Tag: Education

  • Higher education postcard: the University of Hertfordshire

    Higher education postcard: the University of Hertfordshire

    Greetings from Hatfield!

    This week’s blog come full of post-war scientific and technological optimism. We begin in 1944: Alan Butler, chairman of the de Havilland Aircraft Company, offered 90 acres to the Hertfordshire County Council for a technical college. De Havilland was based in Hatfield, and was one of the big names in aeronautical engineering and manufacture. (The world’s first commercial jet airliner – the de Havilland Comet – first flew in 1949. If you’d like to lament the apparent loss of Britain’s expertise and ambition, you may do so here.)

    The county council accepted, and in 1949 Dr Chapman, erstwhile principal of Stafford Technical College, was appointed as the first principal of the Hatfield Technical College.

    The image below and the snippet are both taken from The Sphere of 2 April 1949 and show that planning and construction were proceeding apace, and that modern, flexible, college accommodation was being built.

    In 1952 the college opened. Formally, by the Duke of Edinburgh in December; practically, I imagine it was September for new students. And in that first year over 1,700 students enrolled. The vast majority were part-time or evening students; a small number – 55 – were full-time or on sandwich courses.

    In 1956 the college offered a short course in computing – the first at the college – on “the application of computers to automation”. (The first transistorised computer had been developed at the University of Manchester only three years previously, so this was good advanced stuff.)

    By the end of the decade students could not only gain technical qualifications but also degrees, via the University of London’s external system. The first such students graduated with BSc(Eng) degrees in 1958.

    The 1960s saw much change and development. The college was renamed as the Hatfield College of Technology in 1960, following the government’s review of technical education. The colleges of technology were a counterpart to the colleges of advanced technology – like Aston, Bath and Brunel – which became universities in 1966. A digital computer was bought in 1962, costing more than £29,000 – almost £550k in today’s money.

    By 1965 the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) had been established, and thirteen programmes at Hatfield College of Technology were recognised as honours degree courses. The college was well-placed to become Hatfield Polytechnic in 1969.

    A campus was added in 1967, at Bayfordbury; in 1970 an observatory was built here. Also in 1070, a computer centre was opened, which was, apparently, the best equipped facility in public sector education in the country. It housed a DEC PDP-10, which is just the sort of mainframe that you see in 1970s futuristic sci-fi. And the polytechnic paid £256,500 for it, which is about £3.5 million today: this was a poly that knew how to invest.

    Two local colleges of education were incorporated, in line with then policy to merge local authority provision – these were the Balls Park and Wall Hall teacher training colleges.

    By 1988 the poly was one of those accredited by the CNAA, which gave it much more direct responsibility for the curriculum, quality and standards of its own degrees. This wasn’t universally done: only 21 polytechnics were so designated. It was also one of only eight polytechnics accredited for research degrees.

    When polytechnics became universities in 1992, Hatfield Polytechnic became the University of Hertfordshire. The Hertfordshire College of Health Care and Nursing Studies and the Barnet College of Nursing and Midwifery were incorporated into the university in 1993.

    Here are a couple of factoids about the university:

    The university runs a bus company – UnoBus – which originally served to shuttle students between campuses but grew and now operates public bus services across Hertfordshire and some surrounding countries. This is a very different to the sort of companies which normally emerge from universities!

    The university also hosted what is thought to be the longest exposure photograph ever. Artist Regina Valkenborgh was studying for a master’s degree at the university and installed a rudimentary pinhole camera – a beer can with photographic paper inside – on the observatory dome. Eight years later the can was retrieved. You can read more about the story here; and see the extraordinary image here.

    And finally, as is now customary, here’s a jigsaw of the card. This was posted on 7 August 1957 to an address in Salies-de-Béarn, near Biarritz, France. And, very exotically and excitingly, is written in French. I don’t speak much French at all, but it looks like the sender was an exchange student staying with a family in Hatfield.

    Source link

  • Texas A&M Requires Approval for Courses That “Advocate” Certain Ideologies

    Texas A&M Requires Approval for Courses That “Advocate” Certain Ideologies

    Courses that “advocate race or gender ideology, sexual orientation, or gender identity” now require presidential approval at Texas A&M system campuses, the system Board of Regents decided Thursday.

    Faculty members and external advocacy groups say the new rules violate academic freedom, and for many professors, questions remain about how the policies will be implemented and enforced. Approved in a unanimous vote after a lengthy public comment period, the policy changes fit a pattern of censorship at Texas A&M that escalated after a video of a student challenging an instructor about a lesson on gender identity went viral, leading to the instructor’s firing and the resignation of then-president Mark Welsh.

    Dan Braaten, an associate professor of political science at Texas A&M San Antonio and president of the campus American Association of University Professors chapter, said he was shocked “at the egregiousness” of the policies, but not surprised by them.

    “Faculty are extremely worried,” Braaten said. “They’re wondering, can they teach the classes they’re scheduled to teach in the spring? Who’s going to be looking at their syllabi? … Is the president of each A&M university going to have to approve every syllabus? Are there penalties for any of this? It’s just a complete … serious violation of academic freedom.”

    The board approved the new rules as revisions to existing system policies. A policy on “Civil Rights Protections and Compliance” will be amended to state that “no system academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, sexual orientation, or gender identity unless the course is approved by the member CEO.” It will also define “gender ideology” as “a concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing, and disconnected from, the biological category of sex.”

    Similarly, “race ideology” is defined as “a concept that attempts to shame a particular race or ethnicity, accuse them of being oppressors in a racial hierarchy or conspiracy, ascribe to them less value as contributors to society and public discourse because of their race or ethnicity, or assign them intrinsic guilt based on the actions of their presumed ancestors or relatives in other areas of the world. This also includes course content that promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity, rather than academic instruction.”

    Teaching Versus Advocacy

    A previous version of the revision proposed that no system academic course will “teach” race or gender ideology, but the verb was changed to “advocate” before the policies were presented formally to the full board. It’s unclear how the system will differentiate between advocacy and regular instruction on these topics. Representatives for the board on Wednesday declined to comment on the policies ahead of the board vote. They did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s questions after the policies were approved.

    A second policy on “Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure” previously stated that “each faculty member is entitled to full freedom in the classroom in discussing the subject that the faculty member teaches, but a faculty member should not introduce a controversial matter that has no relation to the classroom subject.” The approved amendment adds that faculty members may not “teach material that is inconsistent with the approved syllabus for the course.”

    In a partially redacted Nov. 10 email obtained by Inside Higher Ed, a Texas A&M faculty leader said that administrators at several universities were already discussing implementation plans ahead of the board vote. An administrator also told the faculty leader that the changes to the policy would not likely lead to a formal syllabus-approval process and instead are intended to keep course content aligned with learning outcomes.

    The board received 142 written comments ahead of Thursday’s vote, and eight faculty members spoke out against the policy changes during the meeting’s public comment period. Several of them also called for Melissa McCoul, the professor fired in September, to be reinstated.

    “This is not university-level education, it is cruelty and political indoctrination in wolf’s clothing,” said Leonard Bright, a professor of government and public service and president of the Texas A&M College Station AAUP chapter. “I would need to tell my students that ‘What you came here to learn, I’m unable to tell you, because I’m restricted to tell you that information, even though such knowledge is available at every major university in this world.’”

    Sonia Hernandez, a liberal arts professor who teaches about Latin American history, shared a past example that highlighted the pitfalls of the new policies.

    “I had a student once who took issue with my discussion of the importance of military history. He was against war and felt strongly about war’s damaging effects on society, yet it was full academic freedom—not cherry-picking of topics, not advocacy, not ideology—that allowed me to share research on the intersections of war and identity with my class,” Hernandez said.

    Two faculty members—finance professor Adam Kolasinski and biomedical engineering professor John Criscione—spoke in favor of the policy changes.

    “I don’t think somebody should be able to say that Germans born two generations after the Holocaust somehow bear guilt for the Holocaust, because that’s really what’s being prohibited here,” Kolasinski said. “My colleagues seem to think that the policy says something it doesn’t.” Kolasinski also suggested the board change the language back from “advocate” to “teach.”

    AAUP president Todd Wolfson urged the board to reject the proposed policy changes in a statement Tuesday. So did Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of the AAUP, which includes faculty at Texas A&M campuses.

    “By considering these policy changes, the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents is telling faculty, ‘Shut up and teach—and we’ll tell you what to teach,’” Evans said in the statement. “This language and the censorship it imposes will cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the university, and impede faculty and students from their main mission on campus: to teach, learn, think critically, and create and share new knowledge.”

    In a Monday statement, FIRE officials wrote, “Hiring professors with PhDs is meaningless if administrators are the ones deciding what gets taught … Faculty would need permission to teach students about not just modern controversies, but also civil rights, the Civil War, or even ancient Greek comedies. This is not just bad policy. It invites unlawful censorship, chills academic freedom, and undermines the core purpose of a university. Faculty will start asking not ‘Is this accurate?’ but ‘Will this get me in trouble?’ That’s not education, it’s risk management.”

    AI-Driven Course Review

    Also on Thursday, the board discussed a detailed, systemwide review of all courses using an artificial intelligence–driven process. The system has already piloted the review process at its Tarleton State University campus, where most of the courses that were flagged are housed in the College of Education, which includes the sociology and psychology departments, the Nov. 10 email from a faculty leader stated. Board members said they intend to complete the course review regularly, as often as once per semester.

    “The Texas A&M system is stepping up first, setting the model that others will follow,” Regent Sam Torn said about the course review at Thursday’s meeting.

    The system will also use EthicsPoint, an online system that will allow students to report inaccurate, misleading or inappropriate course content that diverges from the course descriptions. System staff will be alerted when a student submits an EthicsPoint complaint, and if the complaint is determined to be valid, it will be passed along to the relevant university.

    Source link

  • Education Department resumes operations after prolonged shutdown

    Education Department resumes operations after prolonged shutdown

    Federal education staff are returning to work after a weeks-long federal government shutdown that halted many U.S. Department of Education activities ended Wednesday. However, the agreed-upon plan to open the government is only temporary.

    The continuing resolution signed into law Wednesday funds federal education programs at fiscal year 2025 levels. This temporary spending plan expires Jan. 30, unless Congress agrees to a more permanent budget before that deadline.

    The deal nullifies the reduction-in-force notices sent to 465 agency employees on Oct. 10. The Education Department is also prohibited from issuing additional RIFs through the end of January and must provide back pay to all employees who did not receive compensation during the shutdown. 

    In a statement to K-12 Dive on Thursday, the Education Department said that it “brought back staff that were impacted by the Schumer Shutdown,” in a reference to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

    In Senate floor remarks Nov. 10, Schumer said, “The last 41 days have exposed the depths of Donald Trump’s cruelty. He shut the government down longer than any president in American history and took innocent kids, veterans, and federal workers as political hostages, all because he refuses to do anything — anything — to fix the healthcare crisis and instead keeps pushing policies that will cut people’s coverage even more.”

    The statement from the Education Department added that the “Department will follow all applicable laws” and that all employees coming off furlough are back to active duty.

    However, the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents more than 2,700 U.S. Department of Education employees, said the return to work for agency staffers has been “rocky.”

    Rachel Gittleman, president of AFGE 252, said in a statement Thursday afternoon that employees have not received official notices from the Education Department’s human resources office to return to work. Rather, they are relying on text messages from supervisors or colleagues. Gittleman added that many employees named in the October firings are locked out of their computers and do not have access to agency email. 

    “This disorganization and chaos only further demoralizes the hardworking public servants at the Education Department that have faced threats, harassment, illegal firings — and 44 days without paychecks,” Gittleman said.

    Shutdown impacts

    The shutdown — the longest in U.S. history — began Oct. 1 after Congress reached an impasse on spending for FY 2026. While day-to-day K-12 and higher education operations stayed mostly unaffected, the federal shutdown put a pause on Office for Civil Rights investigations, new grant-making activities and technical assistance support.

    Still, some disruptions trickled down to early childhood programs and K-12 school systems.

    The National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, in a Nov. 7 statement, warned that delays in Impact Aid payments, which help school systems that are located in areas with non-taxable federal property, were “destabilizing school districts across the country.”

    NAFIS Executive Director Cherise Imai said that funding delays were not only inconvenient, they were “dismantling student support systems and threatening the stability of entire communities.”

    The association said a survey of 90 federally impacted school districts found that more than one-third were feeling budget pressures, with many cutting programs, freezing hiring and drawing on reserves to stay open. 

    Early in the shutdown, it was expected that athletics and extracurricular activities at Department of Defense Education Activity schools would be paused, but those events were later deemed excepted activities during the lapse in appropriations. 

    Although the federal government has reopened, uncertainty remains. According to a Nov. 10 posting by Tara Thomas, senior government affairs manager at AASA, The School Superintendents Association, “the agreement does not provide superintendents with any additional certainty regarding education funding for the 26-27 school year.” 

    Staffing levels at the Education Department remain quite lean as well due to layoffs, buyouts and attrition that occurred prior to the shutdown. According to a court filing from Nov. 12, the total number of Education Department employees is 2,536, down from 4,133 when Trump was inaugurated Jan. 20. 

    In early childhood education, the shutdown caused nearly 10,000 children to temporarily lose access to federally supported Head Start centers after funding lapsed, according to the National Head Start Association. 

    Head Start provides early childhood education services for children from low-income families. NHSA said the shutdown caused thousands of parents to lose child care services and cut access to healthy meals at the same time federal benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program expired Nov. 1.



    Source link

  • Spanberger Calls on UVA to Pause President Search

    Spanberger Calls on UVA to Pause President Search

    Virginia governor-elect Abigail Spanberger has called on the University of Virginia to pause its presidential search until she takes office in January and appoints new members to the Board of Visitors.

    In a Wednesday letter to board leaders, Spanberger wrote that she was “deeply concerned” about recent developments at the state flagship, citing “the departure of President Jim Ryan as a result of federal overreach.” Ryan stepped down amid federal investigations into diversity, equity and inclusion practices at UVA. The board later reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to pause those investigations.

    Spanberger argued that the government’s interference “went unchallenged by the Board” and has “severely undermined” public confidence in its ability to “govern productively, transparently, and in the best interests of the University.”

    Spanberger also pointed to recent votes of no confidence in the board by both the UVA Faculty Senate and the Student Council. Given those concerns and the hobbled state of the board, which is missing multiple members after state Democrats blocked Republican governor Glenn Youngkin’s appointments, Spanberger called for a pause until her own picks are confirmed by the General Assembly.

    “The benefits of selecting a new president with a full, duly-constituted Board are clear,” the governor-elect wrote in her letter to board leaders. They include making the search process and decision credible and “removing any concern that the Board’s actions are illegitimate due to a lack of authority,” she wrote.

    So far, UVA has been noncommittal in its public response.

    “University leaders and the Board of Visitors are reviewing the letter and are ready to engage with the Governor-elect and to work alongside her and her team to advance the best interests of UVA and the Commonwealth,” spokesperson Brian Coy wrote to Inside Higher Ed by email.

    Spanberger is the latest state Democrat to clash with the UVA Board of Visitors, which is stocked with GOP donors and political figures. While politics have long been at play on Virginia’s boards, Youngkin’s appointments have represented a dramatic rightward shift, prompting pushback as Democrats have blocked recent nominations.

    (A legal battle over the state of those appointments is currently playing out; the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case last month but has yet to issue a decision.)

    Democrats have turned up the temperature on UVA in recent months, demanding answers about the agreement with DOJ and Ryan’s resignation and accused the board of giving in to “extortionate tactics.” Now, following an election that saw Democrats take the governor’s office and broaden their majority in the General Assembly, Spanberger will likely have political capital to reshape higher education at the state level as she sees fit—barring intervention from the federal government.

    Spanberger, the first woman elected governor of Virginia, is a UVA alumna.

    The governor-elect’s call to pause UVA’s presidential search prompted immediate pushback from the Jefferson Council, a conservative alumni group that has won influence with Youngkin, who appointed the group’s co-founder Bert Ellis to the board before removing him for his combative behavior.

    The organization argued in a statement that in 2022 a Democratic-appointed board “quietly extended” Ryan’s contract through 2028—even though it did not expire until 2025—without “Governor Youngkin having an opportunity to appoint one Board member.” They wrote that “the Board’s action was clearly intended to ensure Ryan’s tenure” beyond Youngkin’s term. (Governors in Virginia may not serve consecutive terms.)

    The group also defended the search committee and process.

    “In contrast, the current UVA presidential search committee, the most extensive and diverse in University history, was lawfully formed by the Board and has been operating since July 2025, working diligently through meetings and interviews. To suddenly ask the BOV to wait to choose a president is a bold act of political legerdemain representing a total historical double-standard,” the Jefferson Council wrote.

    However, faculty members have a different view of the search committee.

    In an Aug. 10 letter, the UVA chapter of the American Association of University Professors accused the board of shortchanging faculty by limiting their seats on the presidential search committee. The group wrote that the committee “is dominated by current and former members of the [Board of Visitors] and administrators,” with faculty members composing less than a quarter of the committee. Additionally, they noted that none of those members “were selected by the faculty.”

    Spanberger’s insistence that UVA pause its presidential search bears similarities to ways other governors have sought to influence leadership decisions before they took office, such as Jeff Landry in Louisiana. Shortly after his election in late 2023, the Republican governor called on the University of Louisiana system to hold off on hiring Rick Gallot, a former Democratic state lawmaker, as its next president.

    Landry said he wanted to make sure their visions for the system aligned. Ultimately, despite the pause, Gallot was hired as system president after meeting with Landry before he took office.

    Source link

  • Will Trump policies exacerbate the special education teacher shortage?

    Will Trump policies exacerbate the special education teacher shortage?

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

    Teacher preparation experts fear ongoing special education teacher shortages will worsen as the Trump administration continues to downsize the U.S. Department of Education.

    Along with mass layoffs at the federal agency, proposals to consolidate federal grants for training special educators are fueling concerns that these moves will exacerbate critical staffing issues. 

    During the 2024-25 school year alone, 45 states reported shortages in special education — the most frequently reported shortage area nationwide, according to Learning Policy Institute. The other most common shortages reported by states include science (41), math (40), language arts (38), world languages (35) and career and technical education (33), LPI found. 

    A wave of layoffs in October at the Education Department that decimated most of the Office of Special Education Programs — a decision that is currently tied up in the courts — sent shockwaves throughout the special education community. OSEP helps administer and oversee the distribution of federal funds through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

    One of the grants impacted by these changes in particular is IDEA Part D for personnel development to improve services for children with disabilities.

    The IDEA Part D personnel development grants received $115 million in federal appropriations during fiscal year 2024. Under the Trump administration’s FY 26 proposal, that same program would be zeroed out, and the newly allocated funds would go to IDEA Part B programs into a single state block grant program. 

    The budget proposal stated that even with this consolidation of funds, “states would continue to meet key IDEA accountability and reporting requirements aimed at ensuring a free appropriate public education is available to all students with disabilities and protecting the rights of those students and their families.”

    Regardless, there’s minimal support in Congress for this kind of state block grant program, as both the House and Senate appropriations committees have rejected the measures in their budget planning for FY 26.  

    These IDEA Part D funds are typically awarded for five years to state education agencies, school districts, higher education institutions and nonprofits. 

    On top of challenges for OSEP to oversee the IDEA Part D personnel preparation funds while it is shortstaffed, experts and advocates say the Trump administration’s budget proposal to consolidate IDEA Part D into state block grants will harm teacher prep programs’ ability to train high-quality special educators.    

    The changes this year are of particular concern for Laurie VanderPloeg, associate executive director for professional affairs at the Council for Exceptional Children, who said the absence of IDEA Part D preparation program funds could reduce the number of special education teacher candidates in educator preparation programs. 

    Even at current enrollment levels in special education teaching programs, VanderPloeg said, there’s still not enough people in the pipeline to meet the demands in the field.  

    “So with the reduction in enrollment in the educator prep programs, it’s going to reduce our national flexibility with being able to fill all of the open positions with good, qualified personnel,” said VanderPloeg, who also served as director of OSEP during the first Trump administration. 

    The uncertainty around IDEA Part D grant funds is also hanging over the heads of educator preparation programs, leaving many wondering how long these federal dollars dedicated to training special educators will last, VanderPloeg said. If these grants are disrupted, she said, there could be other implications for teaching candidates currently enrolled in programs that benefit from the funds. 

    Source link

  • Truth vs. risk management: How to move forward

    Truth vs. risk management: How to move forward

    Key points:

    In the world of K-12 education, teachers are constantly making decisions that affect their students and families. In contrast, administrators are tasked with something even bigger: making decisions that also involve adults (parents, staff culture, etc.) and preventing conflicts from spiraling into formal complaints or legal issues. Therefore, decisions and actions often have to balance two competing values: truth and risk management.

    Some individuals, such as teachers, are very truth-oriented. They document interactions, clarify misunderstandings, and push for accuracy, recognizing that a single misrepresentation can erode trust with families, damage credibility in front of students, or most importantly, remove them from the good graces of administrators they respect and admire. Truth is not an abstract concept–it is paramount to professionalism and reputation. If a student states that they are earning a low grade because “the teacher doesn’t like me,” the teacher will go through their grade-book. If a parent claims that a teacher did not address an incident in the classroom, the teacher may respond by clarifying the inaccuracy via summarizing documentation of student statements, anecdotal evidence of student conversations, reflective activities, etc.

    De-escalation and appeasement

    In contrast, administrators are tasked with something even bigger. They have to view scenarios from the lens of risk management. Their role requires them to deescalate and appease. Administrators must protect the school’s reputation and prevent conflicts or disagreements from spiraling into formal complaints or legal issues. Through that lens, the truth sometimes takes a back seat to ostensibly achieve a quick resolution.

    When a house catches on fire, firefighters point the hose, put out the flames, and move on to their next emergency. They don’t care if the kitchen was recently remodeled; they don’t have the time or desire to figure out a plan to put out the fire by aiming at just the living room, bedrooms, and bathrooms. Administrators can be the same way–they just want the proverbial “fire” contained. They do not care about their employees’ feelings; they just care about smooth sailing and usually softly characterize matters as misunderstandings.

    To a classroom teacher who has carefully documented the truth, this injustice can feel like a bow tied around a bag of garbage. Administrators usually err on the side of appeasing the irrational, volatile, and dangerous employee, which risks the calmer employee feeling like they were overlooked because they are “weaker.” In reality, their integrity, professionalism, and level-headedness lead administrators to trust the employee will do right, know better, maintain appropriate decorum, rise above, and not foolishly escalate. This notion aligns to the scripture “To whom much is given, much is required” (Luke 12:48). Those with great abilities are judged at a higher bar.

    In essence, administrators do not care about feelings, because they have a job to do. The employee with higher integrity is not the easier target but is easier to redirect because they are the safer, principled, and ethical employee. This is not a weakness but a strength in the eyes of the administration and that is what they prefer (albeit the employee may be dismissed, confused, and their feelings may be hurt, but that is not the administration’s focus at all).

    Finding common ground

    Neither perspective (truth or risk management) is wrong. Risk management matters. Without it, schools would be replete with endless investigations and finger-pointing. Although, when risk management consistently overrides truth, the system teaches teachers that appearances matter more than accountability, which does not meet the needs of validation and can thus truly hurt on a personal level. However, in the work environment, finding common ground and moving forward is more important than finger-pointing because the priority has to be the children having an optimal learning environment.

    We must balance the two. Perhaps, administrators should communicate openly, privately, and directly to educators who may not always understand the “game.” Support and transparency are beneficial. Explaining the “why” behind a decision can go a long way in building staff trust, morale, and intelligence. Further, when teachers feel supported in their honesty, they are less likely to disengage because transparency, accuracy, and an explanation of risk management can actually prevent fires from igniting in the first place. Additionally, teachers and administrators should explore conflict resolution strategies that honor truth while still mitigating risk. This can assist in modelling for students what it means to live with integrity in complex situations. Kids deserve nothing less.

    Lastly, teachers need to be empathetic to the demands on their administrators. “If someone falls into sin, forgivingly restore him, saving your critical comments for yourself. You might be needing forgiveness before the day’s out. Stoop down and reach out to those who are oppressed. Share their burdens, and so complete Christ’s law. If you think you are too good for that, you are badly deceived” (Galatians 6:1-3). This scripture means that teachers should focus less on criticizing or “keeping score” (irrespective of the truth and the facts, and even if false-facts are generated to manage risk), but should work collaboratively while also remembering and recognizing that our colleagues (and even administrators) can benefit from the simple support of our grace and understanding. Newer colleagues and administrators are often in survival mode.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Education Department zeroes in on 4-year colleges for expanded IPEDS collection

    Education Department zeroes in on 4-year colleges for expanded IPEDS collection

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

    Dive Brief:

    •  Only four-year institutions would be subject to significantly stepped-up reporting requirements for admissions data disaggregated by race and sex, under a notice issued by the Trump administration on Wednesday.
    • The plan, first introduced in August, would require affected colleges to submit six years worth of application and admissions data — disaggregated by student race and sex — as part of the next reporting cycle. 
    • The updated terms would exempt two-year colleges and open-enrollment institutions that only award aid based on financial need from having to report this data to the National Center for Education Statistics, which oversees the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. 

    Dive Insight:

    The U.S. Department of Education currently only requires institutions to submit data disaggregated by race for enrolled students.

    But under the Trump administration’s proposal, colleges would have to disaggregate data for applicants, those admitted and enrolled students by race and sex. They would also have to cross-reference the data with each individual’s admissions test scores, GPA, family income, Pell Grant eligibility and parents’ educational level.

    Colleges would be required to submit this information for every academic year dating back to 2020-21 for the first IPEDS reporting cycle of the new plan, currently proposed as 2025-26.

    The administration intends to use the data points to “indicate whether institutions of higher education are using race-based preferencing in their admissions processes,” according to the Federal Register notice filed by Ross Santy, data officer at the agency’s Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of race-conscious admissions practices in 2023.

    The plan would also mandate that colleges submit their graduation rates from 2019-20 to 2024-25.

    In its August notice, the Education Department said it expected to focus these additional reporting requirements on four-year institutions with selective admissions processes. It said these colleges “have an elevated risk of noncompliance with the civil rights laws,” both in admissions and scholarships, while it considered community colleges and trade schools at low risk for civil rights noncompliance in admissions since they admit all or virtually all of their applicants.

    The department at the time sought public comment on which institutional types should be subject to the new reporting proposal. This week, it made revisions based on that input, according to Santy.

    Since the Trump administration first announced the proposal, higher ed groups and colleges have raised concerns about the administrative burden it would put on institutions and the rapid turnaround time necessitated by a 2025-26 start date.

    Wednesday’s update would bring relief for two-year institutions and many of those with open enrollment policies. But many of the sector’s concerns went unaddressed, including comments about unclear language in the proposal, issues around student privacy and unease that the Trump administration would construe the data with the intent of attacking colleges further.

    Since President Donald Trump began his second term in January, the federal government has alleged that colleges supporting diversity efforts or permitting student protests are in violation of civil rights law and has opened numerous investigations on these grounds.

    Source link

  • UC Berkeley TPUSA Event Protests Spark Arrests, DOJ Probe

    UC Berkeley TPUSA Event Protests Spark Arrests, DOJ Probe

    Protesters confronted police outside a Turning Point USA event on UC Berkeley’s campus Nov. 10.

    Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    Protests of a Turning Point USA event at the University of California, Berkeley, campus Monday sparked arrests and investigation announcements from top U.S. Department of Justice officials, who alleged “Antifa” involvement. The DOJ was already investigating the UC system over various allegations, and the Trump administration has demanded UCLA pay $1.2 billion and make other concessions.

    “Antifa is an existential threat to our nation,” Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X Tuesday. “The violent riots at UC Berkeley last night are under full investigation by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force.”

    Harmeet K. Dhillon, the assistant attorney general supervising the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, also said her division will investigate. “I see several issues of serious concern regarding campus and local security and Antifa’s ability to operate with impunity in CA,” she wrote on X.

    Dan Mogulof, a UC Berkeley spokesperson, told Inside Higher Ed Wednesday that there was only one reported incident of violence: A person with a ticket to the event was hit in the head by a glass bottle or jar thrown from a crowd of protesters. The victim was transported to Highland Hospital by ambulance but was “upright and conscious,” Mogulof said, adding that police are reviewing videos to see who might have thrown the object.

    In an incident that Mogulof said people mistakenly believed was connected to the protest, the City of Berkeley Police Department said its officers were monitoring the protest when they saw a fight between two men. Police determined one of them had stolen a chain from the other and the other was attempting to reclaim it, and the man who allegedly stole the chain was arrested on suspicion of robbery and battery resulting in injury.

    Mogulof also said campus police arrested two people for allegedly failing to comply with directions and, the night before the protest, arrested four students for alleged felony vandalism for trying to hang something on the historic Sather Gate. At the protest itself, Mogulof said, there were people who “self-identified as Antifa,” but he didn’t know whether they were part of an organized group.

    In a statement, the university said, “There is no place at UC Berkeley for attempts to use violence or intimidation to prevent lawful expression or chill free speech. The University is conducting a full investigation and intends to fully cooperate with and assist any federal investigations.”

    Source link

  • Texas A&M Faculty Finds Dismissed Prof’s Academic Freedom Violated

    Texas A&M Faculty Finds Dismissed Prof’s Academic Freedom Violated

    A Texas A&M University faculty council determined in late September that Melissa McCoul, an instructor fired for teaching about gender identity in a children’s literature class, had her academic freedom violated and that former president Mark Welsh flouted proper termination processes when he fired her, The Texas Tribune reported Monday.

    McCoul was dismissed in September after a video went viral, showing a student confronting her in class and claiming the professor’s gender identity lesson was illegal. McCoul is actively appealing her termination. The documented justification for her dismissal was that McCoul’s course content and material did not match the description in the course catalog, but the faculty council said this was false. 

    “The content of the course was the reason for the dismissal and not the stated reason: failure of academic responsibility,” the council wrote in its report. “Given the timeline of dismissal, the political pressure brought to bear, and statements by Regents that the course content was illegal, President Welsh’s assertion that the firing was for failure of academic responsibility appears pretextual.”

    In an Oct. 2 memo obtained by the Tribune, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Blanca Lupiani rejected the council’s conclusions and said the council acted outside its charge to review matters that were “largely unrelated to academic freedom.” The complaint about McCoul was never assigned to the council, Lupiani said in the memo. 

    University rules require the department head to write charges for dismissal, seek approval from the dean and give the faculty member a notice of intent to dismiss with five business days to respond, but Welsh requested McCoul’s dismissal on Sept. 9 “effective immediately,” the Tribune reported. 

    Source link

  • Portland State Ordered to Reinstate Some Laid-Off Faculty

    Portland State Ordered to Reinstate Some Laid-Off Faculty

    An independent arbitrator ordered Portland State University to reinstate 10 faculty members after determining the university violated its collective bargaining agreement with the Portland State University American Association of University Professors, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.  

    The faculty senate in April voted no confidence in the administration’s “Bridge to the Future” plan to address an $18 million budget deficit, and the vote “underscores the fact that the university made its layoff decisions before it had sufficient evidence to support them. That is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement,” the arbitrator wrote in her decision. 

    PSU-AAUP filed a labor grievance after the university laid off 17 non-tenure-track professors at the end of the 2024–25 academic year as part of its plan to close the deficit before the end of the spring term. The remaining seven employees declined to grieve their layoffs. 

    “[The decision] forces the university to respect the concept of shared governance,” union president Bill Knight told OPB. “It’s a reminder to the university that they can’t simply make arbitrary administrative decisions without involving the faculty.”

    The union contract requires university officials to follow a specific, lengthy process to lay off faculty members for economic reasons—as opposed to eliminating courses or programs—which the arbitrator determined they did not do. Portland State is considering an appeal.

    The budget cuts were successful in closing the deficit, OPB reported. Recent financial documents show the university saved more than $12.3 million—about 88 full-time faculty positions—in its academic affairs division. But more personnel cuts are likely. In September, the Portland State University Board of Trustees approved a plan to address a $35 million shortfall over two years.

    Source link