Tag: Education

  • Renewing the Social Contract for Higher Education

    Renewing the Social Contract for Higher Education

    Higher education is at a crossroads.

    Most Americans recognize that our nation’s colleges and universities contribute enormously to the nation’s economy and the welfare of its people. For over a century, the sector has been an essential driver of innovation, discovery, job creation and economic mobility.

    There is unambiguous evidence linking postsecondary education to increased lifetime earnings, better health outcomes and greater participation in civic life. Higher education is not only a valuable commodity, it is an American treasure.

    And yet, none of these arguments seem to gain purchase in the American imagination.

    There are myriad reasons for this, many of which came along well before the administration put research universities in the crosshairs. The cost of college has been out of reach for many families for decades. Student debt has soared to excessive levels. Legacy acceptances advantage wealth and bloodlines, making a mockery of “merit-based” admissions. Most problematic, only 60 percent of students who start a degree actually complete one.

    As a result, public confidence in the sector has dropped precipitously over the last decade.

    So, what might be done?

    If colleges and universities are to remain relevant in the 21st century, we need a renewed social contract between institutions of higher education and the American people, focused on student success. Put another way, student outcomes should be at the center of the way we understand an institution’s place in the landscape.

    To these ends, the Carnegie Foundation and the American Council on Education last week announced the new Student Access and Earnings Classification, a unique approach to describing the contributions of postsecondary institutions nationwide.

    Specifically, we will compare similar institutions across the nation, identifying whether they provide access to students in communities they serve, and whether those students go on to successful, wealth-generating careers in the regions in which they live and work. Importantly, the Student Access and Earnings Classification tracks both students who complete their degrees and those who do not, so institutions are accountable for all students, not just those who graduate.

    We have identified 479 Opportunity Colleges and Universities nationwide, places that are engines of the American Dream. They come in all sizes and types, and they can be found in all four corners of the nation. They include institutions long recognized for their contributions to economic mobility—places like Arizona State University, Spelman College, Texas A&M and Xavier University. They also include institutions that receive little fanfare—places like Ball State in Indiana, Texas Southmost College, Utah Valley University, Wheeling University in West Virginia and Blackfeet Community College in Montana.

    Looking forward, the Carnegie Classifications for Institutions of Higher Education—the nation’s gold standard for organizing the postsecondary sector—will determine institutional excellence not simply based on prestige, student selectivity or degrees awarded, but based on how well schools set their students up for success in the real world.

    Whether you are a parent, student, policymaker or institution leader, Opportunity Colleges and Universities warrant recognition, understanding and investment. For if we establish more places like them in the years ahead, and ensure that the postsecondary sector is accountable for student success, we will create more opportunities for everyone. And that, we think, is something most Americans will rally behind.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • RFK Jr.’s Autism Misinformation Undermines Equity—and the Role of Higher Education

    RFK Jr.’s Autism Misinformation Undermines Equity—and the Role of Higher Education

    Dr. Yolanda WigginsRobert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent claims about rising autism rates directly contradict the findings of a rigorous, peer-reviewed study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While the CDC attributes the increase to better diagnostic tools and broader awareness—especially among historically underdiagnosed populations—Kennedy has revived a discredited suggestion that environmental factors, including vaccines, may be responsible.

    This isn’t just political theater. It’s part of a broader and troubling pattern: a sustained attack on scientific research, the public institutions that produce it, and the higher education system that trains the researchers behind it.

    As a sociology professor at a public university, I’ve watched with concern as public trust in science and expertise has eroded. The pandemic magnified these trends, but they have long been in motion—accelerated by social media, political polarization, and the growing popularity of conspiratorial thinking. The resurgence of autism misinformation is just the latest iteration.

    The CDC’s study represents the best of public-facing science: it’s evidence-based, transparent, and focused on improving equity. The data show that more children—especially Black, Latino, and low-income children—are finally being diagnosed and receiving support. For decades, these children were overlooked in clinical research and excluded from early intervention programs. Their families often lacked access to diagnostic services, and cultural stigma around disability further compounded delays in recognition and care.

    That makes this progress all the more important. It means health and education systems are becoming more responsive to the needs of diverse communities. It’s a win for public health, for special education, and for racial equity. But Kennedy’s remarks obscure that progress and instead imply institutional deceit, further corroding the already fragile relationship between the public and research institutions.

    This moment should concern everyone in higher education. When research is publicly undermined by powerful voices, it isn’t just scientists or health experts who lose credibility—it’s the entire academic enterprise. Faculty working in controversial or misunderstood fields face online harassment. Public universities face funding cuts. Politicians introduce legislation to restrict what can be taught, who can be included, and which research is “acceptable.” These are not isolated attacks. They are part of a broader campaign to delegitimize the role of higher education in a democratic society.

    We’ve seen it before. Climate science, gender studies, and even basic public health data have been politicized and distorted. In many cases, these attacks are racialized, aimed at scholars of color or those researching topics related to race, equity, and social justice. The goal is not simply to disagree with findings—it’s to sow public doubt about the legitimacy of the research process itself.

    If higher education wants to defend its role in shaping public understanding and policy, we must do more than produce knowledge—we must also protect it. That means publicly pushing back when bad actors distort science. It means communicating our research clearly and accessibly, especially in communities where trust in institutions has historically been low. And it means preparing the next generation of students not only to be critical thinkers, but to be defenders of fact in an era that increasingly devalues it.

    The consequences of not responding are far-reaching. When misinformation takes root, it influences public health decisions, erodes confidence in life-saving vaccines, and increases distrust in institutions we rely on during crises. The damage isn’t abstract—it’s measurable in declining vaccination rates, increased health disparities, and growing skepticism toward experts in medicine, climate science, and education. The ripple effects extend into classrooms, clinics, and communities, where the stakes are all too real.

    It also threatens the progress being made in autism awareness and support, particularly in communities that have only recently gained access to diagnostic and therapeutic services. When Kennedy promotes falsehoods about the cause of autism, he doesn’t just mislead the public—he makes it harder for families to trust medical providers, harder for schools to advocate for neurodiverse students, and harder for researchers to do their work without facing backlash.

    Kennedy’s remarks may seem like a fringe view to those of us working in higher ed. But their reach—and their harm—are real. If we remain silent, we risk allowing misinformation to fill the vacuum we leave behind. That vacuum won’t remain empty. It will be filled with falsehoods that, once embedded in public consciousness, are incredibly difficult to reverse.

    This is a time for the academic community to speak clearly and often. We must show that science is not about dogma—it’s about rigor, peer review, and accountability. We must reaffirm that public universities serve not just students, but society. And we must reclaim our role in informing the public—not just in lecture halls and labs, but in newspapers, social media, and public discourse.

    We can’t afford to treat this moment as politics as usual. It’s a test of our collective commitment to truth, equity, and the public good. The integrity of science—and the credibility of higher education—depends on it.

    Dr. Yolanda Wiggins is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at San José State University.

     

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Maximus AidVantage

    Higher Education Inquirer : Maximus AidVantage

    [Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]

    The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.

    At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.

    Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.

    The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise

    The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.

    Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.

    A Confusing Transition for Borrowers

    For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.

    One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.

    Diminished Consumer Protections

    Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.

    For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.

    The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs

    Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.

    If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.

    The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure

    Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.

    Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.

    Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers’ union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.

    The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans

    Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.

    The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.

    Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.

    A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?

    Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.

    This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.

    Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty

    The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.

    The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.

    Source link

  • White House order prioritizes AI in schools

    White House order prioritizes AI in schools

    Key points:

    • The Trump administration is elevating AI programs in K-12 education
    • The human edge in the AI era
    • Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals
    • For more news on AI in education, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub

    A new executive order signed by President Trump takes aim at AI policies in K-12 education by “fostering interest and expertise in artificial intelligence (AI) technology from an early age to maintain America’s global dominance in this technological revolution for future generations.”