Tag: Education

  • College Works to Reduce Failure Rates in Entry-Level Courses

    College Works to Reduce Failure Rates in Entry-Level Courses

    First-year students who perform poorly in a course are particularly at risk of dropping out. To help boost retention of such students, the University of the Pacific has made strategic investments in promoting their success, including by remodeling gateway courses.

    During an institutional data analysis, leaders at the California institution found that first-year students who earned a D or F grade or withdrew from a class (also called DFW rate) were less likely to persist into their second year, which affected the university’s overall attrition rate.

    In particular, students who didn’t pass their gateway classes in economics, math, biology, physics or chemistry were less likely to remain enrolled at the university.

    To improve student success, the university created top-down initiatives and structures to encourage student feedback, experimentation in the classroom and cross-departmental solutions to better support incoming students.

    What’s the need: A 2018 study by EAB found that, on average, three in 10 students enrolled in any given course don’t earn credit for it, leaving them with what are known as “unproductive credits.” Among the gateway courses analyzed—Calculus 1, General Biology, Chemistry 1 and General Psychology—some universities reported an unproductive-credit rate as high as 46 percent.

    A variety of factors can cause high DFW rates, including a lack of academic preparation or personal struggles experienced by first-year students, according to EAB’s report. Other research has shown that variability in the quality of instruction or in assessment tools can also increase DFW rates.

    Closing the gap: To address obstacles in the classroom, the provost and dean of the College of the Pacific, the university’s liberal arts college, which houses the gateway courses, meet regularly with department chairs who oversee those courses.

    Addressing DFW rates can be a challenge for institutions because it often focuses attention on the faculty role in teaching, learning and assessment, leaving instructors feeling targeted or on the hot seat. To address this, the provost is working to create a culture of innovation and experimentation for course redesign, encouraging new approaches and creating institutional support for trying something new or pivoting, even if it’s not successful.

    One of the opportunities identified involved embedding teaching assistants in classes to serve as tutors for students and provide feedback to instructors. The embedded TAs are students who successfully completed the course, enabling them not only to mentor incoming students but also to provide a unique perspective on how to change the classroom experience.

    The university has also created a retention council, which invites stakeholders from across the institution to break silos, identify structural barriers and discuss solutions; that has made a significant difference in addressing retention holistically, campus leaders said.

    The university also hired an executive director of student success and retention who meets weekly with academic success teams from every department.

    Another Resource

    Indiana University Indianapolis’s Center for Teaching and Learning developed a productive discussion guide to facilitate conversations around course redesign and addressing DFW rates. Read more about it here.

    How it’s going: Since implementing the changes, the university saw a 5 percent year-over-year drop in D’s, F’s and withdrawals among gateway courses. Retention of first-year, first-time students has also climbed from 86 percent in 2020 to 89 percent this past year.

    Demand for curriculum redesign has grown from about 20 courses in the past year to 50 courses this year, requiring additional investment and capacity from leadership, administrators said. Faculty also indicate that they’re feeling supported in the course redesign process.

    In the future, university leaders said, they will also redesign the first-year experience with a greater focus on integrating academic, experiential and student life along with academic advising to encourage belonging and a sense of community. For example, they plan to use data to identify students who may need additional support to navigate life challenges or financial barriers.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • Scientists Took Support “For Granted” Before Trump

    Scientists Took Support “For Granted” Before Trump

    Devastating cuts to U.S. science under Donald Trump’s presidency have been made possible by a pervasive complacency that scientific achievements will always be celebrated, a leading American Nobel Prize winner has said.

    Frances Arnold, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018 for her work on engineering enzymes, told an audience of young scientists in Germany that the “utter chaos” in U.S. politics of recent months, which has seen billions of dollars removed from scientific research, might be viewed in terms of a wider failure to communicate the value of scientific discovery.

    “Never take for granted that scientific achievement is celebrated—we took it for granted, and for far too long, and we are paying the price,” Arnold told the June 29 opening ceremony of the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, an annual conference that brings together Nobel laureates and early-career researchers.

    “Instead of viewing science as the foundation of prosperity, as an investment in the future, it is being portrayed as a burden on taxpayers,” said Arnold, professor of chemical engineering at the California Institute of Technology.

    The Trump administration has so far canceled at least $10 billion in federal grants on the grounds that they contravene its anti-DEI agenda, but further unprecedented cuts are in the pipeline; under Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill, the National Science Foundation’s budget will be cut by 57 percent, by $5 billion, while the National Institutes of Health will see its support slashed by 40 percent, or $18 billion.

    In an address given on behalf of 35 Nobelists attending the conference on the Swiss–Austrian border, Arnold said that this “concerted attack on the universities will drive many brilliant young scientists to Europe and other places,” adding, “I hope you will make the best use of this opportunity and give them a home.”

    On the need for more effective communication of science’s benefits, Arnold, who chaired former U.S. president Joe Biden’s presidential council on science and technology for four years, said she hoped other nations would “learn the lesson that we are learning the hard way—that it is so important to convey the joy of science, the joy of discovery and the benefits to our friends and neighbors outside the academic laboratory.”

    “They pay the bills but do not necessarily understand the benefits [of science]—it is up to us to explain that better.”

    Arnold’s comments about the likely U.S. brain drain were also picked up by Germany’s science minister, Dorothee Bar, who told the conference that her government would make funds available in its high-tech strategy, due to be launched shortly, to attract international researchers.

    “We are launching the One Thousand Minds Plus scheme to attract minds from across the world, including from the U.S.,” she said on the plans to divert some of the $589 billion technology and infrastructure stimulus plan toward recruiting global talent.

    Appealing directly to disaffected U.S. researchers, Bar said, “You are always welcome here in Germany.”

    Source link

  • Public Higher Education is Splitting in Two (Robert Kelchen)

    Public Higher Education is Splitting in Two (Robert Kelchen)

    Even though there have been longstanding ideological differences across states, higher education leadership was largely insulated against these differences over the last half-century. Yes, they popped up in meaningful ways on topics such as South African divestment, affirmative action, and antiwar protests, but it was possible for university leaders to move from red states to blue states and vice versa. It helped to share the state’s political leanings, but it was generally not a requirement.

    The last month has clearly shown that potential presidents now must pass an ideological litmus test in order to gain the favor of governing boards and state policymakers. Here are three examples:

    • Santa Ono’s hiring at Florida was rejected by the system board (after being approved by the campus board) due to his previous positions in favor of diversity initiatives and vaccine mandates. He tried to pivot his views, but it was not enough for Republican appointments on the board.
    • Six red states, led by Florida and North Carolina, are seeking to launch a new accreditor to break free from their longtime accreditor (which was the only major institutional accreditor to never have a DEI requirement, although their diversity page is now blank). Florida Governor Ron DeSantis used his press conference to go on a tirade against higher education, but the North Carolina system’s statement was more cautious, focused on academic quality.
    • The Trump administration’s Justice Department effectively forced out University of Virginia president James Ryan over his alleged noncompliance in removing diversity initiatives from campus. This effort was successful because Virginia’s Republican governor also supported removal and has the ability to push the institution’s governing board to take action.

    While there has been a long history of politicians across the ideological spectrum leading universities (such as Mitch Daniels at Purdue, John King at the State University of New York, and Dannel Molloy at Maine), these politicians have generally set aside most of their ideological priors that are not directly related to running an institution of higher education. But now a growing number of states are expecting their campus presidents to be politicians that are perfectly aligned with their values.

    There are two clear takeaways from recent events. The first is that college presidents are now political appointments in the same way that a commissioner of education or a state treasurer would be in many states. Many boards will be instructed (or decide by themselves) to only hire people who are ideologically aligned to lead colleges—and to clean house whenever a new governor comes into power. The median tenure of a college president is rapidly declining, and expect that to continue as more leaders get forced out. Notably, by threatening to withhold funding, governors do not even have to wait for the composition of the board to change before forcing a change in leadership. New presidents will respond by requesting higher salaries to account for that risk.  

    Second, do not expect many prominent college presidents to switch from red states to blue states or vice versa. (It may still happen among community colleges, but even that will be more difficult). The expectations of the positions are rapidly diverging, and potential leaders are going to have to choose where they want to be. Given the politics of higher education employees, blue-state jobs may be seen as more desirable. But these positions often face more financial constraints due to declining enrollments and tight state budgets, in addition to whatever else comes from Washington. Red-state jobs may come with more resources, but they also are likely to come with more strings attached.

    It is also worth noting that even vice president and dean positions are likely to face these same two challenges due to presidential transitions and the desire of some states to clean house within higher education. That makes the future of the administrative pipeline even more challenging.  

    [This article first appeared at the Robert Kelchen blog.]

    Source link

  • University Autonomy Stems From Corporate Rights (opinion)

    University Autonomy Stems From Corporate Rights (opinion)

    In an April 21 article entitled “We Haven’t Seen a Fight Like Harvard vs. Trump in Centuries,” Steven Brint wrote that the ongoing dispute between Harvard University and the federal government is “the most important showdown between state power and college autonomy since 1816, when the New Hampshire Legislature attempted to convert Dartmouth College into a public entity.”

    While the Dartmouth College case, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1819 in Dartmouth’s favor, looms large in American history, universities have, prior to and since that decision, regularly fought for their rights—their corporate rights.

    Today, we call this institutional academic freedom. But, as Richard Hofstadter wrote in his portion of The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (1955), co-authored with Walter Metzger, “academic freedom is a modern term for an ancient idea.” That ancient idea holds that university freedom is based on corporate rights, which is why Hofstadter begins with a section subtitled “Corporate Power in the Middle Ages.” Recovering that old idea could not be more important today.

    It is no exaggeration to say that, in spring 2025, we may have entered the nadir of American academic freedom. Austin Sarat rightfully urged us, even before then, to find new ways to guard academic freedom “against external threats.” Now, in the face of ongoing hostility from both state and federal governments, it is imperative that universities deploy the full range of arguments at their disposal, including those based on their forgotten corporate rights. In other words, it’s time for universities to invoke their corporate rights. Allow me to explain.

    Corporateness is the university’s hidden superpower. While every university is constituted differently, they are all corporations, regardless of whether they present themselves as public or private. That is because “corporation” is a general legal term denoting a unity at law.

    “Incorporation,” David Ciepley has written, “is a powerful tool.” Corporations can sue and be sued in their own names, hold property, enter contracts, use their own seals and legislate. Importantly, the university’s corporateness bears no necessary relationship to its current autocratic constitution, whereby, according to Timothy V. Kaufman-Osborn, universities are “ruled by external lay governing boards vested with the panoply of powers customarily granted to corporations, including the power to adopt, amend, and revoke its basic rules of institutional governance.” Thus, we can use the university’s corporateness to rebuff external attacks, while also working, as Arjun Appadurai wrote recently, “to break the unilateral power of boards of trustees.”

    The university’s cherished autonomy springs from its corporate rights. In the U.S., these rights were first articulated in a now-forgotten line of cases starting with the 1805 North Carolina Supreme Court case Trustees of University of North Carolina v. Foy, a decision issued more than a century before the American Association of University Professors’ famous 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure—and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1957 discovery of a theretofore unknown academic freedom right in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Like Dartmouth College, these cases were about corporate rights. But, unlike Dartmouth College, they concerned universities we now consider public; they were decided by state supreme courts, rather than by the U.S. Supreme Court; and, when they implicated constitutional rights, they implicated rights protected by state constitutions, rather than by the federal one.

    What I call the corporate theory of academic freedom explains why the rights that originally protected the American scholarly enterprise, including in the Dartmouth College case, were corporate rights by emphasizing that universities are, by law, corporations. (It’s actually in the name itself: “university,” derived from the Latin universitas, simply means “corporation.”)

    Rather than an individual right, academic freedom is, properly understood, what Stanley Fish called “a guild concept.” More specifically, it is a concept belonging to the incorporated guild of professors and students (and others). This theory bases academic freedom not on freedom of speech—a troublesome basis for academic freedom—but on the university’s corporate rights. These corporate rights, not infrequently finding expression in constitutions, are also sometimes constitutional rights. By substituting corporate rights for freedom of speech, we turn a foundation of sand into stone.

    It might prove difficult for some in the university to embrace a term they associate only with business corporations, but corporate rights have been, and still can be, used to protect universities. In this connection, it might help to recall the many corporations that are not business corporations, including municipal corporations, nonprofit corporations (often euphemized as “organizations”), church corporations and university corporations.

    At a moment when the U.S. Supreme Court seems keen on granting corporate rights to business corporations, one might wonder why business corporations should get all the rights. With state and federal governments increasingly targeting universities, we simply cannot afford to leave these arguments on the table. Understanding and utilizing these neglected corporate rights cases requires shifting our focus, on the one hand, from private to public universities, and, on the other hand, from federal to state courts (where Dartmouth College began).

    While the federal government’s recent attacks on Columbia and Harvard have captured headlines across the country, state legislatures continue to menace public universities. Although these universities have, through centuries of experience, become highly familiar with governmental intrusion, they have become less adept at repulsing it than they once were. As a result, one recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education could observe that “it’s well understood that public colleges are in the thrall of their state lawmakers.” The corporate theory of academic freedom challenges this understanding.

    Consider two post–Dartmouth College cases about universities we call public today. The first is an 1887 Indiana Supreme Court case about Indiana University. The second is an 1896 Michigan Supreme Court case about the University of Michigan. Each case furnishes ideas about how to address academic freedom’s most vexing and persistent challenge: protecting public universities from state legislatures.

    In an 1887 case called Robinson v. Carr, the Indiana Supreme Court considered what interest rate applied to a fund established by the Indiana Legislature for Indiana University. The statute that established the university fund indicated that any loan made from the university fund would carry a 7 percent interest rate. The trustees of Indiana University, who were established as a “body politic” by the Indiana Legislature, could then use the interest to cover annual university expenses. But a later statute repealed laws concerning certain funds, including “public funds,” and applied an 8 percent interest rate instead. The question as to which interest rate applied therefore turned on whether the university fund was a “public fund.” If it was a public fund, an 8 percent rate would apply; if it was not, the 7 percent rate would remain.

    The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the university fund was not a public fund because “the university, although established by public law, and endowed and supported by the state, is not a public corporation, in a technical sense.” The court meant by this that the Board of Trustees “has none of the essential characteristics of a public corporation.” The university was “not a municipal corporation,” and “its members are not officers of the government, or subject to the control of the legislature in the management of its affairs.”

    The court reasoned, “That the university was established under the direct authority of the state, through a special act of the legislature, or that the charter contains provisions of a purely public character, nor yet that the institution was wisely established, and is and should be perpetually maintained at the public expense, for the public good, does not make it a public corporation, or constitute its endowment fund a public fund.” In the final analysis, “the legal status of the state university being that of a technically private, or at most a quasi public, corporation, the university fund, of which it is the sole beneficiary, is therefore not a public fund, within the meaning of the law.” In short, the court’s careful analysis under the corporate framework led it to conclude that the university’s legislative establishment and public funding did not make it public.

    Less than a decade after Robinson, the Michigan Supreme Court decided a case called Regents of the University of Michigan v. Sterling. There, the court had to decide whether the Michigan Legislature could require the University of Michigan Board of Regents to relocate its homeopathic medical college from Ann Arbor to Detroit. The Michigan regents had refused to comply with the Legislature’s relocation law, and Charles Sterling, a private citizen, then asked the Michigan Supreme Court to order the Regents to comply.

    The court denied Sterling’s request, noting that, “under the [Michigan] constitution of 1835, the legislature had the entire control and management of the university and the university fund. They could appoint regents and professors, and establish departments.” But, after the university languished under this governance model, the people of Michigan withdrew the power of the Legislature to control the university. To that end, the 1850 Michigan Constitution ordained that “the board of regents shall have the general supervision of the university, and the direction and control of all expenditures from the university interest fund.”

    The court offered three “reasons to show that the legislature has no control over the university or the board of regents.” First, both entities “derive their power from the same supreme authority, namely, the constitution,” and, “in so far as the powers of each are defined by that instrument, limitations are imposed, and a direct power conferred upon one necessarily excludes its existence in the other, in the absence of language showing the contrary intent.”

    Second, the Board of Regents “is the only corporation provided for in the constitution whose powers are defined therein”—whereas “in every other corporation provided for in the constitution it is expressly provided that its powers shall be such as the legislature shall give.” Third, “in every case except that of the regents the constitution carefully and expressly reposes in the legislature the power to legislate and to control and define the duties of those corporations and officers.”

    Because the constitution entrusted “the general supervision” of the university to the regents, “no other conclusion … is possible than that the intention was to place this institution in the direct and exclusive control of the people themselves, through a constitutional body elected by them.” The people of Michigan had entrusted the university’s governance to the regents directly, thereby removing the university from the Legislature’s purview. As a result, the Legislature could no longer govern the university.

    These 19th-century cases, together with many other state cases like them, contain resources that universities can use to meet today’s extraordinary challenges. (Edwin D. Duryea lists many, but not all, of these cases in the first appendix to his 2000 monograph, The Academic Corporation: A History of College and University Governing Boards.) Indeed, the cases remain relevant today. The Montana Supreme Court’s 2022 decision affirming the Montana regents’ “exclusive authority to regulate firearms on college campuses” borrowed, with slight alterations and no attribution, one of the aforementioned passages from Sterling.

    Harvard’s battle with the federal government is truly momentous, but it is one of many that American universities—public and private—have consistently waged for centuries. When these universities rose up to defend their corporate rights, state supreme courts across the country often affirmed those rights. The time has come to assert those rights once again. As state governments, along with the federal government, apply new and in some ways unprecedented pressure, universities can no longer ignore their powerful claims to corporate rights. Continuing to do so may incur costs none of us are willing to pay.

    Michael Banerjee, a 2019 graduate of Harvard Law School, is a doctoral candidate in jurisprudence and social policy at the University of California, Berkeley, where his dissertation focuses on universities’ corporate rights.

    Source link

  • Vermont’s Dual-Enrollment Cybersecurity Certificate

    Vermont’s Dual-Enrollment Cybersecurity Certificate

    High school juniors and seniors in Vermont can attempt a 12-credit cybersecurity certificate through a Champlain College and NuHarbor Security partnership.

    With the cost of a college degree rising, more young people are considering alternative forms of postsecondary education.

    Data from ECMC Group found that fewer high school students today (52 percent) are considering attending a four-year college compared to their peers in 2020 (71 percent), and a number are weighing community college or career and technical education instead (25 percent). Nearly half of respondents to ECMC’s survey said their ideal post–high school education should last three years or fewer.

    A new offering from Champlain College in Vermont allows high school students to earn a certificate in cybersecurity before graduation, providing both career exploration and workforce development. The 12-credit certificate equips students with college-ready skills and a pathway to an evolving career.

    The background: The new program, CyberStart, builds on Champlain’s Virtual Gap Program, launched in summer 2020, which allows traditional-aged college students to complete 15 weeks of classes and an internship course remotely before formally enrolling.

    In Vermont, high school students can participate in two college-level courses at no cost. But statewide trends show the students most likely to engage in dual enrollment live in larger towns, have access to a college campus or are enrolled at a high school with an integrated dual-enrollment program, said Adam Goldstein, program director of CyberStart and academic director of the Leahy Center for Digital Forensics and Cybersecurity at Champlain. Most of the programs available to rural high school students consisted of asynchronous courses.

    “We saw a need for something in the middle, where students had the ability to be remote, but to have that synchronous element where they were meeting with other students and working directly with faculty members,” Goldstein said.

    Survey Says

    A 2023 report from the American Council on Education found that 41 percent of high school seniors said the pandemic changed their thinking on their choice of future career, and one in four students changed their view on what college major to pursue.

    How it works: CyberStart is a partnership between Champlain and cybersecurity group NuHarbor Security, designed to give high school students a peek into that work. Champlain also offers certificates for a working adult population, but CyberStart is modeled a little differently, relying on NuHarbor to identify which skills students need to be successful in an entry-level position.

    All Vermont high school juniors and seniors are eligible to participate if they meet dual-enrollment requirements.

    The program consists of 12 credits over four courses: two introductory courses and two internship experiences. The first internship course is led by Champlain faculty and includes other college students at the Leahy Center. The second is orchestrated by NuHarbor and has students work alongside cyber professionals, finessing their workplace skills.

    Courses take place synchronously with a Champlain instructor and follow a flipped classroom model, requiring students to complete readings or lectures prior to meeting and reserving class time for active learning, activities and collaboration among students. Courses are supported by a current student who serves as a mentor.

    A digital focus: CyberStart’s curriculum is built for someone with no prior experience, making it an accessible pathway for students with an interest in STEM. It also provides introductory college courses for students still exploring their career ambitions.

    “We feel that almost anybody in any discipline they want to go into could benefit from a cybersecurity class,” Goldstein said. “Regardless of where they head into the digital age, having an understanding of cybersecurity is a really, really critical skill set.”

    According to the Boys and Girls Club of America’s fall 2024 Youth Right Now survey, over half of high school students are interested in taking science-related courses after they graduate (57 percent), and 48 percent are interested in a STEM-related job in the future.

    Champlain’s program is intentionally structured as an on-ramp for students who want to launch into a career or postsecondary education, allowing them to build professional skills in an emerging field or kick-start their college education. Students who complete the certificate are also given conditional acceptance to Champlain, and high-performing students may be eligible for scholarships.

    “I think it can open up students’ eyes to the possibilities that maybe they weren’t initially thinking of, whether it is a workforce track and thinking about future training and experience or thinking about college and how that can ultimately have a very valuable return on investment,” Goldstein said.

    The initiative also provides students, particularly those in rural areas, with greater insight into career opportunities available to them in the region or remotely.

    State of play: Since launching the program in 2024, Champlain has established relationships with dozens of teachers and high schools across the state, Goldstein said. CyberStart is also available at Vermont’s centers for technology education.

    Some students in the program’s first cohort have continued into a second year or transitioned into a STEM discipline in higher education after graduating high school; many have chosen to pursue cybersecurity.

    The success of CyberStart may provide a model for similar programs in other fields, Goldstein said, such as computer science and data or digital humanities.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • Austin Community College Joins Fight Against DOJ and Texas

    Austin Community College Joins Fight Against DOJ and Texas

    Civil rights groups have been piling on to intervene in the recent Texas court case that ended in-state tuition for noncitizens living in the state. Now Austin Community College and a Texas undocumented student are joining the effort to defend the now-defunct law.

    College officials worry they’ll lose students and revenue if undocumented students’ tuition prices suddenly skyrocket. Austin Community College is the first Texas college to try to join the lawsuit.

    The Texas Dream Act, which allowed noncitizens who grew up in the state to benefit from in-state tuition, was overturned last month after the Department of Justice sued Texas over the law. The state didn’t fight back and instead sided with the DOJ mere hours after the legal challenge. A week later, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a Latino civil rights organization, filed a motion on behalf of a group of Texas undocumented students to intervene in the lawsuit. The group argued the swift resolution of the DOJ’s legal challenge denied those affected any chance to weigh in, so the students should become intervenors, or a party to the case, and have their day in court.

    Other groups quickly followed MALDEF’s lead. Since last week, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the Texas Civil Rights Project, Democracy Forward and the National Immigration Law Center have joined the fight, representing the activist group La Unión del Pueblo Entero, the Austin Community College District’s Board of Trustees and Oscar Silva, a student at University of North Texas. The groups filed emergency motions on their behalf to intervene in the lawsuit and get relief from the judgment that killed the law. If these legal efforts are successful, a case so quickly open and shut by Texas and the DOJ could be reopened.

    Austin Community College board chair Sean Hassan said in a news release from the Texas ACLU chapter that college officials deserved to have their say on the policy shift.

    “Employers and taxpayers are looking to community colleges to produce a sufficient number of highly skilled graduates to meet workforce needs,” Hassan said. “If legislation or court decisions will impact our ability to meet these expectations, we should have a seat at the table to help shape responsible solutions. The action by our board asks the court to ensure our voice is heard.”

    Calculating the Costs

    In court filings, Austin Community College leaders argue that the institution will lose revenue because of the abrupt end of the Texas Dream Act. They estimated that about 440 students will see their tuition rates quadruple, and as a result, hundreds of students will stop out and prospective students will avoid enrolling in the first place. College leaders also argued in the motion to intervene that the need for scholarships will rise, putting extra financial pressure on the community college.

    They cited other potential costs as well, including setting up new processes to identify and notify noncitizen students of tuition rate changes and ramping up public relations efforts so the college can continue to “market itself as an accessible, inclusive, and affordable institution for all Texas high school graduates,” despite the policy change.

    “The loss of these students will have a cascading effect on campus life, academic programs, and student support services,” Austin Community College chancellor Russell Lowery-Hart said, according to court filings.

    The motion also detailed how Silva, the student, would likely have to withdraw from his joint bachelor’s and master’s program at the University of North Texas if he lost his in-state tuition benefits. He was expected to graduate next spring. Silva has lived in Texas since the age of 1 and attended Texas K–12 schools.

    “The Texas Dream Act means everything to me,” Silva said in the ACLU of Texas news release. “This law has made my education possible. Without it, college would’ve been out of reach for me as a first-generation college student.”

    The motion comes after Wynn Rosser, commissioner of higher education for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, sent out a June 18 memo directing colleges and universities to determine which of their students are undocumented and need to be charged higher tuition starting this fall.

    Trouble Over Timelines

    Texas, the DOJ and civil rights groups have since been haggling over how fast the U.S. District Court should move in response to the new motions.

    The civil rights groups want a decision soon. But, in a joint submission to the court on June 30, the Trump administration and Texas argued emergency motions were uncalled-for and the legal proceedings shouldn’t be expedited, though they acknowledged the intervenors raised issues “which merit response.”

    “Expediting responses to intervenors’ motions would only serve [to] put the United States and Texas at a disadvantage, having to brief and respond to intervenors’ myriad of arguments in a drastically shorter timeframe than would otherwise be necessary, and would do nothing to help intervenors expedite any potential relief,” the response read.

    But the civil rights groups representing Austin Community College and other intervenors weren’t having it. On July 1, they asked that the court deny the request.

    The attorneys argued that the state and the federal government moved quickly to resolve the DOJ’s lawsuit and end the Texas Dream Act, but “when asked to respond on an expedited basis to the consequences of their actions and the imminent harm raised” by the motions, “the parties balk, insisting that the court should postpone its consideration of these motions until well past the point when the looming harms become irreversible.”

    That same day, Judge Reed O’Connor gave the Trump administration and Texas until July 14 to respond to the motion to intervene, which aligns with their requested timeline. He also delayed briefings on the motions to stay the judgement and for relief until he rules on the motion to intervene.

    As this fight plays out in Texas, the DOJ is targeting other states that offer in-state tuition benefits to undocumented students. Last month the Trump administration filed similar lawsuits in Kentucky and Minnesota, which have yet to be resolved.

    Source link

  • Call for unis to ditch teacher education – Campus Review

    Call for unis to ditch teacher education – Campus Review

    A conservative research centre has recommended initial teacher education (ITE) courses be removed from universities and be once again set up through independent colleges.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • What’s inside the Senate megabill for higher education?

    What’s inside the Senate megabill for higher education?

    The Senate on Tuesday passed its mammoth domestic policy package, which would reshape the federal student lending system and delay major higher education regulations. 

    Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the legislative package 51-50. Lawmakers passed the bill through the reconciliation process, which allows the Senate to bypass the usual 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. 

    The House and the Senate will have to reconcile their two versions of the bill before they can send it to President Donald Trump’s desk. 

    That could prove difficult. Although the two proposals would both extend tax cuts and fund Republican priorities like increased immigration enforcement, some aspects are dramatically different. 

    That includes for the higher education sector. For instance, while the House version would put colleges on the hook for their former students’ unpaid student loans, the Senate’s version creates an entirely different system intended to hold institutions accountable for their student outcomes. 

    Below, we’re rounding up some of the Senate bill’s major provisions. 

    Cutting off student loan eligibility to college programs

    One of the biggest provisions in the Senate’s bill would prevent college programs from being eligible to receive student loan funding if their graduates can’t meet certain earnings thresholds. 

    For undergraduate degree programs, they would have to prove that at least half of their graduates earn more than the typical worker in their state with only a high school diploma. Similarly, graduate programs would have to show their graduates earn more than the typical bachelor’s degree holder working in the same field and region. 

    College programs would lose their eligibility for federal student loans if they fail the earnings test in two out of three consecutive years. 

    Reshaping federal student loans

    Like the House-passed version, the Senate bill would end Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate students to borrow up to the cost of the attendance for their programs, including tuition, fees, textbooks and living expenses. 

    The bill would moreover cap graduate student lending to $100,000 per borrower, or $200,000 for students enrolled in professional programs, such as law or medicine. It would also cap Parent PLUS loans to $65,000 per student. 

    Additionally, the Senate’s plan would consolidate the number of repayment options for federal student loans. Starting July 1, 2026, borrowers taking out new loans would only have access to two plans: one standard plan with fixed payments and one income-driven repayment plan with remaining balances forgiven after 30 years. 

    Major changes to Pell

    The Senate’s version of the bill would allow Pell Grants to be used for short-term programs between eight and 15 weeks. 

    However, lawmakers took out a controversial provision that would have also extended short-term Pell Grants to unaccredited providers. The move came after the Senate’s parliamentarian said the original provision should be subject to a 60-vote approval versus the simple majority needed for reconciliation.

    The package also would increase funding for Pell Grants to cover expected shortfalls while removing eligibility for students if they receive scholarships that cover their full cost of attendance. 

    Endowment tax hikes

    The Senate’s version of the bill would raise the tax that wealthy private nonprofit colleges pay on their endowment returns. The new system would introduce a tiered tax, starting at the current rate of 1.4% and jumping up to 4% and 8% based on endowment assets per student. 

    Currently, only colleges with at least $500,000 in endowment assets and 500 tuition-paying students pay the tax. But the new bill provides an exemption for smaller colleges, excluding those with 3,000 tuition-paying students or fewer from having to pay the tax. Like the initial short-term Pell proposal, lawmakers took out an earlier proposed exemption for religious colleges after scrutiny from the chamber’s’s parliamentarian.

    Delays to Biden-era regulations

    The Senate’s original plan would have rolled back permanently two Biden-era versions of regulations: the borrower defense to repayment and closed school discharge rules. The former allows borrowers to receive debt relief if they were defrauded by their colleges while the latter offers forgiveness if their institutions closed before they could finish their programs. 

    Source link

  • Penn Agrees to Trump’s Demands, Will Strip Trans Athlete’s Awards

    Penn Agrees to Trump’s Demands, Will Strip Trans Athlete’s Awards

    The university plans to “apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Kyle Mazza/Anadolu/Getty Images | Rich von Biberstein/Icon Sportswire/Getty Images

    The University of Pennsylvania will concede to the Trump administration’s demands that the university “restore” swimming awards—and send apology notes—to female competitors who lost to a trans athlete, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced Tuesday.

    The department previously found that Penn violated Title IX for allowing a trans woman to compete on a women’s sports team—presumably referring to Lia Thomas, who rose to national attention while competing on Penn’s women’s swim team three years ago.

    To end the investigation, the administration demanded in part that Penn apologize to cisgender women whose swimming awards and honors were “misappropriated” to trans women athletes. Multiple Title IX advocates lambasted the department’s demands, arguing the agency was misusing the landmark gender-equity law to punish trans students and their institutions.

    Penn is one of multiple higher education institutions and K–12 schools that the administration has targeted for allowing trans women to play on women’s sports teams, in accordance with NCAA policy at the time. But it appears to be the first institution of higher education to reach a resolution agreement over the issue since Trump took office.

    “Penn remains committed to fostering a community that is welcoming, inclusive, and open to all students, faculty, and staff,” Penn president J. Larry Jameson said in a statement Tuesday. “I share this commitment, just as I remain dedicated to preserving and advancing the University’s vital and enduring mission. We have now brought to a close an investigation that, if unresolved, could have had significant and lasting implications for the University of Pennsylvania.”

    Separate from the department’s investigation, the White House paused $175 million in funding to the university because Penn “infamously permitted a male to compete on its women’s swimming team,” an official said in March. It’s not clear if the funding will be restored or when.

    Jameson stressed in the statement that the university was in compliance with Title IX and all NCAA guidelines at the time that Thomas swam for Penn’s women’s team from 2021 to 2022. But, he said, “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules. We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

    Title IX advocates have emphasized that trans athletes are not, in fact, explicitly forbidden from playing on women’s sports teams under the current Title IX regulations, which were finalized under the previous Trump administration and are the same ones that were in effect when Thomas was competing.

    In addition to stripping Thomas’s awards, Penn agreed to ED’s demands to make a public statement that people assigned male at birth are not allowed in Penn’s women’s athletic programs or its bathrooms and locker rooms, according to the department’s news release. The institution must also promise to adopt “biology-based definitions for the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ pursuant to Title IX” and Trump’s February executive order banning trans athletes from playing on the team that aligns with their gender.

    That statement also went up Tuesday. In it, the university promised to follow Trump’s trans athlete ban, as well as the executive order he signed that withdraws federal recognition of transgender people, with regard to women’s athletics.

    In the department’s announcement, Paula Scanlan, one of Thomas’s former teammates who has since led the crusade against trans women athletes, said she was “deeply grateful to the Trump Administration for refusing to back down on protecting women and girls and restoring our rightful accolades. I am also pleased that my alma mater has finally agreed to take not only the lawful path, but the honorable one.”

    Shiwali Patel, senior director of safe and inclusive schools at the National Women’s Law Center, criticized the agreement in a statement Tuesday as a “devastating and shameful outcome.” She blamed Penn’s “utter failure” as well as the department’s “continued manipulation of Title IX.”

    “The Trump administration’s attacks on civil rights protections, including Title IX, and obsession with undermining bodily autonomy is the real harm to women and girls, unlike transgender athletes who want to compete in sports alongside their peers and pose no threat to women’s sports, contrary to Trump’s lies,” Patel said in the statement. “In fact, their inclusion benefits all women and girls. We will continue to support Lia Thomas and her peers and their right to compete.”

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    In the small world of higher education, Karina Kogan and I know many of the same people. An introduction from one of these colleagues got Karina and me talking, and out of those conversations came this Q&A. I asked if Karina would be willing to share some thoughts about her company, EducationDynamics; her role (VP of partnership development); and her career advice for other aspiring leaders in her industry.

    Q: How does EducationDynamics work with colleges and universities for online and other academic programs? Where does EducationDynamics fit into the ecosystem of companies that partner with universities?

    A: That’s a great question and one I love answering, because this space is full of players, but not all of them are moving higher education forward. At EducationDynamics, we focus on the institutions that are ready to take bold steps forward. Not just in marketing or enrollment, but in how they grow strategically, strengthen their brand and generate revenue in a way that’s built to last.

    We want to help institutions stop doing what they’ve always done. We need to serve modern learners, which takes a fundamentally different approach. These students are focused on cost, convenience and career outcomes. They’re not influenced by tradition alone and they don’t respond to disconnected efforts that don’t reflect who they are or where they’re headed.

    That’s why we start with research. We don’t push a standard playbook or a prebuilt product. We look at the market, the student behavior, the school’s position, and we use those insights to build strategy that aligns with their enrollment priorities while also reinforcing the institution’s brand and reputation. Because those things are not separate anymore. A school’s ability to grow its revenue is directly connected to how it is perceived in the market. If your brand lacks clarity or credibility, students move on.

    Over the past few years, we’ve seen how much student expectations have changed. They’re more in control of their academic path than ever and they defy outdated categories like traditional or nontraditional. At the same time, reputation has become a major factor in their decision-making. That’s why, in 2024, we brought the RW Jones Agency into the EDDY family. They’ve built a national reputation for helping institutions shape perception, elevate their voice and lead through complexity. Bringing that expertise into our ecosystem has allowed us to connect performance with purpose in a way that’s truly differentiated.

    And we don’t just build the plan. We execute. We run the campaigns, manage enrollment outreach and support student engagement. It’s a full life cycle approach from awareness to enrollment to retention with everything working together and accountable to outcomes. That’s what it takes to grow in today’s market. It’s not about lead volume alone. It’s about attracting the right students, setting the right expectations and making sure the institution delivers on its promise.

    As for where we fit in the ecosystem? Well … honestly, we don’t fit the mold and we’re not trying to and that’s intentional. Most institutions are still working with a handful of disconnected partners, each focused on one piece of the puzzle. That model no longer works. We bring brand, communications, marketing and enrollment strategy together, because when those areas are aligned, the institution grows in a way that’s both measurable and meaningful.

    I’ve been in higher ed for more than 20 years, and this moment feels different. There’s real urgency, but also real openness to change. Our new CEO, Brent Ramdin, has brought a clear and future-facing vision that’s aligned our team and elevated our work. He understands where this sector is headed and what it will take to succeed there.

    Q: Tell us about your role at EducationDynamics. What are your primary responsibilities and accountabilities? What career path brought you to your current leadership position within the company?

    A: I serve as vice president of partnerships at EducationDynamics, and in many ways, it’s the role I’ve spent my entire career building toward. My focus is on developing strong, strategic relationships with colleges and universities across the country where I work closely with institutional leaders and our internal teams to craft unique solutions that help schools not only meet but exceed their enrollment goals.

    It’s a highly collaborative role and one that demands both strategic insight and real operational follow-through. Every institution is different, so the work is never one-size-fits-all. I spend my time listening deeply, understanding the nuances of each partner’s challenges and helping shape the path forward, always with the modern learner in mind.

    My career in higher ed started more than 20 years ago at the University of Phoenix, where I held several leadership roles over the course of more than a decade while simultaneously expanding my leadership development through structured curriculum. That experience gave me a strong foundation in enrollment strategy, team leadership and cross-functional execution. From there, I served as chief partnerships officer at a division of Excelsior University, where I helped institutions launch and scale their first online programs.

    That’s what ultimately led me to EducationDynamics, and the transition from the institutional side to the partner side has been both natural and energizing. I understand what it feels like to be inside an institution navigating change, and that perspective helps me show up as a true partner to the schools we work with today.

    Q: What advice do you have for early and midcareer professionals interested in eventually moving into a leadership role in a for-profit company in the higher education and digital marketing spaces?

    A: I always tell people to be deliberately curious. So, one of the biggest pieces of advice I can offer is this: Develop a deep understanding of both the mission of higher ed and the mechanics of the business side of institutions. The sweet spot in this space, especially in leadership, is being able to translate institutional goals into scalable, market-responsive strategies. That takes more than just technical skill. It takes empathy, agility and a strong sense of purpose.

    If you’re coming from the university side, spend time learning how businesses that serve higher ed operate—how they measure success, how they use data, how decisions get made. And if you’re coming from the corporate side, take the time to understand the culture, values and pace of higher education. The people who lead effectively in this space are the ones who can bridge those two worlds with credibility and clarity.

    Also, be proactive about expanding your perspective. Step outside your job function. Learn the language of marketing, enrollment, analytics, finance, because in a leadership role, you’ll need to connect all those dots. What’s key for me is I don’t focus on being the expert in the room; I focus on being useful.

    I’ve also found that relationships are everything. Build your network early, nurture it often and don’t be afraid to show up for others before you need anything in return. Platforms like LinkedIn have made that easier than ever, but the real value is in the follow-up, the conversations and the genuine connections.

    And finally: Get close to the work. The best leaders I know are the ones who stay connected to the impact their work has on students, on institutions and on outcomes that actually matter. That connection is what makes the hard work worth it, and it’s what keeps your leadership grounded in purpose.

    So, if I had to sum it up: Keep learning, look for ways to be of service and stay connected. That mindset opens doors, builds trust and prepares you for leadership in any space, especially in one as dynamic as this one.

    Source link