This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The U.S. Department of Education abruptly canceled about $881 million in multiyear research contracts on Monday, sparking a storm of protest from groups concerned about a loss of data accuracy and the dissemination of evidence-based practices.
The temporary Department of Government Efficiency, led by billionaire Elon Musk, said the contracts terminated by the Education Department’s Institute of Educational Sciences include 29 related to diversity, equity and inclusion that total $101 million.
Activities involving the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the College Scorecard and the College Navigator were not impacted by the cancellations, a department spokesperson said in an email.
Dive Insight:
In total, 89 IES contracts worth nearly $900 million were canceled, according to DOGE and the Education Department. The Education Department did not respond to a request for a list of the canceled contracts or provide a reason for the terminations.
President Donald Trump has pledged to eliminate the Education Department, although that action would need congressional approval. As a first step, Trump is expected to issue an executive order in the near future limiting the department’s power and responsibilities.
Last month, the Education Department said it had “removed or archived” hundreds of DEI-related outward-facing documents — including guidance, reports and training materials — to comply with Trump’s executive order to end federal DEI activities. The Education Department also recently put employees charged with leading DEI efforts on paid leave.
As the education field was attempting to better understand the reach of the canceled contracts, several individuals and organizations expressed concern.
The “robust collection and analysis of data are essential for ensuring quality education,” according to a joint statement on Monday from the American Education Research Association and the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics.
The organizations said the contract terminations will prevent the National Center for Education Statistics from participating in international assessments and reporting data on school, college and university finances. Also concerning will be the loss of future survey data to understand the extent of teacher shortages and chronic absenteeism in schools, they said.
Limiting NCES’ work “will have ramifications for the accuracy of national-level data on the condition and progress of education, from early childhood through postsecondary to adult workforce,” AERA and COPAFS said. As a result, “student learning and development will be harmed.”
EdTrust, a nonprofit that aims to eliminate racial and economic barriers in schools, said the abrupt cancellations jeopardize “our collective responsibility to identify and address” inequities affecting populations including students from low-income families, students of color, English language learners, students with disabilities, student parents, and rural students.
Sameer Gadkaree, president and CEO of the Institute for College Access & Success, pointed to a risk that “core Congressional mandates — including increasing transparency and improving student outcomes through evidence-based strategies — will be delayed and may not be possible.
“Without action, ongoing data collection efforts will be impaired and future availability of basic, up-to-date information will be at risk,” Gadkaree said in a statement Tuesday.
But some saw the move as a restart for federal education research.
Mark Schneider, director of the Institute of Education Sciences from 2017 to 2024 and currently a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, addressed the matter during a LinkedIn conversation Tuesday with Bellwether, a nonprofit education research and analysis organization.
IES systems need to be re-evaluated and modernized, said Schneider, adding he wished he could have made large-scale reforms as director of IES. “Do I wish I had even a modicum of the power that that DOGE [has]? Yes, of course,” he said.
He said the federal education research arm needs significant rebuilding by people knowledgeable about research infrastructure.
“I think we have to understand that this is not a tragedy. This is not a catastrophe. This is an opportunity,” said Scheider.
Without mass resistance, these attacks will
result in layoffs, program & school closures, and devastation to
local economies that depend on the economic impact of our colleges and
universities. Higher ed workers – long facing growing job precarity –
are now facing unprecedented job insecurity.
In February 19, at actions across the country, higher education workers, students, and allies will get in the streets and loudly proclaim: Hands off our healthcare, research, and jobs!
Whenever I have a question about building a new online program, the first person I go to is almost always Paul Krause. At Cornell University, Paul serves as the vice provost of external education and executive director of eCornell. I asked Paul if he’d be willing to answer my questions for this community, and he graciously agreed.
Q: Help us understand your role at Cornell. What is eCornell, and what role does a vice provost of external education play at the university? Can you share some key metrics?
A: I lead the universitywide effort to extend Cornell’s reach to nontraditional students—those not in a residential degree program. My role includes leading eCornell, a centralized organization within the provost’s office that collaborates with each of our academic units to develop programs. Our portfolio includes online professional certificates, executive education, online degree program support and various social impact initiatives. The eCornell team is also responsible for outreach to organizations and individuals who can benefit from our programs.
Due to an early start—eCornell has been operational for over 24 years—and with the backing of academic leadership, such as the president, provost and deans, eCornell has expanded to encompass all 13 of Cornell’s colleges and schools. Last year, we offered more than 200 noncredit online certificate programs, created with over 250 faculty members. We engaged over 160,000 funded students, including individuals, enterprises supporting employee development or philanthropic partners aiming for social impact.
Q: When you think about the next three to five years in online learning and higher education, what are you most excited about and what keeps you up at night?
A: I’m excited by AI’s potential to revolutionize online courses through personalization and new ways to engage students. We can already incorporate remarkable new ways to engage with students with interactives, simulations and coaching support.
However, I also worry that AI could exacerbate the trend toward online learning becoming a “lone wolf” experience devoid of human interaction—a trend driven by good intentions to lower costs and expand access. Not every individual thrives in a 100 percent self-directed learning setting, and in many cases, something is lost without authentic instructor feedback and structured dialogue with peers. At eCornell, we are seeking to find a balance between integrating AI innovations and real human engagement with instructors and among peers.
Moving forward, I hope that online programs embrace AI to enhance efficiency and engagement while preserving the valuable social aspects of collaborative learning that drive deeper understanding and support student success. Otherwise, online learning will be a very lonely experience and never achieve its full potential.
In line with this theme, especially concerning noncredit professional certificates, colleges and universities should clearly define the educational experiences that merit a certificate from their institution. Currently, professional certificates lack industry standards for regular and substantial student engagement. The rise of prominent marketplaces and aggregators providing certificate programs through affordable subscription models has led to many certificate programs approaching the lowest common denominator of self-paced click-through experiences.
While this instruction might be effective for certain students in certain programs—and AI will certainly enhance those experiences—it fundamentally differs from a program that involves instructors and peer discussions. For certificate programs to signal significance in the long run, institutions must evaluate if the educational experience and outcomes justify awarding a credential linked to their brand.
Q: Your path to a university leadership role in digital and online education did not follow a traditional academic career. For early and midcareer professionals currently working outside a university, and who may be interested in a university leadership role, what career advice would you give?
A: My transition from ed-tech leadership to Cornell University a decade ago offered an extraordinary opportunity to drive meaningful change in higher education. Based on my experience, here is my advice for professionals considering a similar path:
Advance the mission. In my experience, educational institutions must balance social impact with financial sustainability, particularly in nondegree programs. I’ve found the key is demonstrating how serving external learners advances the institution’s fundamental goals while generating the resources needed to sustain that impact. Success lies in helping stakeholders understand how financial sustainability enables and amplifies our mission-driven outcomes.
Seek mentors. Throughout my journey, I’ve been fortunate to receive mentorship from experienced academic leaders who have helped me navigate the distinct institutional culture, competing priorities and decision-making processes that characterize higher education.
Lead through collaboration. I’ve learned that institutional change in academia requires an especially deep level of collaboration and strategic patience. Success comes from building strong partnerships across units and helping stakeholders see shared benefits. In my experience, the key is creating frameworks where stakeholders can advance their priorities together.
For professionals considering this path, I encourage you to embrace your unique perspective while maintaining a learning mindset. Success comes from exercising patience as you adapt to the academic environment and focusing on advancing shared goals through collaborative partnerships.
Colleges and universities can support students with previous history of suicidal ideation or self-harm with long-term counseling or mental health support.
PeopleImages/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Over the past two decades, suicide rates in the U.S. have increased 37 percent, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control. Fifteen percent of all deaths by suicide are among individuals ages 10 to 24 years old, making it the second leading cause of death for this age group.
A January report from Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH) finds that students with a history of suicidal or self-injurious behaviors report lower levels of distress after engaging with counseling center services, but they remain at higher levels of distress over all compared to their peers.
Methodology
The report includes data from the 2023–24 academic year, beginning July 2023 and closing June 2024. Data was collected from 213 college and university counseling centers, including 173,536 unique students seeking care, 4,954 clinicians and over 1.2 million appointments. The data is not representative of the general student population, only those accessing mental health services.
By the numbers: The number of students reporting previous suicidal or self-injurious behavior (S/SIB) histories jumped four percentage points from 2010–11 to 2023–24, according to CCMH data.
“While counseling centers have historically treated a considerable segment of students with heightened suicide risk, ongoing questions remain about the complexity of co-occurring problems experienced, the scope of services they utilize, and whether gaps in care exist,” according to the report.
Compared to their peers without a history of S/SIB, these learners had higher levels of self-reported distress, particularly in symptoms of generalized anxiety, general distress and depression. They were also more likely to report a history of trauma or past hospitalization.
Students had a higher likelihood of continuing to demonstrate self-injurious thoughts or behaviors, compared to other students, but the overall rates remained low, with only 3.3 percent of students with past S/SIB reporting it during college counseling.
They were 14.3 times more likely to engage in self-injury and 11.6 times more likely to attempt suicide during treatment, and more than five times more likely to be admitted or referred to a hospital for a mental health concern. This, again, constituted a small number of students (around one in 180) but researchers noted the disproportionate likelihood of these critical case events.
Ultimately, students with suicidal or self-injurious behavior history saw similar benefits from accessing services compared to their peers, with data showing less generalized distress or suicidal ideation among all learners between their first and final assessments. However, they still had greater levels of distress, even if slightly lower than initial intake, showing a need for additional resources, according to researchers.
“The data show that students with a history of suicidal or self-injurious behaviors could benefit from access to longer-term and comprehensive care, including psychological treatment, psychiatric services and case management at counseling centers, as well as adjunctive support that contributes to an overall sense of well-being, such as access to disability services and financial aid programs,” said Brett Scofield, executive director for the CCMH, in a Jan. 28 press release.
Future considerations: Researchers made note that while prior history of suicidal behaviors or self-harm are some of the risk factors for suicide, they are not the only ones, and counseling centers should note other behaviors that could point to suicidal ideation, such as substance use or social isolation.
Additionally, some centers had higher rates of students at risk for suicide, ranging from 20 to 50 percent of clients, so examining local data to understand the need and application of data is critical, researchers wrote.
The data also showed a gap in capacity to facilitate longer-term care, such as case management or psychiatric services available, which can place an additional burden on clinicians or require outsourcing for support, diluting overall quality of care at the center. “Therefore, it is imperative that colleges and universities invest in under-resourced counseling centers to ease the burden on counseling center staff and optimize treatment for students with heightened suicide risk,” according to the report.
Other trends: In addition to exploring how college counseling centers can address suicidality in young people, CCMH researchers built on past data to illustrate some of the growing concerns for on-campus mental health service providers.
Rates of prior counseling and psychotropic medication usage grew year over year and are at the highest level since data was first collected in 2012. A 2023 TimelyCare survey found six in 10 college students had accessed mental health services prior to entering college, and CCMH data echoed this trend, with 63 percent of students entering with prior counseling history.
The number of clients reporting a history of trauma remains elevated, up eight percentage points compared to 2012, though down slightly year over year, at 45.5 percent, compared to last year’s 46.8 percent.
Anxiety is the most common presenting concern, with 64.4 percent of clients having anxiety, as assessed by clinicians.
In-person counseling services have rebounded since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with 63.7 percent of clients receiving exclusively in-person counseling and 13.5 percent receiving only video care.
If you or someone you know are in crisis or considering suicide and need help, call the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing 9-8-8, or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741.
Since the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, artificial intelligence has rocketed from relative obscurity to near ubiquity. The rate of adoption for generative AI tools has outpaced that of personal computers and the internet. There is widespread optimism that, on one hand, AI will generate economic growth, spur innovation and elevate the role of quintessential “human work.” On the other hand, there’s palpable anxiety that AI will disrupt the economy through workforce automation and exacerbate pre-existing inequities.
Historyshowsthat education and training are key factors for weathering economic volatility. Yet, it is not entirely clear how postsecondary education providers can equip learners with the resources they need to thrive in an increasingly AI-driven workforce.
Here at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville’s Education Research and Opportunity Center, we are leading a three-year study in partnership with the Tennessee Board of Regents, Advance CTE and the Association for Career and Technical Education to explore this very subject. So far, we have interviewed more than 20 experts in AI, labor economics, career and technical education (CTE), and workforce development. Here are three things you should know.
Generative AI is the present, not the future.
First, AI is not new. ChatGPT continues to captivate attention because of its striking ability to reason, write and speak like a human. Yet, the science of developing machines and systems to mimic human functions has existed for decades. Many people are hearing about machine learning for the first time, but it has powered their Netflix recommendations for years. That said, generative AI does represent a leap forward—a big one. Simple machine learning cannot compose a concerto, write and debug computer code, or generate a grocery list for your family. Generative AI can do all of these things and infinitely more. It certainly feels futuristic, but it is not; AI is the present. And the generative AI of the present is not the AI of tomorrow.
Our interviews with experts have made clear that no one knows where AI will be in 15, 10 or even five years, but the consensus predicts the pace of change will be dramatic. How can students, education providers and employers keep up?
First, we cannot get hung up on specific tools, applications or use cases. The solution is not simply to incorporate ChatGPT in the classroom, though this is a fine starting point. We are in a speeding vehicle; our focus out the window needs to be on the surrounding landscape, not the passing objects. We need education policies that promote organizational efficiency, incentivize innovation and strengthen public-private partnerships. We need educational leadership focused on the processes, infrastructure and resources required to rapidly deploy technologies, break down disciplinary silos and guarantee learner safeguards. We need systemic and sustained professional development and training for incumbent faculty, and we need to reimagine how we prepare and hire new faculty. In short, we need to focus on building more agile, more adaptable, less siloed and less reactive institutions and classrooms because generative AI as we know it is not the future; AI is a harbinger of what is to come.
Focus on skills, not jobs.
It is exceedingly difficult to predict which individual occupations will be impacted—positively or negatively—by AI. We simply cannot know for certain whether surgeons or meat slaughterers are at greatest risk of AI-driven automation. Not only is it guesswork, but it is also flawed thinking, rooted in a misunderstanding of how technology impacts work. Tasks constitute jobs, jobs constitute occupations and occupations constitute industries. Lessons from prior technological innovations tell us that technologies act on tasks directly, and occupations only indirectly. If, for example, the human skill required to complete a number of job-related tasks can be substituted by smart machines, the skill composition of the occupation will change. An entire occupation can be eliminated if a sufficiently high share of the skills can be automated by machines. That said, it is equally true (and likely) that new technologies can shift the skill composition of an occupation in a way that actually enhances the demand for human workers. Shifts in demands for skills within the labor market can even generate entirely new jobs. The point is that the traditional approach to thinking of education in terms of majors, courses and degrees does learners a disservice.
By contrast, our focus needs to be on the skills learners acquire, regardless of discipline or degree pathway. A predictable response to the rise of AI is to funnel more learners into STEM and other supposed AI-ready majors. But our conversations, along with existing research, suggest learners can benefit equally from majoring in liberal studies or art history so long as they are equipped with in-demand skills that cannot (yet) be substituted by smart machines.
We can no longer allow disciplines to “own” certain skills. Every student, across every area of study, must be equipped with both technical and transferable skills. Technical skills allow learners to perform occupation-specific tasks. Transferable skills—such as critical thinking, adaptability and creativity—transcend occupations and technologies and position learners for the “work of the future.” To nurture this transition, we need innovative approaches to packaging and delivering education and training. Institutional leaders can help by equipping faculty with professional development resources and incentives to break out of disciplinary silos. We also need to reconsider current approaches to institutional- and course-level assessment. Accreditors can help by pushing institutions to think beyond traditional metrics of institutional effectiveness.
AI itself is a skill, and one you need to have.
From our conversations with experts, one realization is apparent: There are few corners of the workforce that will be left untouched by AI. Sure, AI is not (yet) able to unclog a drain, take wedding photos, install or repair jet engines, trim trees, or create a nurturing kindergarten classroom environment. But AI will, if it has not already, change the ways in which these jobs are performed. For example, AI-powered software can analyze plumbing system data to predict problems, such as water leaks, before they happen. AI tools can similarly analyze aircraft systems, sensors and maintenance records to predict aircraft maintenance needs before they become hazardous, minimizing aircraft downtime. There is a viable AI use case for every industry now. The key factor for thriving in the AI economy is, therefore, the ability to use AI effectively and critically regardless of one’s occupation or industry.
AI is good, but it is not yet perfect. Jobs still require human oversight. Discerning the quality of sources or synthesizing contradictory viewpoints to make meaningful judgments remain uniquely human skills that cut across all occupations and industries. To thrive in the present and future of work, we must embrace and nurture this skill set while effectively collaborating with AI technology. This effective collaboration itself is a skill.
To usher in this paradigm shift, we need federal- and state-level policymakers to prioritize AI user privacy and safety so tools can be trusted and deployed rapidly to classrooms across the country. It is also imperative that we make a generational investment in applied research in human-AI interaction so we can identify and scale best practices. In the classroom, students need comprehensive exposure to and experience with AI at the beginnings and ends of their programs. It is a valuable skill to work well with others, and in a modern era, it is equally necessary to work well with machines. Paraphrasing Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia: Students are not going to lose their jobs to AI; they will lose their jobs to someone who uses AI.
Cameron Sublett is associate professor and director of the Education Research and Opportunity Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Lauren Mason is a senior research associate within the Education Research and Opportunity Center.
Today on the HEPI website, Annamaria Carusi challenges the common assumption that translational research is only relevant to STEM fields, making the case for a broader, more integrated approach that fully values the contributions of the arts and humanities. If we want to maximize the real-world impact of research, she argues, it is time to rethink outdated silos and recognize the creative industries as essential players in innovation and economic growth. You can read that piece here.
Below, as the government considers higher education reform, Dr Brooke Storer-Church and Dr Kate Wicklow make the case for specialist higher education institutions and warn against the dangers of homogenisation.
GuildHE represents the most diverse range of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that are crucial to the prosperity of the sector, the economy, and our global reputation. We therefore argue that in an increasingly complex world, the role of specialist higher education institutions has never been more vital. These institutions, with their deep-rooted expertise and tailored approach, offer a unique and invaluable contribution to the landscape of higher education by providing diverse approaches and pathways to a wide range of students.
Diversity is a necessary ingredient for a successful and sustainable higher education sector, and this is becoming clearer from an analysis of the United States landscape, along with Australia and other large higher education systems. Expert commentators grappling with some of the current challenges for American universities and colleges offer a hypothesis, positing that losing the diversity of mission and distinctiveness, objectives and audiences has been key to its diminishing public support. This homogenisation includes institutional, mission, operational, and aspirational similarities, which see every institution strive to ‘be all things to all people’ and thereby offer ‘the same thing for only some of the people.’
In November, the Secretary of State wrote to the higher education sector outlining five areas for reform. GuildHE has scrutinised these areas and suggested to the Department for Education (DfE) ways to use the strengths of our sector to meet these challenges. However, some of the debate surrounding reform includes calls for consolidation and institutional mergers to offer the best ‘efficiencies’ in the sector.
While GuildHE members drive innovation, enrich communities and ensure access to high-quality education, their impact is often overlooked because they are not traditional, large-scale, multi-faculty universities. Funding and regulatory systems and government policies often fail to recognise institutions that do not fit this conventional university image. We, therefore, argue consolidation in the sector puts institutional diversity and student choice at risk, jeopardises our world-leading status, and undermines the Government’s missions of supporting local communities, equality of opportunity and our national economy.
Overall, we want to see Government reform which champions our diversity, avoids policies that undermine the unique contributions of our diverse institutions, and actively invests to protect them.
A focus on depth and industrial relevance
Unlike their more generalist counterparts, specialist HEIs prioritise depth over breadth. They delve into specific disciplines, professions or industries, providing students with a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their chosen field. This focused approach fosters a level of knowledge and skills that is often unmatched elsewhere and is increasingly in demand to tackle 21st-century challenges.
Whilst GuildHE is known for representing specialist creative arts institutions, which together train about 40% of all creative HE students in England, we represent a wider range of specialists, including healthcare specialists like Health Sciences University, specialists in the built environment like University College of Estate Management (which is also a specialist in online delivery) and all the land-based specialist universities in the sector. The agri-food sector employs almost 4 million people and is larger than the automotive and aerospace sectors combined. Technological innovations and sustainability and productivity improvements are driven by our specialist land-based institutions, which work closely with industrial partners. This specialist expertise is transforming the future of food production, bringing together disciplines such as robotics and artificial intelligence and contributing to the broader push towards net-zero food and farming. Several agriculture-focused higher education providers have their own farms and industrial research centres for testing and development.
Nationally, our institutions work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, right across government and with industry sector bodies; for example, Harper Adams University has advised the government on matters related to food security. Their impact is also international, as agri-food HEIs work with the Department for International Trade to boost the profile of UK agricultural innovation overseas and educational and research and development programmes are forged with international partners from the US and China to Kenya, Australia and the Netherlands.
A culture of innovation
As natural innovators, many specialist institutions know their regions well and will be a critical part of generating economic growth there. They are locally significant as employers and community anchors and active partners in Local Enterprise Partnerships and other local bodies, such as Chambers of Commerce. Below is just a small sample of the innovations delivered by our specialist institutions.
Norwich University of the Arts collaborated with regional businesses to innovate film technology that mid-size regional film production companies use. The project created new jobs in Norfolk, boosted film production for regional, small-scale productions and start-ups, and the insights gained from the project were incorporated into the university curriculum. By equipping students with cutting-edge knowledge and skills, NUA is empowering them to contribute to the region’s growing knowledge-based economy by equipping them with cutting-edge knowledge and skills.
Dyson Institute for Engineering and Technology is training the future workforce of engineers with a particular focus on pioneering new technologies that make intrinsically relevant real-world impacts. Innovation areas include delivering safe, cleaner, energy-efficient batteries, prototyping products in aerodynamics, mechatronics and microbiology and robotics for clinical imaging, navigation technology and machine learning.
Hartpury University is a leading institution for agriculture, agri-tech, animal and veterinary sciences. Its Agri-Tech Centre is a state-of-the-art complex, connecting research, knowledge, data, and people in a real-world and applied setting. Through the Centre, it provides industry-led services for the advancement of agricultural technologies and delivers proven solutions and services to farms and suppliers across the UK. This hub offers a path for innovative agri-tech businesses to trial new products and services to modernise and sustain British farming.
A sense of community
One of the defining characteristics of specialist HEIs is their strong sense of community. Students, staff and alumni often share a common passion for their field, creating a supportive and inspiring environment. This sense of community fosters a deep sense of belonging and can lead to lifelong friendships and professional networks.
Arts University Plymouth’s Young Arts programme was established in 1988. It features the university’s renowned Saturday Arts Clubs and for over 30 years, has worked to bridge the gap in arts provision for young people created by increasingly limited access to creative activity in schools. Young Arts uses art as a catalyst for learning, shaping the artists, makers and creative thinkers of the future, supporting learning and social development, often working with specific widening participation groups.
Starting in September 2025, Harper Adams University (HAU) will open a suite of undergraduate courses at The Quad, Telford; its first additional site in 124 years and a new base from which the university can extend its collaboration with and connection to its local community. In The Quad, HAU is co-located with Telford College, Invest Telford, and the local MP to broaden access for local learners to future-focused courses like data science, robotics mechatronics and automation, and digital business. HAU is also providing short courses and upskilling for local businesses to support local growth.
Our asks of government
As we argue extensively in our submission to DfE, specialist HEIs offer a diverse range of programmes and courses that meet the needs of a wide range of students and community partners and meet each of the five areas of higher education reform. They are, therefore, the essential threads in the fabric of our diverse, rich and successful higher education landscape; threads that have been regrettably lost in other systems around the world. Their focus on depth, industry partnerships, innovation and community makes them uniquely positioned to prepare students for success in a rapidly changing world. As we look to the future, it is clear that specialist HEIs must continue to play a vital role in shaping the next generation of leaders and innovators.
Global trend analysis has shown that government policies, regulation and academic communities have all contributed to the homogeneity of higher education in other countries. This reduces social mobility by reducing modes of entry and delivery. It also weakens applied research and innovation and the pipeline of experts into the labour market, as it loses its ability to create the growing variety of specialisations needed for economic and social development.
At a time when we, as a sector, are grappling with the twin pressures of making our contributions to wider society clearer and delivering the promise with fewer resources, we must all protect the very diversity within it that ensures we can rise to the 21st-century challenges on our doorstep and retain a world-leading and (possibly) increasingly unique higher education sector.
We have published a summary of our submission to DfE with our various policy asks to protect the diversity of our system here.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
UPDATE: Feb. 12, 2025: The U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday agreed to temporarily block staffers of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, from accessing student aid information and other data systems until at least Feb. 17.
On that date, a federal judge overseeing the case is expected to rule on a student group’s request for a temporary restraining order to block the agency from sharing sensitive data with DOGE.
Dive Brief:
A group representing University of California students filed a lawsuit Friday to block the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency from accessing federal financial aid data.
The University of California Student Association cited reports that DOGE members gained access to federal student loan data, which includes information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, account information and driver’s license numbers.
The complaint accuses the U.S. Department of Education of violating federal privacy laws and regulations by granting DOGE staffers access to the data. “The scale of intrusion into individuals’ privacy is enormous and unprecedented,” the lawsuit says.
Dive Insight:
President Donald Trump created DOGE through executive order on the first day of his second term, tasking the team, led by Tesla co-founder and Trump adviser Musk, with rooting out what the new administration deems as government waste.
DOGE has since accessed the data of several government agencies, sparking concerns that its staffers are violating privacy laws and overstepping the executive branch’s power. With the new lawsuit, the University of California Student Association joins the growing chorus of groups that say DOGE is flouting federal statutes.
One of those groups — 19 state attorneys general — scored a victory over the weekend. On Saturday, a federal judge temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing the Treasury Department’s payments and data system, which disburses Social Security benefits, tax returns and federal employee salaries.
The University of California Student Association has likewise asked the judge to temporarily block the Education Department from sharing sensitive data with DOGE staffers and to retrieve any information that has already been transferred to them.
The group argues that the Education Department is violating the Privacy Act of 1974, which says that government agencies may not disclose an individual’s data “to any person, or to another agency,” without their consent, except in limited circumstances. The Internal Revenue Code has similar protections for personal information.
“None of the targeted exceptions in these laws allows individuals associated with DOGE, or anyone else, to obtain or access students’ personal information, except for specific purposes — purposes not implicated here,” the lawsuit says.
The Washington Post reported on Feb. 3 that some DOGE team members had in fact gained access to “multiple sensitive internal systems,” including federal financial aid data, as part of larger plans to carry out Trump’s goal to eventually eliminate the Education Department.
“ED did not publicly announce this new policy — what is known is based on media reporting — or attempt to justify it,” Friday’s lawsuit says. “Rather, ED secretly decided to allow individuals with no role in the federal student aid program to root around millions of students’ sensitive records.”
In response to the Post’s Feb. 3 reporting, Musk on the same day posted on X that Trump “will succeed” in dismantling the agency.
Later that week, the Post reported that DOGE staffers were feeding sensitive Education Departmentdata into artificial intelligence software to analyze the agency’s spending.
The moves have also attracted lawmakers’ attention. Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top-ranking Democrat on the House’s education committee, asked the Government Accountability Office on Friday to probe the security of information technology systems at the Education Department’s and several other agencies.
An Education Department spokesperson said Monday that the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
Despite frequent media reports about the high cost of college, many students pay much less than the eye-catching sticker price. Students enrolled at four-year institutions living away from their parents face the highest sticker prices. But only around a quarter or fewer of those enrolled at public institutions (for state residents) or private nonprofit four-year institutions pay that sticker price. The remainder receive financial aid. Even most high-income students receive merit-based aid. How are they supposed to know how much they will have to pay?
Here is how colleges and universities could help. They can provide students with tools that lead them through a financial aid “information funnel.” Provide limited financial details (just family income?) and get an instant ballpark estimate at the top of the funnel. Provide a few more details, get a better, but still ballpark estimate. Keep going until you get an actual price. Extreme simplicity at the beginning of the process facilitates entry; the funnel should have a wide mouth. If the result is below sticker price, it can promote further investigation. Along the way, positive reinforcement through favorable results (if they occur) supports students continuing through the funnel.
Courtesy of Phillip Levine
This approach represents a significant advance over past practices, as I detail in a report newly released by the Aspen Economic Strategy Group (AESG). Historically, colleges provided no preliminary estimates. Students filed their financial aid forms (FAFSA and perhaps CSS Profile), applied to a college, and received their admissions decision and financial aid offer (if admitted) at the same time. Who knows how many students didn’t bother to apply because they believed they couldn’t afford it?
This began to change in 2008. The Higher Education Act was amended at that time to require institutions to provide “net price calculators” by 2011 that were intended to provide early cost estimates. Unfortunately, the well-intended policy hasn’t been very effective because these tools often are not user-friendly. They may represent a useful step higher up the funnel relative to the ultimate financial aid offer, but they remain toward its bottom.
Other steps have been taken along the way attempting to provide greater pricing information to prospective students. The government launched new webpages (the College Navigator and the College Scorecard), which provide college-specific details regarding the average “net price” (the amount students pay after factoring in financial aid). But the average net price mainly helps students with average finances determine their net price. Besides, using the median rather than the average would lessen the impact of outliers. It’s a much better statistic to capture the amount a typical student would pay in this context. Additional data on net prices within certain income bands are also available, but they still suffer from the biases introduced by using the average net price as well. What students really want and need is an accurate estimate of what college will cost them.
The most recent advance in college price transparency is the creation of the College Cost Transparency Initiative. This effort represents the response of hundreds of participating institutions to a Government Accountability Office report detailing the inconsistency and lack of clarity in financial aid offer letters. To participate, institutions agreed to certain principles and standards in the offer letters they transmit. It is an improvement relative to past practice, but it also is a bottom-of-the-funnel improvement. It does not provide greater price transparency to prospective students prior to submitting an application.
Institutions have also engaged in other marketing activities designed to facilitate communication of affordability messaging. Some institutions have begun to provide offers of free tuition to students with incomes below some threshold. The success of the Hail Scholarship (now repackaged as the Go Blue Guarantee) at the University of Michigan supports such an approach. Many of these offers, though, do not cover living expenses, which is a particular problem for students living away from their parents. In those instances, such offers may be more misleading than illuminating.
In 2017, I founded MyinTuition Corp. as a nonprofit entity designed to provide pricing information higher up in the financial aid information funnel. Its original tool, now used by dozens of mainly highly endowed private institutions, requires users to provide basic financial inputs and receive a ballpark price estimate. More recently, MyinTuition introduced an instant net price estimator, which is currently operational at Washington University in St. Louis, based solely on family income. Given the limited financial details provided, those estimates include some imprecision; the tool also provides a range of estimates within which the actual price is likely to fall. These tools are an easy entry point into the process, which is what the top of the funnel is designed to accomplish. More such efforts are necessary.
If we could do a better job communicating the availability of financial aid, it would also contribute to better-informed public discussions about college pricing and access. One recent survey found that only 19 percent of adults correctly recognized that lower-income students pay less to attend college than higher-income students. It is a legitimate question to ask whether the price those students pay is low enough. But we cannot even start the discussion with such limited public understanding of how much students across the income distribution pay now. Any step that colleges and universities can take to facilitate that understanding would be helpful. Improving the transparency in their own pricing certainly would be an important step they can take.
Phillip Levine is the Katharine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Economics at Wellesley College and the founder and CEO of MyinTuition Corp.
Many readers might have had an experience along the following lines. You’re on a call, in a meeting, at an event – and someone just happens to let slip that they are doing a postgraduate apprenticeship through their work.
Questions bubble up: isn’t this person someone in a position to fund their own studies? Or perhaps: don’t they already have a master’s degree? You might even be thinking: your manager really lets you duck out of work for training so often?
Now this is pure anecdote – and forgive me if it’s not quite as frequent as I’m assuming – but it’s proved to be a pretty powerful one as debates over apprenticeships have percolated in the press and in the back of policymakers’ minds for the last few years. Allied with controversies over supposed “MBA apprenticeships” (or more recently, MBA top-ups and management training for senior executives), it’s led fairly directly to where we are now.
The government has announced that “a significant number” of level 7 apprenticeships will be removed from levy eligibility in England. The accompanying enjoinder for employers to fund them by other means (if they so choose) is likely the death knell for most of the affected courses, given that without the incentive of levy spending they will largely look like ungainly, over-regulated and rather long bits of exec ed.
Now we still don’t know exactly what decision the government is going to take. And Labour’s moves here do have other motivations – the policy intention is to stop employers spending their allowances on (older, already qualified) existing staff, and therefore give them a free hand to take on younger apprentices at lower levels, including with so-called “foundation apprenticeships”, though there is zero detail on how this shift in employer training priorities is expected to come about.
But still – if this was the only priority, money could have come from elsewhere. The fact remains that level 7 apprenticeships have various black marks hanging over them, whether or not justified, which have made them a safe target to go after. Is it really a good use of taxpayers’ money to fund long and expensive courses of what is overwhelmingly in-work training?
Whose fund is it anyway?
A big part of the issue, however, is this sense that the levy is really “taxpayers’ money”. It isn’t – it’s half a per cent of an employer’s annual pay bill, assuming said pay bill is £3m or more. Alison Wolf’s recent report for the Social Market Foundation vividly spells out the issue here – employers have become hyper-aware of what they “owe” and are incentivised to spend it as fast as they can, a perverse incentive of the current system which has made level 7 programmes more attractive than policymakers assumed.
Much of Labour’s current skills policies have their genesis in a period when employers were not successfully deploying their own levy contributions, and there was a question of how better to direct underspends. This is very much not where we are now. And there are many employers who are not well set-up to pivot to entry-level apprenticeships (think solicitors, for example), or who are stressing their own workforce’s need for higher-level upskilling and pursuing productivity gains rather than a larger headcount.
It could be that the non-apprenticeship part of the growth and skills levy will help square this circle – employers will be able to invest in shorter, possibly more useful workforce training this way, rather than running headlong towards level 7 programmes as the only game in town. The problem is that the government has gone very quiet about this, and we have no sense of what kind of courses will be in scope here.
And much like with the employer national insurance rise, it doesn’t seem to have been thought through how publicly-funded bodies are meant to respond here – NHS trusts and local councils being big users of the apprenticeship levy, by dint of their size. If the government doesn’t want them spending their levy funds on this type of provision, is it asking them to spend cash from elsewhere in their budgets?
Caught in the middle
Stuck between employers’ wishes and government’s aims (or the imagined taxpayer investment) are those education and training providers who have poured resources into making higher-level apprenticeships work. And when we’re talking about level 7 qualifications, it’s universities that have done a lot of the running.
If you had said a decade ago that many if not most universities would be founding and scaling up teams dedicated to reaching out to employers, thinking about training needs, even coordinating levy transfers across partners and supply chains (as the Edge Foundation’s recent research found) – well, it would have sounded like something dreamed up by a think tank, a laudable ambition unlikely to ever come true. And yet, here we are.
The Department for Education and Skills England may decide to limit only a couple of standards – as the chart below shows, simply scrapping the Accountancy and Taxation Professional and Senior Leader standards would dramatically change the landscape (though we’d likely be back in the same position in a few years having a similar conversation about the Senior People Professional and Systems Thinking Practitioner ones).
But once the government starts taking a pick-and-mix approach to standards (as opposed to letting a properly independent arms-length body do so), it opens the door to it happening again and again. If there is a substantial defunding of level 7 apprenticeship standards, expect the next few years to see targets on the back of others, even at level 6 – and an accompanying disincentive for universities to keep pressing ahead seeking out partnerships with employers.
The removal from levy eligibility of standards that currently have a high uptake will have an immediate impact on those providers invested in them. Below, DK has charted apprenticeship starts by higher education institution (and a few other public bodies as they are lumped together in the DfE data, though as you may have noticed above some for-profit universities appear in the private sector category instead).
The default view in this chart shows level 7 starts in 2023–24, broken down by standards, so that you can plumb the impact on different providers of different approaches to defunding. And if you’re getting nervous about what else Skills England might fancy doing once it’s finally got the level 7 announcement out of the way, you can look at provision at other levels too.
Before starting at his Harlem high school, Jeurry always assumed he was progressing appropriately in school, despite having significant learning challenges.
However, in his freshman year, he began to notice himself struggling to read longer words and more complex sentences.
As he grew increasingly overwhelmed, it became clear that the small classes exclusively for students with disabilities that he had been in since kindergarten had not adequately prepared him for high school.
Still, Jeurry managed to pass nearly all his classes. His final meeting with his Committee on Special Education — which consisted of Jeurry’s mom and several faculty members — took place in December 2016. By then, the senior had earned 45 credits — 44 were required to graduate — and a C+ average, records show.
But Jeurry was devastated to learn that he would not earn a diploma.
The reason was based on a decision the committee made when Jeurry was in sixth grade and, according to records, never revisited while he was in high school. At that time, the educators concluded that Jeurry could not learn grade-level curriculum. They decided he would be “alternately assessed,” or evaluated based on lower achievement standards. New York State students who take alternate assessments through high school cannot earn a diploma, a prerequisite for military service, many jobs, and most degree- or certificate-granting college and trade school programs.
Heartbroken, he begged the faculty to find a solution during the 2016 meeting. “They didn’t even care,” Jeurry said. “They just wanted me to ‘graduate’ and get out.”
Jeurry, who is now 26 and was diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability after graduating high school, requested that his last name be withheld over concerns about the stigma surrounding intellectual disabilities.
Special education advocates say the systemic failures that led to Jeurry’s situation eight years ago continue to jeopardize the futures of similar students. Last school year, 6,116 New York City students took the New York State Alternate Assessment, according to state data. Federal law requires that states offer such assessments for students with disabilities who are incapable of taking state tests. Importantly, it also states that only “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” can take the alternate assessment, and that schools must fully inform parents of the potential ramifications. (State education departments are responsible for ensuring compliance with these mandates.)
Too often, however, those standards are neither maintained nor enforced, special education advocates, teachers, and families told Chalkbeat. Instead, factors like under-resourcing, nebulous procedures, and a failure to equip parents to make fully informed decisions have led schools to place some students without significant cognitive disabilities on a non-grade-level, non-diploma track. Students who take alternate assessments are typically placed in non-inclusive, low-rigor settings, which can deprive them of academic and socialization opportunities.
At the December 2016 meeting, the members of Jeurry’s special education committee said their hands were tied. According to documentation from the meeting, Jeurry’s mother said “she was not made aware of the long-term effects of alternate assessment when it was first initiated or during any supplemental [meetings].”
“They would always tell my mom, ‘His diploma is going to be real,’” Jeurry said. “She kept believing them.”
Throughout his time as a K-12 student in Harlem, Jeurry received inadequate academic support and struggled to advance past a first- or second-grade reading level.
In response to requests to interview state special education leadership, a New York State Education Department spokesperson said in an email: “NYSED is committed to working with schools and parents to determine the appropriate participation of students with disabilities in [the alternate assessment] and to fully understand the impact it has on these students.”
Since New York’s alternate assessment is used to meet federal special education law requirements, the spokesperson said, “there are very strict criteria for its development, administration, and applicability to students.”
Christina Foti, the city Education Department’s deputy chancellor for inclusive and accessible learning, acknowledged that there is room for more robust safeguards, and she said the Education Department recently recommended that the state consider several alternate assessment-related policy changes. They include clarifying definitions and participation criteria, requiring the use of a decision-making flowchart and checklist, and mandating that special education committees “conduct a complete and up-to-date battery of psychoeducational assessments” before making assessment decisions.
The Education Department is also pursuing local-level reforms, but officials are still in the early stages of developing a “definitive language and shift in practice [and] policy,” Foti said.
Inequitable outcomes for students on non-diploma track
In New York, special education committees determine annually how students will be assessed, usually starting around third grade. Although the state has established participation criteria for the alternate assessment, deciding whether students meet those criteria can be a relatively subjective process.
Data obtained through a public records request show that students placed on the non-diploma track are disproportionately Black or English language learners. Last school year, 29% of New York City students who took the alternate assessment were Black, while Black children represented only 20% of all students and 26% of those with disabilities. More than 29% of students who were alternatively assessed were English learners, while such students accounted for just 19% of the school system’s overall population and 14% of students with disabilities.
There have been some signs of progress toward ensuring that only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are placed on the non-diploma track. Participation is declining in New York City and statewide, and racial disproportionalities among alternatively assessed students decreased between the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years, according to the data.
The New York City Education Department has worked to minimize subjectivity in assessment decisions “over the past five or six years,” said Arwina Vallejo, the department’s executive director of school-based evaluations and family engagement.
To more holistically determine students’ aptitude for grade-level learning and test participation, schools now administer “specialized assessments in reading, in writing, in math, in executive functions, in neurological abilities,” Vallejo said.
The Education Department also trains school psychologists in “culturally responsive, non-discriminatory assessment practices” to mitigate the impact of bias, she said.
But special education advocates and families say more must be done. School officials sometimes change the graduation track of children with mild intellectual disabilities or disruptive behaviors when they don’t have the will or means to try other options, said Juliet Eisenstein, a special education attorney and former assistant director of the Postsecondary Readiness Project at Advocates for Children of New York.
“It’s just a box that’s checked and not really talked about, because it’s an easier solution than figuring out a program that fits this more complex student profile,” she said.
Resources that could help such students — like one-on-one tutors or specialized placements — are often limited or nonexistent. This is especially true in New York City, where around 300,000 students qualify for special education services, and government audits have found that the Education Department regularly fails to meet its obligations to them. An estimated 2,300 special-education staff vacancies exist citywide.
Trevlon, 18, has been both alternatively and regularly assessed. He has a history of behavioral problems, an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis, and an intellectual disability classification from the Education Department. Trevlon struggled to keep up academically in elementary school and attended a middle school in District 75, a citywide district that caters to students with significant disabilities. There, he received intensive academic and behavioral support and made major strides, but he was not on a diploma track.
Trevlon, who requested that his last name be withheld because a complaint he filed against the Education Department has yet to be resolved, said he was unhappy in the highly restrictive environment. He committed himself to proving that he could be successful at a community high school. By the time Trevlon graduated middle school as valedictorian of his eighth grade class, his special education committee had agreed that he could transition back to the diploma track and into a community school.
However, Trevlon was placed in a school that did not offer the learning environment the Education Department had determined most appropriate for him: a self-contained special education classroom for 15 students. Instead, he attended large classes that integrated students with disabilities and their general education peers. He said he struggled to focus and keep up. As he fell behind academically, he became increasingly frustrated and started acting out.
After his tumultuous freshman year, Trevlon was moved back onto a non-diploma track in a District 75 school, where he felt out of place and insufficiently challenged. He begged for a different placement that might offer a path back to community school — or a diploma, at least — but nothing changed, he said.
Knowing he would never have a “real” high school experience, Trevlon grew disillusioned, started attending school infrequently, and finally dropped out last year.
“It’s not just, ‘Oh, I stopped going to school because I don’t like school,’” Trevlon said. “I feel like the system gave up on me to a certain extent, as a Black male. … All I ever really wanted to do was to work and sit down and be like everybody else.”
Parents often unaware of children’s placement on non-diploma track
Schools are legally mandated to inform a student’s parents abou
When Jeurry was in middle school, the faculty members of his Committee on Special Education pointed to his lack of academic progress and recommended that he be “alternately assessed.” Although his mother agreed to the change, she did not realize that the decision would take away her son’s opportunity to earn a high school diploma. (Sarah Komar for Chalkbeat)
t the long-term ramifications of the alternate track. However, special education advocates said they regularly work with parents who had no idea their children were on a non-diploma path — often until it was too late.
“Many parents do not even know to ask questions about alternate assessment, because they’re never informed,” said Young Seh Bae, executive director of the Queens-based Community Inclusion and Development Alliance and a parent of a student with disabilities. It’s only when graduation approaches that many parents say, “‘Oh, I didn’t realize my child wouldn’t receive a high school diploma … The school didn’t explain my child never will be able to go to college or get a license for certain things.’”
In New York, diploma-track students must pass a certain number of Regents exams, making it one of eight states that require high school seniors to pass standardized tests to earn a diploma. (New York State is planning to phase out Regents as a graduation requirement in fall 2027.)
Because Jeurry was on a non-diploma track and never took his Regents, he could only earn a Skills and Achievement Commencement Credential, which cannot be used to apply for college, trade school, the military, or many jobs.
Jeurry was reading and doing math on a first-grade level by the start of middle school and on second- to third-grade levels by the end of high school, records show. Over the years, the Education Department classified him with several different kinds of disabilities, including a learning disability at one point and an intellectual disability at another. While he was a student, he was not evaluated by an outside provider, which some families pay for if they think their children have been improperly classified by district professionals. Faculty members repeatedly told Jeurry’s mother he was incapable of progressing academically, his academic records show, and they eventually used his lack of progress to justify placing him on the non-diploma track.
From kindergarten through eighth grade, he remained in self-contained classes, receiving only speech language therapy as a supplementary service. In high school, Jeurry moved from a self-contained setting into integrated classrooms, which benefited him socially but only further highlighted how far his academics lagged behind his peers.
At no point did Jeurry’s special education committee suggest additional services or more intensive support, records show. Federal law mandates more intensive intervention if a special education student is not making progress toward his goals.
Kim Swanson, the principal of Jeurry’s high school who overlapped with him during his last year there, declined to comment on Jeurry’s situation. She said her school “always follows state guidance.”
The school’s special education committees have always informed parents of the ramifications of alternate assessment, but the school has implemented additional safeguards during Swanson’s 11-year tenure as principal, she said. These include sending home a form letter that was developed by the state with input from the city Education Department (a requirement of all New York schools since 2019), and ensuring that faculty members discuss students’ progress toward their goals before special education committee meetings.
Vallejo, who oversees school-based evaluations, said the Education Department worked with the state to develop the form letter because “there was a point where little information was available to students and families regarding alternate assessment and the impact of that designation.” Education Department faculty are committed to fully involving students’ parents in assessment decisions and revisiting them annually, Vallejo said.
Special education advocates have lobbied the state for specific alternate assessment reforms for years, with little success — including a 2022 push for policy changes that could have helped demystify the assessment decision-making process.
In August 2024, for the first time in at least five years, the state proposed policy tweaks of its own, including seeking feedback from special education advocates and families on how to clarify the existing eligibility criteria for alternate assessment and update existing decision-making tools and training materials.
In the future, Jeurry hopes to earn a four-year degree and go into marketing before someday opening his own restaurant.
After legal battle, NYC pays for more than 1,300 hours of services
Knowing that he wouldn’t receive a diploma, Jeurry skipped his June 2017 graduation.
He then languished in a city-funded GED program for more than a year. In fall 2018, on the recommendation of a teacher, Jeurry contacted Advocates for Children. Within months, a pro-bono legal team arranged by the organization filed an action against the city school system, accusing it of denying Jeurry a free, appropriate public education as required by law.
While the legal process unfolded, Jeurry’s advocates helped him apply for his diploma through a “superintendent determination,” a safety net for students with disabilities who are unable to earn the Regents scores needed for graduation but meet all other requirements. In June 2019, he received his high school diploma.
As part of the 10-month legal process, a neuropsychologist evaluated Jeurry and diagnosed him with a mild intellectual disability, concluding that he could have benefited from more rigorous support, such as one-on-one literacy tutoring.
The city ultimately agreed to compensate Jeurry for what he missed during his 14 years of school by paying for 1,308 hours of academic tutoring, life skills training, and transition services. For more than a year, he attended all-day tutoring sessions that started with phonics and built upward.
“At first, I was like, ‘It’s not helping,’” Jeurry said. But then, little by little, I started noticing my reading level going up … and I was like, ‘Oh, it is working!’”
Although it has required him to work through significant education-related trauma, Jeurry now attends community college online while working full time. He’s considering transferring to a four-year institution after he earns his associate degree in business administration.
“I didn’t want to go back, but I had to do it, you know?” Jeurry said. “I needed to get a better education.”
Sarah Komar is a New York City-based journalist. She reported this story while at the Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
