn’t release any guidance as to what, exactly, should be considered antisemitism, Armstrong acknowledged on Friday. He also stated that, to his knowledge, the officials who have written action memos about protesters haven’t received any training about what constitutes antisemitism.

    That’s significant, because at least one memo, Mahdawi’s, referred specifically to “antisemitic conduct.”

    “I do know that there’s a common understanding in our culture, in our society of what antisemitism is,” Armstrong said.

    When U.S. District Judge William G. Young pushed him to describe that “common understanding,” he responded: “In my opinion, antisemitism is unjustified views, biases, or prejudices, or actions against Jewish people, or Israel, that are the result of hatred towards them.”

    3. ICE officials leaned on the Canary Mission website to find students and professors to target.

    For over a decade, the anonymously operated site Canary Mission has been publishing the identities of students and professors they deem antisemitic. Several of those listed on the website, including Khalil, Mahdawi and Öztürk, have been targeted since the Trump administration began taking aim at student protesters.

    On the third day of the trial, Peter Hatch, a senior ICE official, stated that “many of the names, even most of the names” on a list of noncitizen students presented to ICE’s “Tiger Team” for investigation came from the Canary Mission site.

    Hatch said that other names came from Betar USA, the American chapter of an international Zionist organization, which the Anti-Defamation League has labeled an extremist group.

    4. ICE agents said they prioritized the arrest of activists at the urging of their higher-ups.

    ICE agents who oversaw the arrests of Öztürk, Khalil, Mahdawi, and Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University professor, said last Tuesday that the cases were unusual not just because of the legal grounds on which the activists were detained but also because the orders came from high-ranking officials in the organization.

    Patrick Cunningham, an agent with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations office in Boston, said that the agency’s leaders were “inquiring” about Öztürk’s case, leading his office to prioritize her arrest.

    “I can’t recall a time that it’s come top-down like this with a Visa revocation, um, under my purview anyway,” Cunningham said, according to the transcript. “And so with the superiors that were, you know, inquiring about this, it made it a priority, because we worked for them.”

    5. Students and faculty confirmed they stopped protesting out of fear.

    Over the trial’s first two days, five noncitizen faculty members took the stand to describe how news about activists being targeted had caused them to stop engaging in various political activities. They said they decided not to attend protests or sign statements related to Israel’s war in Gaza after hearing about Khalil’s and Öztürk’s arrests.

    One Brown University professor, Nadje Al-Ali, said she cancelled longstanding plans to travel to Beirut and Baghdad for research into women artists and gender-based violence in the Middle East.

    “Following the arrest and the detention and the threat of deportation of several students, graduate students, and also I think one post-doc—I mean, most prominently Mahmoud Khalil but others as well—I started to think that it is not a good idea,” she said. “I felt that it was too risky for me to do research in the Middle East, come back, and then my pro-Palestinian speech would be flagged. And as a green card holder and also as a prior director for the Center For Middle East Studies that had been under attack, and there are a lot of sort of false allegations about, I felt very vulnerable.”;

    The fear also extended beyond speech related to the Middle East; Al-Ali also refrained from attending a protest on No Kings Day, a massive day of demonstration that opposed President Donald Trump’s policies in his second presidency, including cutting federal government offices, defunding research and social services, and his mass deportation campaign.

    Source link

  • Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals

    Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals

    Key points:

    English/language arts and science teachers were almost twice as likely to say they use AI tools compared to math teachers or elementary teachers of all subjects, according to a February 2025 survey from the RAND Corporation that delves into uneven AI adoption in schools.

    “As AI tools and products for educational purposes become more prevalent, studies should track their use among educators. Researchers could identify the particular needs AI is addressing in schools and–potentially–guide the development of AI products that better meet those needs. In addition, data on educator use of AI could help policymakers and practitioners consider disparities in that use and implications for equitable, high-quality instruction across the United States,” note authors Julia H. KaufmanAshley WooJoshua EaganSabrina Lee, and Emma B. Kassan.

    One-quarter of ELA, math, and science teachers used AI tools for instructional planning or teaching in the 2023–2024 school year. Nearly 60 percent of surveyed principals also reported using AI tools for their work in 2023-2024.

    Among the one-quarter of teachers nationally who reported using AI tools, 64 percent said that they used them for instructional planning only, whether for their ELA, math, or science instruction; only 11 percent said that they introduced them to students but did not do instructional planning with them; and 25 percent said that they did both.

    Although one-quarter of teachers overall reported using AI tools, the report’s authors observed differences in AI use by subject taught and some school characteristics. For instance, close to 40 percent of ELA or science teachers said they use AI, compared to 20 percent of general elementary education or math teachers. Teachers and principals in higher-poverty schools were less likely to report using AI tools relative to those in lower-poverty schools.

    Eighteen percent of principals reported that their schools or districts provided guidance on the use of AI by staff, teachers, or students. Yet, principals in the highest-poverty schools were about half as likely as principals in the lowest-poverty schools to report that guidance was provided (13 percent and 25 percent, respectively).

    Principals cited a lack of professional development for using AI tools or products (72 percent), concerns about data privacy (70 percent) and uncertainty about how AI can be used for their jobs (70 percent) as factors having a major or minor influence on their AI use.

    The report also offers recommendations for education stakeholders:

    1. All districts and schools should craft intentional strategies to support teachers’ AI use in ways that will most improve the quality of instruction and student learning.

    2. AI developers and decision-makers should consider what useful AI applications have the greatest potential to improve teaching and learning and how to make those applications available in high-poverty contexts.

    3. Researchers should work hand-in-hand with AI developers to study use cases and develop a body of evidence on effective AI applications for school leadership, teaching, and learning.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • OSHA Provides Details on Upcoming COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard – CUPA-HR

    OSHA Provides Details on Upcoming COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | September 14, 2021

    On September 9, President Biden released his COVID-19 Action Plan, which includes a six-pronged plan to combat COVID-19 through increased vaccinations, testing and other strategies. The plan will require employers with 100 or more employees to test nonvaccinated employees on a weekly basis. The White House also announced it will require vaccinations for those working for the federal government, federal contractors and establishments providing healthcare services that accept Medicare and Medicaid.

    The Biden administration is using different agencies to implement and enforce the different requirements. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will require employers with 100 or more employees to test nonvaccinated employees on a weekly basis through an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). While OSHA has yet to release many specifics about the timing and the content of the ETS, the agency did release some information late last week.

    General Timeline of the ETS

    In a call last week with stakeholders, OSHA said it plans to publish the ETS in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, at which time the ETS will become effective immediately in states where OSHA has direct jurisdiction. The 22 states with OSHA-approved State Occupational Safety and Health Plans must adopt the ETS or a standard at least as protective within 30 days of OSHA publishing the ETS in the Federal Register.

    Because the ETS will be effective immediately once published in the Federal Register, stakeholders will not have the opportunity to provide input on the standard prior to its implementation. Instead, stakeholders may comment on the ETS after it is published in the Federal Register. OSHA will use those comments to shape the subsequent final rule that will replace the ETS, which OSHA plans to issue six months after the initial release of the ETS.

    Content and Policies of the ETS

    OSHA also said on the call that it will be working with other federal agencies to ensure the language included in the ETS is consistent with the vaccination mandates imposed on federal contractors through President Biden’s Executive Order. Additionally, OSHA clarified that it will consider the employers’ workforce and not just a single worksite in evaluating employers that meet the 100-employee threshold for coverage. The ETS testing and vaccination requirements are also not likely to extend to remote employees who are physically isolated from coworkers or customers.

    Consistent with the COVID-19 Action Plan, the ETS will also require employers to provide employees with paid time off (PTO) or allow employees to use existing PTO to obtain vaccinations and recover from post-vaccination side effects.

    Finally, OSHA reviewed several issues where it does not currently have an answer, but it intends to address in the ETS. These questions include who pays for the required employee testing and what level of vaccination is required under the ETS (i.e. one shot, two shots or even a booster shot). In addition to these questions, information on the procedures of how employers will verify vaccinations, tests and procedures for handling employees who refuse to get vaccinated or undergo routine testing will likely be addressed in the ETS.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for any information on the upcoming ETS and keep members apprised of any additional policies or requirements likely to be included as OSHA continues to work towards implementation.



    Source link