Tag: Education

  • Colleges Shouldn’t Hike Tuition After May 1 (opinion)

    Colleges Shouldn’t Hike Tuition After May 1 (opinion)

    For students and their families, a university education is a massive investment of time and, often, money. To make a wise and informed decision about that investment, prospective students need full and timely financial transparency about that cost. The state of Florida has made that impossible for this year’s new out-of-state students.

    As a married academic couple, we were excited for our oldest daughter to begin her college journey. Starting her sophomore year of high school, she carefully analyzed her options along many dimensions, from location and program offerings to student life and academic rigor. After she developed a short list of about 20 universities, we created a spreadsheet that categorized colleges on anything that could be quantified. As offers and acceptance letters began rolling in, yet another spreadsheet carefully tracked tuition, room and board, and scholarships.

    After this careful analytic work, 13 on-campus visits and countless hours of conversation, our daughter chose the University of Florida. It was a tough decision; she had offers from other good colleges, including in- and out-of-state options that were more financially competitive. In the end, she valued UF’s high academic rigor and reputation combined with a relatively affordable cost. She made her choice about two weeks before the national May 1 decision deadline, and we began to prepare for her move to Gainesville. Of course, that planning included how we would pay for it. Based on numbers provided publicly on the university’s website, we thought we had that figured out.

    Then the state of Florida changed the financial picture.

    On June 18, the state of Florida’s Board of Governors permitted public universities to increase out-of-state student fees by 10 percent for the 2025–26 academic year (though called “fees,” this is in effect Florida’s term for the differential tuition costs paid by out-of-staters). And on July 23—more than two months after the national decision deadline, and less than a month before the start of the fall semester—the University of Florida’s Board of Trustees unanimously decided to do just that, hiking the per-credit cost for an out-of-state undergraduate by about $70 per credit, or about $2,000 for a full-time course load for the year. According to The Gainesville Sun, this decision was “in response to a budget shortfall of about $130 million due to a loss in state appropriations.”

    Both of us lead university units with tight budgets. Therefore, we have empathy for the tough fiscal decisions that higher education professionals sometimes must make. Perhaps the hardest financial decision university leaders face is when and by how much to increase tuition—in other words, when to pass the financial burden on to the students that we serve. That decision also increases young adults’ student loan debt, a matter of national concern addressed in many higher education articles, books and podcasts.

    But because of timing, what the state of Florida has done is different and much worse than a simple tuition/fee increase. If the university had announced the 2025–26 increase in fall 2024, we could have planned for that increase ahead of time. I do not think that would have changed our daughter’s decision, but it might have. Instead, by raising tuition so late in the game, Florida has created a classic example of a bait-and-switch: lure students in with the low cost, then dramatically increase it after their other options are gone.

    We remain excited about our daughter’s future at the University of Florida—and, most importantly, our daughter remains excited, too, despite this financial bump in the road. However, this last-minute change in price generated additional stress and uncertainty around her transition to college. When we spoke with one of the university’s financial aid advisers in late July, he was empathetic. He pointed us to the university’s scholarship portal—but of course, those scholarship deadlines passed long ago, serving as further evidence that Florida’s tuition increase came much too late.

    We have little doubt that this tuition approach has created stress for other students, too. With widespread concern for student mental health, increasing tuition costs just weeks before classes begin may add to students’ anxiety before they even set foot on campus. Student affairs professionals could see more requests for basic needs assistance, as students make tough choices between paying the higher tuition costs and other bills. University counseling centers are often already running at or above capacity and do not need such additional caseload.

    Ultimately, this pricing practice fails the test of scalability. If every university increased tuition well after the decision deadline, it would be chaos. Students and their families would have no way to plan. Particularly given significant public concern about the high cost of higher education and burgeoning student loan debt, this is unacceptable.

    Despite much debate within and beyond academia, the financial burden faced by young college students is a problem with no obvious solution in sight. But perhaps we can all agree on this: In order to make a wise financial decision, incoming students need complete and accurate information about the cost of college at least a few weeks ahead of the national decision deadline. Federal policy should preclude universities from making changes to their tuition and fees for the upcoming year after a certain point (say, two weeks prior to the decision deadline). Such a policy would provide transparency for students and fiscal accountability for higher education institutions.

    Andrew M. Ledbetter is a professor and chair in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas Christian University.

    Jessica L. Ledbetter is assistant dean of students at the University of Texas at Arlington.

    Source link

  • Ten Education Issues to Watch at the Start of the School Year – The 74

    Ten Education Issues to Watch at the Start of the School Year – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    One big budget bill and 181 executive orders into the Trump administration, one thing is clear for those of us checking our crystal balls ahead of the school year.

    There is a big difference between policy change aligned to winning an election and disruption for the sake of chaos.

    The three-sentence email sent on June 30 that froze billions of dollars of funding across the education continuum in Republican and Democratic counties around the country the night before the funding was anticipated begs the overarching question facing those working in education:

    To state the obvious, the review of the federal funding could have been announced and conducted ahead of the date funds are normally made available, and the disruption could have been minimized.

    Instead, leaders on the right and the left had to write letters, file lawsuits, and respond to panicking constituents to move money Congress had already approved to be spent.

    “The education formula funding included in the FY2025 Continuing Resolution Act supports critical programs that so many rely on. The programs are ones that enjoy longstanding, bipartisan support,” said Republican U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito from West Virginia.

    Many leaders on both sides of the aisle, including Superintendent Mo Green, a Democrat, are hoping for “a return to the predictable, reliable federal partnership that our schools need to serve students effectively.”

    That remains aspirational as the federal Department of Education begins to be dismantled, more responsibility is handed off to states, and local and state education agencies have to find ways to work with multiple federal agencies moving forward.

    Recently at the summer convening of the National Governors Association, when Colorado Gov. Jared Polis asked U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon for clearer communication, she said, “No guarantees from me that we’ll eliminate all the communication gaps that do happen.”

    Our top 10 issues are not the ones featuring most prominently in the news cycle right now.

    DEI continues to be in the news, and in case you missed it, over the summer EdNC published perspectives on DEI by a policymaker, a former superintendent, and an educator.

    Cellphones and AI in classrooms also continue to be highlighted in the media.

    And we know there are many, many other issues you care about, including WNC recovery, literacy, youth wellbeing, learning differences, community schools, school safety, vaccines and school health, school performance and the portfolio model, LGBTQ+ youth, the health of teacher and principal pipelines, STEM, arts and education, and more.

    As we head back to school, the EdNC team will continue to cover all of those issues, but here are the top 10 issues we think will frame this school year.

    Access to education, opportunity, and the American dream

    1. Access to education for immigrants without legal status

    For more than 40 years, students without legal status to be in the country have been allowed to attend public schools free of charge in districts across the United States, and over time that has included access to early education and postsecondary opportunities.

    Federal case law cites reasons for this decision, including:

    • Not wanting to penalize children for their presence in the country;
    • Recognizing that many students will remain in the country, some becoming lawful residents or citizens;
    • Not perpetuating “a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime;” and
    • Concluding that “whatever savings might be achieved by denying these children an education, they are wholly insubstantial in light of the costs involved to these children, the State, and the Nation.”

    The 74 recently reported, “From cradle to career, President Donald Trump has launched a comprehensive campaign to close off education to undocumented immigrants, undercutting, advocates say, the very reason many came to the United States: for a chance at a better life.”

    Immigrants without legal status have had access to Head Start since a 1998 interpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).

    “Head Start is the federally funded, comprehensive preschool program designed to meet the emotional, social, health, nutritional, and psychological needs of children aged 3 to 5 and their families,” according to the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

    “The Early Head Start program — established in 1994 — is the companion program created to address the same needs of children birth to age 3, expectant mothers, and their families,” says the DHHS website.

    On July 10, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said via press release, “Head Start is reserved for American citizens from now on.”

    “For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    The policy shift, says the release, aligns with “recent Executive Orders by President Trump, including Executive Order 14218 of February 19, 2025, ‘Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,’ prioritizing legal compliance and the protection of public benefits for eligible Americans.”

    An HHS impact analysis finds, “These figures point to approximately 500,000 children under the age of 5 in poverty who have an unauthorized parent or are unauthorized themselves. Combining this estimate with an estimate that Head Start programs serve approximately 26% of the potentially eligible population, we anticipate that approximately 115,000 Head Start children and families could be impacted, or about 16% of total cumulative enrollment in Head Start programs in FY 2024.”

    Also on July 10, “The U.S. Department of Education today announced it will end taxpayer subsidization of illegal aliens in career, technical, and adult education programs.”

    The department says that postsecondary education programs — “including adult education programs authorized under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, postsecondary career and technical education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, and other programs when used to fund postsecondary learning opportunities” — also constitute “federal public benefits” subject to citizenship verification requirements.

    “This policy shift threatens to undermine community development, workforce readiness, and economic mobility across the nation,” says a statement issued by The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, an alliance of American college and university leaders. “Many of the named programs are a central component of the nation’s community colleges and provide access for continuing and returning adult learners.”

    In 1988 — after the U.S. Supreme Court decision that safeguarded access to K-12 but before the 1996 law that expanded access beyond elementary and secondary education — Dallas Herring, beloved and known as the father of North Carolina’s community college system, wrote, “The twentieth century, by every standard of assessment, in the long view of history, must be considered one of the most remarkable in the experience of mankind. It is especially significant in education, for the opportunity to study and to learn has been extended during these times to almost all of the people everywhere in America. Total education is becoming a possibility as the people respond to the challenge of universal opportunity in education. The door, at last, is open.”

    Herring also wrote — as the dawn of not just a new century approached but of a new millennium — that “it was clear that the open door is not enough.”

    As the open door begins to close, Herring reminds us what is at stake. “Education of the masses of humanity, not only as economic beings, but especially as human beings, will be essential to the achievement of peace and prosperity,” he wrote.

    Data from the Census Bureau population estimates indicate that the nation’s population growth rate in 2023-24 was driven mostly by immigration.

    Twenty states and the District of Columbia have filed suit. North Carolina is not one of the 20.

    2. Pathways to work are more important than ever

    It is almost impossible these days to have a conversation about community colleges, postsecondary access, or attainment without the word pathways coming up.

    Sometimes leaders are talking about “guided pathways,” which is a college-wide approach to student success. Nationally, that work had been shifting from an outcomes approach to an access approach.

    A much anticipated book to be published by Harvard Education Press in August, “More Essential Than Ever: Community College Pathways to Educational and Career Success,” promises guidance for college leaders and state policymakers.

    The cliff notes, according to the authors: “Community colleges today will need to make concerted efforts to strengthen pathways to post-completion success in employment and further education and thus ensure that students’ investment of effort, time, and money pays off.”

    Seamless pathways” often refer to agreements between community college and four-year colleges and universities that improve transfer and graduation rates by improving the student experience.

    In 24 states, more than 200 community colleges now offer four-year degrees. North Carolina is not one of them, and a recent essay says, “The debate over who and where bachelor’s degrees should be offered is too often driven by institutional priorities and policies set in the past…. Community colleges can play a central role in helping graduates achieve a bachelor’s degree. States and all colleges should support these low-cost, high-value degree pathways.”

    But, both across the nation and our state, it is the pathways for students to enlist, enroll, or employ so they have access to a family-sustaining living wage that is the focus for many leaders, organizations, and initiatives.

    And, in North Carolina, it is these pathways that are critically important to the state’s attainment goal.

    Citing the 4.6 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who are neither enrolled in school nor working a job, the National Governors Association (NGA) is focusing this year on getting students ready for jobs.

    In partnership with NGA, America Achieves recently launched its Good Jobs Economy initiative, designed to “build a prosperous, competitive nation where everyone has clear pathways to good jobs, employers access the talent they need, and Americans at large scale can reach and stay in the middle class.”

    Lumina Foundation recently announced a new initiative called “FutureReady States” with the goal of increasing access to education and credential training that “pays off in the labor market.”

    StriveTogether — a national network with the goal of having 4 million more youth in the United States on a path to economic opportunity by 2030 — has an impact fund that identifies opportunities to improve the experiences of students in high school to set them on a path to college and careers.

    Much of this leadership at both the national and state level focuses on different experiences that expedite that pathway for students who want to go from high school or community college graduation straight into the workforce.

    It is in this work where terms like work-based learning, apprenticeships, internships, co-ops, and credentials of value; approaches like graduation from high school in three years; and innovative initiatives like SparkNC and the NC Works website come in.

    In keeping with this trend, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is implementing a new approach to measuring success through its Survey of Community College Outcomes, “which broadens the definition of community college student success to include not only degree attainment, but also attainment of shorter-term credentials, such as certificates or industry licensures, successful transfer to a four-year institution, or persistence in enrollment beyond four years.”

    According to a press release from the N.C. Community College System, beginning in July 2026, the new Workforce Pell Grant program will allow eligible students to use federal financial aid for short-term, high-quality training programs — some as short as eight weeks depending on instructional hours and program design. These programs lead directly to jobs in high-demand fields like health care, engineering and advanced manufacturing, trades and transportation, and information technology, says the release.

    “This is a major step forward in making higher education more accessible and responsive to today’s workforce needs,” said Jeff Cox, president of the system.

    With a community college system that is 58 strong; a nationally watched model for funding community colleges called Propel; Boost, North Carolina’s accelerated college to career program; and a system whose leadership is in transition again, all eyes are on North Carolina.

    3. Exposing middle school students to college

    A May 2025 headline in the Associated Press asks, “Can middle schoolers handle college?”

    When students at Valle Crucis School (VCS) were displaced after Hurricane Helene, Caldwell Community College & Technical Institute stepped up to host Principal Bonnie Smith, her team, and 120 sixth through eighth grade students on the community college’s campus in Watauga County.

    President Mark Poarch said the middle school students were exposed through the experience to many positives and had the opportunity to learn more about college programs and how they connect to industries.

    “I think there are a lot of silver linings in having them on a college campus,” said Poarch. So many that the community college’s foundation guaranteed a scholarship for all current VCS middle school students.

    “It has brought new energy and new life to this campus unlike anything we’ve ever seen before,” said Poarch.

    In Haywood County, another model for exposing middle school students to college will launch in 2026-27.

    The innovative new middle school, developed in partnership with Haywood Community College, will be academically rigorous and led by Lori Fox, the principal of Haywood Early College. Under her leadership, the early college is among the best in the nation and an Apple Distinguished School.

    California has been leading the way with exposing middle school students to college, and the state is now pushing to create access for more students — not just high achievers. In that state, middle school students may enroll in one community college course each semester free of charge.

    Recent legislation back here in North Carolina requires all middle and high school students in public schools to have career development plans.

    And a recent report using North Carolina data explores a new measure of school quality called “high school readiness.”

    “As the name suggests, the basic idea is to capture how well a middle school prepares its students for the next stage of their education by quantifying its effects on high school grades — or to be more precise, ninth-grade grade-point averages,” says this article about the report.

    4. Local, state, and philanthropic funding for the safety net for students and families

    The different types of investments in pathways all share in common academic and/or social support for students.

    The expensive and expansive budget bill recently passed by Congress cuts through the federal safety net that many in North Carolina and across the nation rely on, placing more of the responsibility on local and state governments.

    An estimated 520,000 North Carolinians could lose their health insurance, according to this press release.

    “When we think about Medicaid, we typically think about health insurance,” says an article published in Forbes about the impact of the policy change on schools. “But Medicaid is also among the largest funding sources for K–12 public schools, providing an estimated $7.5 billion annually to pay for essential services for student learning and development.”

    Note that the above data is district data prior to Medicaid expansion in North Carolina.

    Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are “equally serious,” says Gov. Josh Stein. As many as 1.4 million North Carolinians — including 600,000 children — could lose food assistance. EdNC previously reported the impact of cuts to SNAP by county in North Carolina.

    According to reporting by the News & Observer, Stein also said, “the state has to be exceptionally conservative fiscally, meaning that we have to preserve the revenue sources we have to so that we can deal with issues like feeding hungry children, or ensuring that our health care system works for everybody.”

    Some counties are waiting to see how the state responds before they consider how to address the gap in federal support. Others counties, like Jackson County, are moving ahead with funding free schools meals for all for the school year.

    The advocacy of coalitions like School Meals for All NC has never been more important at every level of government.

    School choice and the funding of public education

    5. Wordsmithing school choice: Choice vs. fit, uniform vs. plural, quality vs. accountability, and the impact of churn

    Choice in the context of “school choice” is a political term. It’s not how parents talk or think. All over the world, parents use the word “fit” to describe how they select a school for their child.

    And fit is different for different parents. For some, it is about the teacher or the principal. For others, it is about attending school with kids from the neighborhood. For many, it is has to do with the type of educational experience the school provides.

    Public schools continue to provide more opportunities for fit than any other educational sector.

    In North Carolina, there are 115 school districts and 2,700 schools, including 208 charters, seven lab schools, three residential schools, and one regional school. Public schools offer an abundance of fit through the following types of school options: year-round, magnet, language immersion, single-sex, early college, career academies, virtual academies, community schools, alternative schools, and more.

    Check out how Buncombe County Schools is explaining why parents should choose public schools.

    EdNC continues to cover the inter-relationship of those two terms, and the choices parents are actually making to find the right fit for their students.

    We monitor enrollment across public schools, private schools, and homeschools. So far, even with school choice expansion fully funded, public school market share is holding steady at 84% — that’s 1,538,563 students.

    We track the data on private school vouchers, called Opportunity Scholarships in North Carolina. So far, since school choice expansion, it is estimated that more than 90% of the new applicants for vouchers were already attending private school.

    The data will be important moving forward in understanding parent choice and student fit, but there are broader trends to be aware of.

    In North Carolina, our state constitution mandates a “general and uniform system of free public schools.” In democracies around the world, according to the leading research on educational pluralism conducted by Ashley Rogers Berner at the John Hopkins School of Education, uniform isn’t the north star and states don’t exclusively deliver education. But where other countries build choice into their systems, they also build in quality control.

    Quality, not accountability, is the word of choice.

    The legislature has charged the recently established Office of Learning Research — led by Jeni Corn and part of the Collaboratory at UNC — to recommend a nationally standardized test for use in third and eighth grade by private and public schools for 2026-27. For more information, see section 3J.23 of this bill.

    A necessary first step, that in and of itself does not guarantee quality or accountability. EdNC joined a delegation from California that was in Boston looking at how the public schools there have more comprehensively partnered with religious schools, including in the areas of testing, professional development, and curriculum.

    Berner talks about why school choice isn’t enough, and why academic content needs to change and expectations need to increase regardless of setting.

    “To be blunt, a libertarian, let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom approach,” she says, is unlikely to move important data points at scale. She has interesting things to say about curriculum — think of the big bet Jackson County made on the Wit & Wisdom curriculum under the leadership of Superintendent Dana Ayers.

    Because fit matters to parents, with school choice comes more “churn,” sometimes also called “swirl.”

    “There are real, tangible impacts on a students’ learning and wellbeing at every churn — especially mid-year,” says a recent article titled, “School choice is great, but the churn it allows comes at a cost.” Researchers are calling for educational navigators, formal transfer windows, and better, more accessible information about schools for parents making the decisions.

    Ray Gronberg with the NC Tribune first reported on how the race between Phil Berger and Sam Page will feature key differences in school choice between Republican candidates.

    Berger favors what he calls “universal school choice.”

    Page’s website says he believes school “vouchers should be targeted to families who need them most.” That means, writes Gronberg, “income caps on school voucher eligibility to help working families, not the wealthy” and “policies to prevent private schools from inflating tuition due to vouchers.”

    6. The relationship between education spending and teacher pay

    Page also favors “raising teacher starting pay to $50,000 to keep North Carolina competitive,” which brings us to the relationship between education spending and teacher pay.

    As the wait for the Leandro decision on school funding continues, given the changes at the federal level and the impact of Hurricane Helene, there is going to be even more pressure on state appropriations for education unless and until Republicans come to a different meeting of the minds on tax policy.

    The N.C. Department of Public Instruction’s “Highlights” is our go-to source for information on education funding and budgets. North Carolina spent about $12.6 billion on public education in 2024-25, and almost 60% of that goes to instructional personnel and related services.

    Nationally, studies find that school spending is up, but teacher salaries are not.

    In 2024, the libertarian Reason Foundation published this report that found inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending had risen across the country — in every state except North Carolina. “North Carolina’s inflation-adjusted education revenue grew from $10,806 per student in 2002 to $10,790 per student in 2020, a −0.1% growth rate that ranked 50th in the U.S.,” says the report.

    Meanwhile, writes Chad Aldeman, an education analyst, “pay for other college-educated workers has risen steadily, leaving teachers behind.”

    One consequence is that teachers are increasingly being priced out of housing in their district, finds Aldeman, citing research by the National Council on Teacher Quality.

    BEST NC has advocated for teacher pay as well as advanced teaching roles that are already leading to higher pay for educators. Leah Sutton, who used to work for BEST NC, now leads the advanced teaching roles program for DPI.

    The Public School Forum of North Carolina has been convening a working group to study a weighted-student funding formula. While that organization’s leadership is in transition, the work is ongoing, led by Lauren Fox and Elizabeth Paul. A recent grant from the Kellogg Foundation — in addition to other funding — will support the study moving forward with the working group next scheduled to meet in September.

    The support of legislators continues to be important.

    In 2023, Senators Michael Lee, Amy Galey, and Lisa Barnes sponsored a bill that would convert North Carolina’s funding formula to a weighted student funding (WSF) model. In early 2025, Lee led a discussion about school funding at the Hunt Institute’s Holshouser Retreat.

    “This is an incredibly important issue for education in North Carolina,” Lee said to his fellow legislators. “We have to move forward to get something done, and that will require us to work in a bipartisan way with Superintendent Green and the governor.”

    Nationally, 41 states use student-based funding in their formula, and in some Republican states, more than $1 billion has been invested in the shift.

    This issue is not new: One of WestEd’s supporting reports in the Leandro case addressed cost adequacy, distribution, and alignment of funding. It’s more than five years old now, but you can find it here.

    7. The health of district fund balances

    The Local Government Commission — a commission within the state treasurer’s office — annually collects fund balance data for North Carolina’s 115 school districts. In an email to EdNC from the LGC back in 2020, fund balances were described as “a savings account that schools can use” if they have unanticipated expenses or opportunities.

    In Durham County Public Schools and Winston-Salem/Forsyth Public Schools, fund balances have been in the news as districts cope with accounting errors, highlighting the important of the CFO role.

    In western North Carolina, fund balances have been in the news as school districts rely on them to make ends meet given the decline in local revenue from the loss of tourism.

    An interesting realization emerging from Hurricane Helene is that community colleges don’t have fund balances — which is a different problem.

    Last year, EdNC published a 10-year look at fund balances for school districts.

    Here is updated data through June 30, 2024, which is before both the Sept. 30, 2024 end of federal funding for COVID and Hurricane Helene. We are anxiously waiting to see the hit on fund balances that we anticipate in the June 30, 2025 data, which will likely be ready in early 2026.

    The state of messaging and advocacy

    In these polarized, politicized times, both messaging and advocacy are changing across party lines.

    When school choice expansion was announced in spring 2023, then-Gov. Roy Cooper reacted by declaring a state of emergency for public education. By January, he had iterated his language, declaring 2024 the year of public schools. He visited more than 60 child care centers, schools, community colleges, and businesses to highlight public education statewide.

    The N.C. School Boards Association launched this “public education matters” website.

    Higher Ed Works changed its name to Public Ed Works and launched a billboard campaign for teacher pay.

    Parents for Educational Freedom in NC (PEFNC) recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, including a fireside chat with Secretary McMahon. Their website links to this school choice website to help parents navigate, and PEFNC now has a team of 13 parent liaisons, including some who speak Spanish.

    Charter schools are having to navigate being both public schools and part of the school choice movement.

    A poll by The Carolina Journal in January 2025 found that 55.2% of those surveyed were dissatisfied with the quality of K-12 education students receive in local public schools, and it also found that 56.8% of those surveyed were comfortable sending their students to local public schools.

    Now draft pillars of Superintendent Mo Green’s strategic plan will include “Celebrate Why Public Education is the Best Choice” and “Galvanize Champions to Fully Invest In and Support Public Education.”

    What’s the right mix of messaging, advocacy, and lobbying across all lines of difference to ensure adequate funding and continuous improvement at all schools for all students?

    Sen. Kevin Corbin, R-Macon, tells constituents, “I can promise you what you won’t get. You won’t get things you don’t ask for.”

    Cross-partisan strategies addressing the following key elements continue to hold promise at the local, state, and federal level, according to the Aspen Institute:

    • Challenges and solutions must be easy to communicate and appeal to a broad base,
    • Solutions are responsive to local context and garner local support,
    • Parents, teachers, the business community, or politicians in higher office are willing to provide political cover for policymakers,
    • Both sides can walk away claiming a win — even if each side’s “win” is different, and
    • Using the media as an accelerant.

    This year, we are paying close attention to how three important constituencies talk to the public and talk to policymakers: educators, business leaders, and parents.

    8. From grass roots to grass tops, educators are finding different ways to lean in

    Here are some examples of how educators at the local and state level are finding different ways to lean in to advocate with both the public and policymakers.

    On Aug. 20, 2025, North Carolina’s educator-in-chief, Superintendent Green, will launch his strategic plan for public education, including community members, leaders, parents, and educators.

    The North Carolina Principal of the Year Network is dedicated to showcasing the exemplary work occurring within North Carolina’s public schools, fostering a culture of excellence, and advocating for the advancement of school leaders and public education across the state. Their strategy is working: They have a new website, host regional trainings, and POY Elena Ashburn is now senior advisor for education policy to Gov. Stein.

    In early 2024, the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE) released a strategic plan whose first priority is “Grow Our Union.” The organization’s goal is to have 30,000 members by 2030.

    A principal in Madison County is circulating a proposal for teacher-storytellers to help us “better understand the state of every school system in WNC and eventually the state.”

    9. Will business leaders come together and align on issues that matter?

    When I was growing up, it seemed to me like business leaders — think Hugh McColl, Eddie Crutchfield, Rolfe Neill — had a bat line to both the governor and legislative leadership.

    At the young age of 90, McColl recently said if he worries about something, it is about education.

    The NC Chamber plays a critical role in education and workforce advocacy.

    BEST NC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition of business leaders committed to improving the education system through policy and advocacy.

    The North Carolina Business Committee for Education (NCBCE) — a nonprofit that operates out of the office of the governor — works to make the critical connection between North Carolina employers and school districts through work-based learning.

    The Public School Forum of North Carolina hosted a summit and continues to convene and inform business executives about the future of public education.

    Nationally, the Business Roundtable is an association of more than 200 CEOs. Jim Goodnight, their website says, “spearheaded the creation of a national Business Roundtable report calling on business leaders to support and advocate for efforts to improve early learning and third-grade reading proficiency. In North Carolina, he rallied a group of CEOs to the cause.”

    What if these leaders and organizations worked together, stood together more?

    An example exists in philanthropy. Invest Early NC is an early childhood funders collaborative focused on outcomes for children and families prenatal to age 8 so children are healthy, safe, nurtured, learning, and ready to succeed by the end of third grade. The collaborative has adopted a bipartisan approach with public-private partnerships, lifting community voice to inform decision-making. The collaborative has staff, conducted a statewide landscape analysis, collectively weighs in on issues, and is now beginning to develop a 10-year plan.

    This state loves being #1 for business. Longer term, we need to strive to be #1 for students and workers for that trend to hold.

    10. This era for parent rights is complicated for students

    No doubt we are living in a political era that values parents’ rights.

    “Parents are the most natural protectors of their children. Yet many states and school districts have enacted policies that imply students need protection from their parents,” said Secretary McMahon. “These states and school districts have turned the concept of privacy on its head –prioritizing the privileges of government officials over the rights of parents and wellbeing of families. Going forward, the correct application of FERPA will be to empower all parents to protect their children from the radical ideologies that have taken over many schools.”

    For students, it’s more complicated than the politics.

    Schooling is compulsory in North Carolina, and teachers stand in loco parentis, or in the place of parents, for the 1,025 hours that children are in our public classrooms each year.

    But our students spend the other 7,735 hours of their year outside the classroom and the school.

    In data from 2015-23, you can see that one in 100 children in North Carolina now experience substantiated abuse or neglect by their parents, guardians, or caretakers.

    And, in 2024, North Carolina’s chronic absenteeism rate was 25%, up from 15% in 2018.

    The Hechinger Report finds, “Absenteeism cuts across economic lines. Students from both low- and high-income families are often absent as are high-achieving students.”

    North Carolina law urges and requires consideration of what is in the best interests of the child, prioritizing child wellbeing, safety, and development.

    Ensuring their best interests has historically required a comprehensive approach across all settings where they spend time — home, school, faith, and community — with teachers, parents, ministers, and community leaders all serving as checks on each other.


    This article first appeared on EdNC and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Trump’s War on Reality

    Higher Education Inquirer : Trump’s War on Reality

    The second Trump administration has unleashed a coordinated assault on reality itself—an effort that extends far beyond policy disagreements into the realm of deliberate gaslighting. Agency by agency, Trump’s lieutenants are reshaping facts, science, and language to consolidate power. Many of these figures, despite their populist rhetoric, come from elite universities, corporate boardrooms, or dynastic wealth. Their campaign is not just about dismantling government—it’s about erasing the ground truth that ordinary people rely on.

    Department of State → Department of War

    One of the starkest shifts has been renaming the State Department the “Department of War.” This rhetorical change signals the administration’s embrace of permanent conflict as strategy. Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Princeton graduate and former hedge fund executive, embodies the contradiction: Ivy League polish combined with cable-news bravado. Under his watch, diplomacy is downgraded, alliances undermined, and propaganda elevated to policy.

    Department of Defense

    The Pentagon has been retooled into a megaphone for Trump’s narrative that America is perpetually under siege. Despite the promise of “America First,” decisions consistently empower China and Russia by destabilizing traditional alliances. The irony: many of the architects of this policy cut their teeth at elite think tanks funded by the same defense contractors now profiting from chaos.

    Department of Education

    Trump’s appointees have doubled down on dismantling federal oversight, echoing the administration’s hostility to “woke indoctrination.” Yet the leaders spearheading this push often come from private prep schools and elite universities themselves. They know the value of credentialism for their own children, while stripping protections and opportunities from working families.

    Department of Justice

    Justice has been weaponized into a tool of disinformation. Elite law school alumni now run campaigns against “deep state” prosecutors, while simultaneously eroding safeguards against corruption. The result is a justice system where truth is malleable, determined not by evidence but by loyalty.

    Department of Health and Human Services

    Public health has been subsumed into culture war theatrics. Scientific consensus on climate, vaccines, and long-term health research is dismissed as partisan propaganda. Yet many of the leaders driving this narrative hail from institutions like Harvard and Stanford, where they once benefited from cutting-edge science, they now ridicule.

    Environmental Protection Agency

    The EPA has become the Environmental Pollution Agency, rolling back rules while gaslighting the public with claims of “cleaner air than ever.” Appointees often come directly from corporate law firms representing Big Oil and Big Coal, cloaking extractive capitalism in the language of freedom.

    Department of Labor

    Workers are told they are winning even as wages stagnate and union protections collapse. The elites orchestrating this rollback frequently hold MBAs from Wharton or Harvard Business School. They speak the language of “opportunity” while overseeing the erosion of worker rights and benefits.

    Department of Homeland Security

    Reality itself is policed here, where dissent is rebranded as domestic extremism. Elite operatives with ties to intelligence contractors enforce surveillance on ordinary Americans, while elite families enjoy immunity from scrutiny.


    The Elite Architecture of Gaslighting

    What unites these agencies is not just Trump’s directives, but the pedigree of the people carrying them out. Far from being the populist outsiders they claim to be, many hail from Ivy League schools, white-shoe law firms, or Fortune 500 boardrooms. They weaponize their privilege to convince the public that up is down, war is peace and lies are truth.

    The war on reality is not a sideshow—it is the central project of this administration. For elites, it is a way to entrench their power. For the rest of us, it means living in a hall of mirrors where truth is constantly rewritten, and democracy itself hangs in the balance.


    Sources

    • New York Times, Trump’s Cabinet and Their Elite Connections

    • Washington Post, How Trump Loyalists Are Reshaping Federal Agencies

    • Politico, The Ivy League Populists of Trump’s Inner Circle

    • ProPublica, Trump Administration’s Conflicts of Interest

    • Brookings Institution, Trump’s Assault on the Administrative State

    • Center for American Progress, Gaslighting the Public: Trump’s War on Facts

    Source link

  • Higher Education on the Frontlines of a Failing State

    Higher Education on the Frontlines of a Failing State

    Universities have long been bastions of freedom, democracy, and truth. Today, they find themselves operating in a nation where these ideals are increasingly under siege—not by foreign adversaries, but by policies emanating from the highest levels of government.

    The Department of War: A Symbolic Shift with Real Consequences

    On September 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order rebranding the U.S. Department of Defense as the “Department of War,” aiming to restore the title used prior to 1949. This move, while symbolic, reflects a broader ideological shift towards an aggressive, militaristic stance. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, appointed in January 2025, has been a vocal proponent of this change, asserting that the new name conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve. 

    Critics argue that this rebranding prioritizes optics over substance, with concerns over potential high costs and effectiveness. Pentagon officials acknowledged the financial burden but have yet to release precise cost estimates. 

    Economic Instability and Global Alienation

    Domestically, the administration’s economic policies have led to rising unemployment, inflation, and slowing job growth. A recent weak jobs report showing a gain of only 22,000 jobs prompted Democrats to criticize President Trump’s handling of the economy, linking these issues to his tariffs and other controversial actions. 

    Internationally, Trump’s policies have strained relationships with key allies. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and several European nations have expressed concerns over U.S. trade practices and foreign policy decisions, leading to a reevaluation of longstanding alliances. 

    Authoritarian Alliances and Human Rights Concerns

    The administration’s foreign policy has also seen a shift towards aligning with authoritarian leaders. Leaked draft reports indicate plans to eliminate or downplay accounts of prisoner abuse, corruption, and LGBTQ+ discrimination in countries like El Salvador, Israel, and Russia, raising concerns about the U.S.’s commitment to human rights. 

    Immigration Policies and Humanitarian Impact

    On the domestic front, the administration’s immigration policies have led to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of individuals, including those with Temporary Protected Status. Critics argue that these actions undermine the nation’s moral authority and have a devastating impact on affected families. 

    The Role of Higher Education

    In this turbulent landscape, higher education institutions find themselves at a crossroads. Universities are traditionally places where freedom, democracy, and truth are upheld and taught. However, as the nation drifts away from these principles, universities are increasingly tasked with defending them.

    Faculty and students are stepping into roles as defenders of civic values, ethical scholarship, and truth-telling. But without robust support from government and society, universities alone cannot sustain the principles of freedom and democracy that once underpinned the nation.

    The current moment is a test: Can American higher education continue to serve as a bastion of truth and civic responsibility in an era where the country’s own policies increasingly contradict those ideals? Or will universities be compelled to adapt to a world where freedom, democracy, and truth are optional, not foundational?

    The stakes could not be higher.


    Sources:

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: Provoking changes in higher education, some reflections on governance 

    Weekend Reading: Provoking changes in higher education, some reflections on governance 

    • This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Professor Nigel Savage. Nigel was awarded his PhD in 1980 for research into corporate governance and held several chief executive and non-executive posts in the public and private sectors, including Board membership of HEFCE and non-executive director of Fletchers solicitors.
    • On Tuesday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment will be hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a webinar on students’ cost of living with TechnologyOne – for more information on booking a free place, see here. 

    Universities are facing the ‘perfect storm’ of challenges from several areas, not least financial and strategic sustainability, at a time when the government has many more competing priorities for scarce public resources. The situation is going to get much worse in the medium term as financial pressures rightly stimulate calls for greater accountability and a consequent erosion of the sector’s perceived and much-prized autonomy. The only way forward in the short term must therefore be for the sector itself to provoke change by Boards and non-executive directors (NEDs), assuming a more active role in challenging orthodoxy in much the same way as NEDs in the private sector. 

    The new Chair of the OfS, Edward Peck, has an unenviable in-tray. What the sector needs, alongside his appointment, is a greater degree of external insight to shake up the balance of power within the traditional governance model. I’ve worked for most of my life in higher education and the legal sector and have often been struck by the similarities in terms of management and governance issues. The legal services market has moved on somewhat from when it displayed an inherent resistance to change, a tendency to look to each other for solutions rather than externally and a blind faith that only lawyers operating within the partnership model could manage the business. Universities are still in a time warp typified by the fact that most of the organisations that purport to contribute to change by offering ‘partnerships’, guidance, consultancy or codes of practice are funded from within the sector and unlikely to recommend radical change or depart from sector orthodoxy.  

    Another lesson that could be learned from the legal services market is the greater use of external know-how and resources. Some thirty years ago, the Practical Law Company achieved considerable success by working with the best lawyers from a range of successful firms to create high-quality authored legal resources and software tools which were licensed to firms. Hitherto, that would have been regarded by the profession as relinquishing control over their crown jewels, eroding professional integrity, not to mention autonomy. The result was that lawyers were able to work more efficiently with enhanced productivity and greater confidence, focusing on providing solutions to clients’ complex problems. There is no reason why that model shouldn’t deliver similar outcomes within the higher education sector. Collaborative know-how would produce research outputs that inform teaching and learning with the added advantage that they are based on practice rather than recycled material from another academic in the form of a textbook. There are now over one hundred law schools in the UK each developing their own teaching and learning materials at a considerable cost and with varying degrees of quality. I see no reason why such a model could not deliver significant cost savings across disciplines and free staff time to focus on the delivery of teaching and learning innovation. 

    At one level there is no incentive to change, especially given the prevailing veil of protection provided by current interpretations of academic autonomy. I cannot speak for other disciplines, but given the stagnation in leadership of legal education, the legal services market is currently better served by employers than higher education. In part the issue is one of culture typified by the sector’s attitude to AI, as one commentator recently remarked, ‘universities are more concerned about AI, rather than with it …’. There is more debate about students using it as a vehicle for cheating or copyright issues than as a vehicle to enhance teaching and learning and create a seamless transition into the workplace. In general, technology in higher education is not embraced transformatively but defensively. 

    I was one of the few independent Board members of HEFCE (2002-08) and chaired the Audit and Risk Committee. As part of our engagement, we instigated a series of case study seminars for chairs and members of institutional audit committees with no members of their executive team present. The programme was much appreciated but we were surprised by the relatively low level of awareness of key risks, issues around internal audit and accountability and lack of engagement in terms of quality assurance. It’s interesting that many of the issues on the risk register then are a variation of the same issues that confront universities today. The impact of technology, an increasingly competitive environment, funding especially over-reliance on overseas income, changes in public policy, globalisation and students as consumers of higher education services.  

    Most of the above are issues that every global business model, regardless of ownership structure, sector, or location, has had to confront over the same timescale, without the level of resources available to higher education. Indeed, some universities have confronted them very well. So why is it that a growing number of universities are manifestly failing to address these issues when they should have been painfully aware of them for years? We are already seeing the likely next generation of entirely predictable risks in the growing number of institutions rushing to set up campuses in London and, worse still, in India and the Middle East at a time when they are barely sustainable. Will such initiatives deliver medium-term revenue growth, or are they merely off-balance-sheet Vice Chancellor vanity projects? And why are they not more aggressively challenged by NEDs? 

    Governance – culture change  

    There needs to be something of a culture change in the balance of power as between executive and non-executive roles. It is governance that dictates the rules of the game, especially in the relationship between the CEO (in most cases the Vice-Chancellor or Principal) and Chair. Government and the regulator need to be more prescriptive rather than rely on consultative services provided by those bodies that are part of a self-regulatory model. Anyone who doubts the need for change should read the Scottish Funding Council’s investigative report on Dundee University, which represents a massive failure of management and governance. Cultural issues were not the primary cause of the financial collapse at Dundee, but as observed in the report, ‘aspects of the culture of the institution … , may however have facilitated or been associated with a lack of transparency and of the limited challenge to the prevailing discourse on financial matters’ 

    Action in the following areas would assist in generating such a culture change: 

    1. There is significant evidence that smaller boards outperform larger ones. A study by Bain (some years ago) suggests the ideal size of a board should be seven and each additional member beyond that results in a decline in effectiveness. I am not sure where that leaves the higher education sector since most large university boards are approaching the early twenties and can have less to do with governance and become more a matter of crowd control. This issue must also be viewed in the context of the structure below the Board in terms of Senate and Academic Board which has substantial staff and student representation. Large boards are more expensive to service and absorb a greater degree of resource and complexity to manage. Size also creates the impression that the body is consultative rather than at the pinnacle of decision-making. In recent years, changes in management structures may have exacerbated the position with the trend towards the appointment of Presidents, Provosts and COOs with a wide range of reporting lines, all of whom aspire to a seat on the board. This trend has the capacity to blur the lines between the executive and non-executive functions and, worse still, further increase the size of the board. The Vice Chancellor should be the only formal member of the executive on the Board as opposed to attending as an observer. The Dundee review recognised that a University Secretary may have dual reporting lines to the Chair and Vice Chancellor, which can create conflicts of interest, ‘care should be taken to ensure the primary responsibility is always to the Chair’. 
    1. Reducing the size of Boards would also mean that resources could be released to remunerate NEDs. Some institutions already embrace this policy in respect of Board chairs and committees. The whole process, including appointments, should be professionalised to ensure that appointees have proven experience as a senior executive or non-executive. It’s not surprising that universities are failing to hold Vice Chancellors to account if membership of the Board is based, at least in part, on the criterion that ‘no previous experience is required’. In recent months it seems to be votes of no confidence from the staff rather than governing bodies which decide the fate of an incompetent Vice Chancellor. The larger institutions now have turnovers of over £1.5 billion plus. Membership of such a Board is not a role for the inexperienced using an appointment as ‘net practice’ to build a NED portfolio or an elder statesperson looking to top off their career with a gong. Should all else fail there is always the standard ultimate requirement to deter cross sector appointments ‘ideally we are looking for a candidate with a background in or closely related to higher education…’.  
    1. The increasing use of head-hunters may also be a factor. The appointment of NEDs, particularly a new chair, should be a matter entirely for the Nominations Committee. The Vice Chancellor should be consulted within the process but not be directly involved and the head-hunters should be accountable to the Nominations Committee. One of the fundamental roles of a NED is to contribute to holding the executives ‘feet to the fire’ when necessary. A distinguished Yale commentator observed some years ago ‘I’m always amazed at how common groupthink is in corporate boardrooms. Directors are, almost without exception … comfortable with power. But if you put them into a group that discourages dissent, they nearly always start to conform.’ This is particularly so if they have been recruited under the criteria that they are ‘team players’ which is normally code for they will not ‘rock the boat’ 
    1. Overseeing internal audit (IA) is a vital part of maintaining the integrity of a seamless governance model. The head of IA must be free from interference in determining the scope, process and communication of outputs. It is still the case that in some universities the head of internal audit reports directly to either the CFO or COO with a notional reporting line to the chair of the audit committee. This represents a classic case of marking your own homework and should no longer be tolerated. There is a real danger of undue influence when IA reports into the finance function, not the chair of audit committee. Unlike the external audit where there is a specified remit, internal audit can look at any area which is felt appropriate as directed by the board, including the prevailing culture and effectiveness of risk management. If the external auditor is satisfied that the IA is appropriately funded, competent and sufficiently objective and quality assured, they can rely on it.  I suspect however that this is another area clouded by the mists of institutional autonomy and external auditors will seldom feel sufficiently confident to place reliance on IA data. There would however be an additional cost placed on such reliance attached to the audit fee. 

    Conclusion  

    Although the Office for Students (OfS) is beginning to engage more directly with providers given the emerging financial environment, they are theoretically hide-bound by the statutory institutional autonomy that universities enjoy. They ‘will not provide advice to providers on how they should run their organisation. Providers should look to other sources, for example to sector bodies, for such advice and support.’ Surely in such circumstances a regulator should be suggesting that they seek advice from their own Board or externally rather than organisations that are not independent and consist largely of retired senior executives from the sector. I can imagine the outcry if such a model was replicated in the private sector if a board were asleep at the wheel. 

    Institutions are required to have ‘adequate and effective management and governance arrangements.’ Therein lies the problem. In a culture based on the presumption of autonomy, it’s very difficult to provoke change based on a standard so low as ‘adequacy’ and advice from the sector. There are many interpretations of autonomy, but the concept is too often used as a defensive comfort blanket to resist change or, worse still, justify the executives’ vanity projects.  

    The current regulatory regime, based in part on a self-regulatory model, is somewhat naïve and reminiscent of that which prevailed many years ago in respect of company regulation in the private sector and contributed to the debate on the ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’. For example, the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) code declares that the code ‘is not compulsory, governing bodies can determine based on the advice of the executive which parts of the code apply to them …’ There is no longer a need for an annual Head of Internal Audit Report and the OfS no longer require submission of the Annual Report of an institution’s Audit Committee. Indeed, there is nothing in the guidance any more compelling registered providers to have an Audit Committee. 

    Within this benign regulatory environment, the sector has received substantial funding on a headcount basis at a time when they should have been preparing for wholly predictable changes. Boards should be looking much more clearly on value for money issues. They continue to create massive Super Faculties which are unmanageable, stifle innovation and leave staff isolated. Decision-making processes are attenuated, and there is hostility to learning from external sources that are well ahead in confronting and managing change. There has been a proliferation of roles and reporting lines at the top with very little focus on efficient delivery at the coal face but fragmentation in terms of leadership. 

    Sadly, the position is even worse in Scotland where legislative changes in 2016 made the appointment process and composition of Boards even larger and more cumbersome and much less effective decision makers, hence the Dundee fiasco. 

    The current governance culture encouraged by the legislation and embraced by the sector and the regulators creates the impression that the sector should be treated differently from any other sector. In my experience, the fundamental role of NEDs is the same irrespective of the corporate status: to appoint and monitor the performance of the executive and to sign off on the strategy and rigorously monitor performance, delivery structures, risk and compliance. Legal status will shape strategy in terms of charitable status or shareholder value in the private sector but that’s no justification to deter NEDs from carrying out the primary role of holding the CEO’s feet to the fire and continuously monitoring and measuring executive performance. The way forward may be to engage them more directly within the structures of the institution, taking care that they don’t cross the line into the executive function.  

    I operated as a CEO in the sector for twenty years and a NED on both side of the fence. In my NED roles I have always operated by asking questions and seeking clarity on issues that I wouldn’t want raised if I were the CEO!  

    Nigel Savage    

    I am grateful to James Aston (BDO) the leading independent authority on HE governance, for a couple of stimulating conversations on some of the issues. 

    Source link

  • Education Department wants to streamline process for pulling federal funds from colleges

    Education Department wants to streamline process for pulling federal funds from colleges

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education plans to propose regulations for “streamlining” the process for pulling federal funding from the colleges it determines have violated civil rights law. 
    • The notice of the forthcoming proposal was published in the Trump administration’s Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, which provides a glimpse of the federal government’s regulatory priorities and schedule for releasing new rules. 
    • The new proposal — which could be released this month — is intended to simplify the process for the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights to seek “termination of Federal financial assistance to institutions that intentionally violate Federal civil rights laws and refuse to voluntarily come into compliance,” the notice says. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Under the Trump administration, the Education Department and other agencies have opened a flurry of civil rights investigations into colleges and K-12 schools. Some have targeted their diversity efforts and policies that allow transgender students to play on teams and use bathrooms aligning with their gender identities. Others have accused colleges of failing to address antisemitism. 

    Amid these investigations, the Trump administration has pressured colleges to strike deals with the federal government by freezing or pulling vast sums of federal research funding. 

    The University of Pennsylvania, for instance, resolved an Education Department investigation in July by agreeing to bar transgender women from competing on women’s sports teams. Penn also agreed to give Division I titles and records to cisgender women who had lost against Lia Thomas, a transgender woman who last competed on the university’s swim team in 2022.

    The deal came after the Trump administration had pulled $175 million in federal contracts from Penn. Similarly, Columbia University and Brown University — which were both accused of failing to address campus antisemitism — have paid lofty sums to settle the administration’s allegations after the federal government froze hundreds of millions of dollars of their research grants.

    The notice in the Unified Agenda says the Education Department plans to align civil rights enforcement procedures better with statutory requirements. The agency’s new regulations would pertain to enforcement of Title IX and Title VI. Title IX bars discrimination based on sex, while Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin. 

    The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. 

    Not every college targeted by the administration has been pressured into striking a deal. 

    The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion from Harvard University after the Ivy League institution refused to yield to demands to make sweeping changes to its admissions, hiring and campus policies. Harvard took the administration to court over the frozen funds, with a federal judge ruling in the university’s favor this week

    The Trump administration had said it was pulling the funding because the university had not done enough to address antisemitism on campus. Yet the judge overseeing the case said the evidence does not “reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard.” 

    The Unified Agenda also provides a look at the agency’s other regulatory priorities, with changes coming down the pike for rules governing accreditation, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, and colleges’ reporting requirements for foreign gifts and contracts. 

    The Education Department recently kicked off the process to craft regulations to implement the sweeping changes mandated by the massive domestic policy bill passed by Republicans this summer. 

    The legislation will phase out Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate and professional students to borrow up to the cost of attendance. It also creates lifetime federal loan limits, with a cap of $100,000 for most graduate students and $200,000 for professional students. And it will consolidate a handful of federal loan repayment options into just two — one income-based repayment plan and one standard plan with fixed payments. 

    Additionally, the policy package threatens to cut off federal student loan eligibility to college programs that can’t prove they provide an earnings boost. Undergraduate programs, for example, must show that at least half of their graduates earn more than a typical high school student in their state.

    The American Council on Education and over 40 other higher education groups have urged the Education Department to work with Congress to delay implementing these changes until July 1, 2027

    The Education Department is currently on track to issue the rules no earlier than March 2026 — and likely later than that given the complexity of the law, according to the letter. As a result, the regulations would “impose major changes to financial aid and student loan repayment for millions of students and borrowers only months before they take effect,” the organizations said.

    Source link

  • Range of Factors Spurred Campus Cutbacks in August

    Range of Factors Spurred Campus Cutbacks in August

    Multiple colleges and universities, including some ultrawealthy ones, have announced plans to cut jobs and academic programs, as well as implement other changes, due to financial challenges driven by a range of factors.

    For some institutions, belt-tightening measures are directly tied to the economic forces battering the sector as a whole: declining enrollments, rising operating costs and broad economic uncertainty. For others, financial pressure from the Trump administration, which has frozen federal research funding at multiple institutions, prompted cuts. State lawmakers have also forced program reductions at some public institutions.

    Here’s a look at job and program cuts and other cost-cutting efforts announced in August.

    University of Chicago

    Despite its $10 billion endowment, the private institution is slashing expenses by $100 million, shedding 400 staff jobs and pausing admissions into multiple graduate programs.

    Chicago president Paul Alivisatos wrote in a statement to faculty that the university’s financial woes are twofold, tied to a persistent operating deficit, with expenditures outpacing revenues, combined with the “profound federal policy changes of the last eight months [that] have created multiple and significant new uncertainties and strong downward pressure on our finances.”

    In recent years, UChicago has been squeezed by debt, which has ballooned to more than $6 billion as leadership continued to invest in building projects, prompting critics to question how well administrators have managed the institution’s finances.

    Middlebury College

    The private liberal arts college in Vermont is shutting down the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, across the country in California, officials announced last week.

    Middlebury president Ian Baucom said the university is winding down graduate programs at the campus over a period of two years. Managing such graduate programs was “no longer feasible,” said Baucom, who added that the decision was made for financial reasons.

    Earlier this year, the college announced it was taking action to close a budget deficit that was projected to be as high as $14.1 million. In that announcement, officials said the Middlebury Institute of International Studies was responsible for $8.7 million—more than half—of the shortfall.

    Middlebury plans to sunset programs at the California campus by June 2027.

    University of New Hampshire

    Officials at the public university in Durham last month announced the elimination of 36 jobs, 13 of which were vacant, and 10 employees had their hours reduced, according to The Portsmouth Herald.

    The layoffs are part of an effort to cut $17.5 million from UNH’s budget.

    University president Elizabeth Chilton also announced other cost-cutting efforts last month, including “scaling back professional development, student employment, building hours, dining hall hours, travel, printing, and other support services.”

    Carnegie Mellon University

    The private research university in Pittsburgh laid off 18 employees in administrative and academic support roles in early August, WESA reported, and more changes are on the horizon.

    Those cuts and other moves are part of an effort to reduce expenses by $33 million, President Farnam Jahanian wrote in a message to campus last month, noting that CMU is not operating at a deficit but is “facing significant constraints and unprecedented uncertainty.” Jahanian pointed to lower-than-expected graduate tuition revenues and federal research funding challenges.

    CMU has also paused merit raises and limited hiring. While Carnegie Mellon is undertaking a review of education offerings, Jahanian wrote that “we do not have broad layoffs planned.” Jahanian added that such measures remain “a last resort.”

    Bennington College

    The private liberal arts college in Vermont announced in mid-August that it was eliminating 15 staff jobs “as part of ongoing efforts to address budget challenges,” VT Digger reported.

    In an announcement, President Laura Walker called the cuts “a painful moment” but noted that, like its peer institutions, Bennington is “confronting an uncertain economy and a challenging overall environment for higher education.” She added that no “regular faculty positions” were cut and that the college is providing severance to affected employees.

    Utah State University

    The public institution laid off seven full-time researchers last month after the federal government terminated grants that supported those jobs, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

    The layoffs precede what will likely be deep cuts across multiple public universities in the state, forced by new laws that require institutions to cut some programs and positions and reinvest in others that lawmakers argue are better aligned with workforce needs. So far eight institutions have proposed axing 271 programs and 412 jobs, though those cuts still await final state approval.

    Ohio University

    Fallout from the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, which went into effect in June, continues as Ohio University announced plans to suspend 11 underenrolled programs and merge 18 others.

    The new law requires universities to take action on underenrolled programs, though Ohio University officials noted that they have submitted waiver requests to continue offering seven other programs that fall below the required threshold of at least five graduates, on average, across the past three years. The institution is seeking a waiver for undergraduate offerings in economics, dance, music therapy, nutrition science and hospitality management, among other degree programs.

    Officials cited state workforce needs or “the unique nature” of the programs in waiver requests.

    University of Connecticut

    Following a review that began last fall, trustees of the public system approved the closure of seven academic programs with low enrollment—four graduate certificate and three degree programs, CT Insider reported.

    Nearly 70 other programs are being monitored for enrollment and completion rates. Officials called the review process “good academic housekeeping.”

    Milligan University

    Citing the need to “exercise strong fiscal management,” officials at the Christian college in Tennessee announced they are suspending enrollment in six degree programs, WJHL reported.

    Milligan will no longer accept students in film, journalism, computer science, cybersecurity, information systems or a graduate coaching and sports management program. University officials pointed to falling enrollment in those programs when they announced the changes.

    University of Nebraska

    The public university system is offering buyouts to faculty members across all its campuses as part of an effort to address a $20 million budget shortfall, Nebraska Public Media reported.

    Tenured faculty members older than 62 with at least 10 years of service at Nebraska are eligible to opt in to the voluntary separation incentive program, which opened this week and closes on Sept. 30. Faculty members that opt in will receive a lump-sum payment amounting to 70 percent of their annual base salary and remain employed through June or August, depending on their contract.

    University of California, Los Angeles

    One of the wealthiest institutions on this list, UCLA announced last month that it has temporarily paused faculty hiring and is making other belt-tightening moves.

    Officials also said UCLA is looking to “streamline services,” starting with information technology.

    The public university’s move comes at least partly in response to its standoff with the Trump administration, which froze hundreds of millions in research funding to the university last month as it pressured administrators over alleged antisemitism on campus. (Some funding has been restored by a court order.) The Trump administration has also demanded a $1 billion payout from the university, which California governor Gavin Newsom called “extortion.”

    University of Kansas

    The public university announced last month that it was implementing a temporary hiring freeze as administrators aim to reduce spending by $32 million, The Lawrence Journal-World reported.

    “We are again navigating an uncertain fiscal environment because of external factors, such as disruptions to federal funding, changes in federal law, stagnant state funding, rising costs, changes in international enrollments, and a projected nationwide decline in college enrollment,” KU officials wrote in a message to campus.

    Source link

  • MELODY GOODMAN | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    MELODY GOODMAN | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Dr. Melody Goodman Melody Goodman, a leading biostatistician and research methodologist, has been named dean of the NYU School of Global Public Health. Goodman has been a member of the School of Global Public Health faculty since 2017 and has served as its interim dean since March 2024. Goodman’s research focuses on improving public health using approaches to engage partners outside of academia and move beyond defining problems to develop solutions. She has published more than 150 peer-reviewed journal articles, with contributions spanning the areas of prevention, treatment, intervention, and policy, and authored two books on biostatistics and research methods.

    She is a fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine, a member of the American Public Health Association, a fellow of the American Statistical Association, and is the recipient of many awards and honors. Prior to becoming the interim dean at the NYU School of Global Public Health, Goodman served in numerous academic leadership roles, including senior executive vice dean, vice dean for research, associate dean for research, and interim chair of the Department of Biostatistics. She joined NYU from Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, where she was an assistant professor in the Division of Public Health Sciences in the Department of Surgery, and was previously an assistant professor of preventive medicine at Stony Brook University’s School of Medicine. 

    Goodman earned her undergraduate degree summa cum laude from Stony Brook University, where she was named a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She earned her master’s degree from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and her PhD from Harvard University.

    Source link

  • Ind. B School to Enforce Grade Distribution for Skill Classes

    Ind. B School to Enforce Grade Distribution for Skill Classes

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Ralf Geithe/iStock/Getty Images

    Some faculty members at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business have been instructed to eliminate grade rounding, remove the A-plus grade option and keep average section GPAs between 3.3 and 3.5 for the fall semester.

    The grading changes aim to “address grade inflation and promote rigor across our curriculum,” according to an email sent to faculty in the Communication, Professional and Computer Skills (CPS) department from business writing course coordinator Polly Graham, which was obtained by Inside Higher Ed. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, [CPS] grades elevated, and in recent years, grades have remained high. In recent semesters, some instructors have awarded 100% A’s in standard (i.e., non-honors) sections, and others have awarded extraordinary numbers of A+’s and incompletes,” the email said. 

    The new grading policy was sent to instructors in early August without faculty discussion or approval, according to a faculty member in the CPS department who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. The department, which does not have its own governance or bylaws beyond what governs the business school writ large, is the only one in Kelley that is staffed entirely by lecturers who do not have tenure protections. So far, the new grading policies apply only to courses in the CPS department, the faculty member said.

    Instructors of standard, nonhonors courses must make the GPA of each section average between 3.3 and 3.5, and honors course GPA averages must fall within 0.2 points of the “section’s cumulative student GPA,” the email stated. Faculty members should not round up final grades “even if the student’s grade is very close to a higher letter grade,” and each instructor will complete two check-ins with CPS leadership—one before and one after midterms—after which “formative support will be provided to faculty as requested or needed.” It’s unclear what form the support will take, but the faculty member suspects it could be additional assistance from the chair on lesson plans or grading strategies.

    It’s not unusual for business schools to enforce a set grade distribution. At the University of Michigan’s Ross Business School, for instance, core class instructors must follow a distribution that allows 40 percent or fewer undergraduates to earn an A-minus or higher, 90 percent or fewer undergraduates to earn a B or higher, and at least 10 percent of undergraduates must earn between a B-minus and an F. Emory University’s Goizueta Business School also enforces a grade distribution, as does Columbia Business School.

    The Kelley School will also enforce an attendance policy for CPS classes this fall. Students will be allowed up to three absences without a grade penalty. After the fourth absence, they lose one-third of their final letter grade, and after five absences, they lose a full letter grade. Six absences will result in an automatic “failure due to non-attendance,” the email explained. The school will allow exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

    All Kelley students are required to take courses within the CPS department, including a business presentations class, a business writing course and three “Kelley Compass” classes that teach soft business skills such as team building, interviewing and conflict management. Like the lab time that accompanies physical science classes, CPS courses offer skills-based training that encourages mastery, the CPS faculty member told Inside Higher Ed. Faculty are concerned that the new GPA targets put an artificial limit on students’ success.

    A spokesperson for the Kelley School did not answer Inside Higher Ed’s questions about the grade recalibration and instead provided the following statement: “At Kelley, faculty design courses to be both rigorous and fair, while supporting student development and career preparation. Our longstanding priority is to ensure that grades reflect the quality of each student’s performance and that grade distribution is fair and consistent, including across multiple sections of the same course.”

    The statement language echoes what faculty have been instructed to tell students and parents who ask about the grading changes, according to the CPS faculty member.

    Indiana’s Kelley School has become more popular of late, and administrators appear to be tightening admissions standards in response. The school has fielded some 27,000 applications for approximately 2,000 spots in recent years, the faculty member said, though the Kelley spokesperson did not confirm or refute these numbers.

    In March, Kelley promoted Patrick E. Hopkins, an accounting professor who has worked at the business school since 1995, to dean. Just over two months later, on June 2, incoming Indiana University prebusiness students were notified that the minimum grade for automatic admission to the Kelley School would be raised from a B to a B-plus, starting with their cohort. Christopher Duff, the father of an incoming Indiana prebusiness student who plans to seek admission to Kelley, said the change was a “bait and switch.”

    “To be crystal clear, I have zero issues with the Kelley School of Business changing their admission criteria. I do, however, have a major issue in the timing of this change. We made our decision based on clearly stated information at the time of commitment. We jettisoned all other schools, offers and financial aid to pursue a degree from Indiana-Kelley,” Duff told Inside Higher Ed. “You want to change the criteria? Fine. Do so with the incoming class who will be aware to make an informed decision. We did not get that choice. It was made for us and when we complained—and we all did—we were essentially told to take it or leave it.”

    Duff said he met with Kelley’s undergraduate admissions director, Alex Bruce, in June to discuss the change, and in that meeting Bruce told him the school had overadmitted for the incoming class and received commitments from far more students than they anticipated.

    “I asked [Bruce] if the admission department was telling the academic departments to grade harder, to weed out even more students than prior years,” Duff said. “He assured me that admissions and academics are separate entities and have no control over each other. I do not believe anything he told me that day.”

    Source link

  • UC System Warns of Broader Risks in Federal Funding Fight

    UC System Warns of Broader Risks in Federal Funding Fight

    The University of California system is warning state lawmakers that federal funding cuts could extend well beyond UCLA as tensions between the Trump administration and American colleges continue to rise.

    UC president James B. Milliken wrote a letter to dozens of local elected officials Tuesday explaining that “the stakes are high and the risks are very real.” The system’s 10 institutions could lose billions of dollars in aid, forcing its leaders to make tough calls about staffing, the continuation of certain academic programs and more, he said.

    President Trump has already frozen more than $500 million in grants at UCLA, allegedly because the Justice Department accused the university of violating Jewish students’ civil rights. The president demanded the university pay a $1.2 billion fine to unlock the funds, and system officials are worried that more funding cuts are likely. California lawmakers have repeatedly urged the UC system not to capitulate.

    In an August letter, State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat and chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and 33 other lawmakers told Milliken that Trump’s actions were “an extortion attempt and a page out of the authoritarian playbook,” the Los Angeles Times reported

    Milliken wrote in Tuesday’s letter that a loss in funding would “devastate” the system and harm students, among other groups.

    “Classes and student services would be reduced, patients would be turned away, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we would see UC’s world-renowned researchers leaving our state for other more seemingly stable opportunities in the US or abroad,” he wrote.

    If the UC system loses federal funding, it would need about $4 to $5 billion a year to make up the difference, Milliken added. “That is what fighting for the people of California will take.”

    Source link