Tag: Education

  • States File Lawsuit Challenging Education Department Cuts

    States File Lawsuit Challenging Education Department Cuts

    Twenty Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Trump administration for its massive job cuts at the Education Department, seeking to block what they say is “an effective dismantling” of the department. 

    The suit argues that by eliminating half the staff, the department is essentially abdicating its responsibility to deliver statutorily mandated programs, like federal student aid and civil rights investigations—many of which also affect state programs. 

    “This massive reduction in force is equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions of the Department, causing immense damage to Plaintiff States and their educational systems,” the suit reads.

    The plaintiffs include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

    The lawsuit is at least the eighth to be filed against the Trump administration over its education policies in the past month. Follow Inside Higher Ed’s Trump Lawsuit Tracker for updates on the case.

    Source link

  • College Applications Rise, Especially From Minority Students

    College Applications Rise, Especially From Minority Students

    The number of students applying to college rose 4 percent this admission cycle, and applicants submitted 6 percent more applications over all, according to a new report from the Common App. 

    The increase was fueled by an especially large spike in the number of underrepresented minority applicants, which rose by 12 percent compared to non-URM applicants’ 2 percent increase. In addition, applicants from families below the median income level rose 8 percent, compared to 3 percent from above the median.

    The increase could reflect the Common App’s addition of more community colleges and open-access institutions to its platform, expanding to include more institutions that primarily serve low-income students.

    One striking finding in the report: Domestic applicant growth exceeded that of international students for the first time since 2019. Domestic applicants increased by 5 percent while the number of international applicants declined by 1 percent.

    In addition, the number of applicants submitting test scores in 2024–25 grew by 11 percent, outpacing nonreporters for the first time since 2021. Some schools began returning to mandatory test requirements this application cycle, abandoning test-optional policies adopted during the pandemic.

    Source link

  • Record Number of U.S. Students Apply for U.K. Undergraduate Degrees

    Record Number of U.S. Students Apply for U.K. Undergraduate Degrees

    A record number of U.S. students have applied to study for undergraduate degrees in the U.K. next year, figures reveal.

    Experts had previously suggested that U.K. institutions might benefit from international students being put off by Donald Trump’s new administration.

    And analysis suggests campuses are already seeing an influx of applicants from the U.S. itself. Figures from the University and College Admissions Service, UCAS, show that 6,680 U.S. students applied to U.K. courses for 2025–26 by the main deadline at the end of January.

    This was a 12 percent increase on the year before and the most since comparable records began in 2006. It surpasses the previous record of 6,670 set in 2021–22 and is more than double the demand in 2017.

    Maddalaine Ansell, director of education at the British Council, said she was “delighted” by the 20-year high.

    “It’s a testament to the quality of U.K. universities that so many people want to study here. Three-year degrees, lower tuition costs and poststudy work opportunities all increase the attractiveness of the U.K. offer,” she said.

    “As well as adding to the vibrancy of their courses, we hope that these students will also take a lasting affection for the U.K. forward into their future careers and stay connected with us for years to come.”

    Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of the applicants from the U.S. were 18 years old, and 61 percent were women.

    The UCAS data covers undergraduate applicants, but separate figures show an uptick in demand at all levels—even before Trump’s second term began.

    Recent Home Office statistics reveal that 15,274 U.S. main applicants were issued sponsored study visas in 2024.

    This was a 5 percent increase on 2023 and also the highest level since at least 2009—despite total visa numbers from around the world falling.

    Recent research by the British Council found that more international students would choose the U.K. over the U.S. as a result of Trump’s return to the White House.

    Although he managed to generate a large swing toward the Republican Party among young voters, those aged 18 to 29 still largely backed Kamala Harris in November.

    In the 78-year-old’s first six weeks in the Oval Office, he has pledged to shut down the Department of Education, block federal funding for institutions that allow “illegal” protests and launched a crackdown on spending on diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

    Universities UK said the increase in demand to study in the U.K. is positive, following a turbulent period for international student recruitment.

    “But it is too early to say whether this is the start of a longer-term trend,” added a spokesperson.

    “What is important now is for universities and government to continue to work together to promote the U.K. as a welcoming destination, and to preserve our competitive offer to international students.”

    Recent data also showed that a record number of Americans applied for U.K. citizenship last year, which immigration lawyers attributed to Trump’s presidential re-election bid and victory.

    Source link

  • Funding Freeze on University of Maine System Lifted

    Funding Freeze on University of Maine System Lifted

    Senator Susan Collins of Maine said the pause on federal agriculture funding for her state’s public colleges and universities has been lifted, WMTW reported Wednesday.

    The Department of Agriculture froze all spending Tuesday as part of an investigation into the institutions’ compliance with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. USDA launched the investigation shortly after a heated exchange between Maine’s Democratic governor and President Trump in late February.

    The state’s flagship institution, the University of Maine, requested clarification Wednesday on the status of USDA’s Title IX compliance review and the extent of the pause. Collins also consulted the Trump administration about the freeze. Relief followed quickly after.

    “This USDA funding is critically important not only to the University of Maine but to our farmers and loggers,” Collins said in a statement. “Now that funding has been restored, the work that the university does in partnership with the many people and communities who depend on these programs can continue.”

    The system has nearly $63 million in active grants from the Agriculture Department and is expecting $35 million to be paid out for ongoing statewide education, research and extension activities, a system spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed.

    “Since our flagship’s founding as Maine’s land grant 160 years ago, funding from USDA has enabled us to strengthen and grow the state’s natural resource economy, sustain rural jobs and communities, and support hands-on 4-H youth development opportunities,” system chancellor Dannel Malloy and University of Maine president Joan Ferrini-Mundy said in a joint statement. “The University of Maine System was thrilled to learn from Senator Collins that the USDA has agreed to lift its plan to temporarily pause our federal funding, which has been an unnecessary distraction from our essential education, research and extension activities that benefit Maine and well beyond.”

    Source link

  • Greater width and greater depth: changing higher education in an electronic age

    Greater width and greater depth: changing higher education in an electronic age

    • Ronald Barnett is (www.ronaldbarnett.co.uk), Emeritus Professor of Higher Education at the Institute of Education and President of the Philosophy and Theory of Higher Education Society.

    Chris Husbands’ latest HEPI blog is fine so far as it goes but, I suggest, it goes neither wide enough nor deep enough.  Yes, the world is changing, and higher education institutions have to change, but the analysis of ‘change’ has to encompass the whole world (have great width) and also to burrow down into the deep structures of a world in turbulent motion (and so have much depth).

    The current crisis in UK higher education – and especially in higher education in England – has to be set more fully in the context of massive global shifts that directly affect higher education. These are too many to enumerate entirely here, but they include:

    • A hyper-fast world: Theorists speak of cognitive capitalism, but we have already moved into a new stage of electronic capitalism (of which AI is but the most evident feature).
    • Volatile labour markets (disrupting the relationship between higher education and the world of work)
    • A fragmenting state of student being: now, their higher education is just part of an incredibly complex life and set of challenges with which students are confronted
    • Geo-political shifts affecting (and the reduction of) the internationalisation of higher education; and
    • An entirely new complex of human needs (physical, cognitive, social, political, environmental, and phenomenological) for learning to be part of life, ‘cradle-to-grave’. 

    In short, the world is fast-changing not only around higher education but in the depths of higher education in ways not yet fully appreciated.  It is a world that is going through multiple and unimagined transformations, transformations that are replete with conflicts and antagonisms that are both material and discursive. These changes are already having effects on higher education, especially on what it is to be a student.

    Now, students are increasingly part-time (whatever the formal designation of their programmes of study). Moreover, they play out their lives across multiple ecosystems – including the economy, social institutions, culture, the polity, the self, knowledge, learning, the digital environment, and Nature. In the context of these nine ever-moving ecosystems, what it is to be a student is now torn open, fragmented, and bewildering to many. 

    More still, many students of today will be alive in the 22nd century and will have to navigate an Earth, a world, that will exhibit many stages of anxiety-provoking and even possibly terrifying change. Sheer being itself is challenged under such circumstances and, more so, the very being of students. And we see all this in spades in (quite understandable) growing student anxiety and even suicide.

    In this context, and under these conditions, a model and an idea of higher education bequeathed to the world largely from early 19th century Europe (Germany and England) no longer matches the present and the future age for which students are destined.

    Crucially, here, we are confronted by profound changes that are not just institutional and material in that sense, but we are – and students are – confronted with unnoticed changes in the discourse of higher education.  Not just what it means to be a student but the very meaning of student is changing in front of us; yet largely unnoticed. (Is being a student a matter of dutifully acquiring skills for an AI world or is it to set up encampments so as actively to engage with and to be a troublesome presence in world-wide conflicts?)

    Fundamental here is the idea of higher education.  Fifty years ago, some remnants of the idea of the university from 19th century Europe could romantically be held onto. Ideas of reason, truth, student development, consciousness-raising, critical thinking and even emancipation were concepts that could be used without too much embarrassment.  But now, that discourse and the pedagogical goals and relationships that it stood for have almost entirely dissolved, overtaken and trivialised by talk of skills, work-readiness, employability, impact and of using but of being ‘critical’ of AI.

    It is a commonplace – not least in the higher education consultancies and think-tanks – to hear murmurings to the effect that institutions of higher education must change (and are insufficiently changing). Yes, most certainly.  And some signs of change are apparent. In England alone, we see talk of (but little concerted action on) life-long learning, formation of tertiary education as such, better higher education-further education connections, micro-credentials, ‘alternative providers’, shortened degrees, AI and recovering part-time higher education (disastrously virtually vanquished, regretted now by David Willetts, its progenitor).

    These are but some of the adjustments that the large and complex higher education can be seen to be making to the challenges of the age.  But it is piecemeal in a fundamental sense, namely that it is not being advanced on the basis of a broad and deep analysis of the problem situation. 

    Some say we need a new Robbins, and there is more to that idea than many realise. Robbins was a free-market economist, but the then general understanding as to what constituted a higher education and the balance of the Robbins committee, with a phalanx of heavy-weight educationalists, resulted in a progressive vision of higher education. Now, though, we need new levels of analysis and imaginative thinking. 

    Consider just one of the changes into which English higher education is stumbling, that of life-long learning and its associated idea of credit accumulation. Credit accumulation was first enunciated as an idea in English higher education in the 1980s through the Council for National Academic Awards (and there through the efforts especially of Norman Evans and Peter Toyne). But the idea of universities as a site where the formation of human beings for a life of never-ending inquiry, learning and self-formation has never seriously been pursued, either practically or theoretically. 

    Now, life-long learning is more urgent than ever, but the necessary depth and width of the matters it prompts are hardly to be seen or heard.  However, and as intimated, this matter is just one of a raft of interconnected and mega issues around post-school education today.

    As is said, there is no magic bullet here in such an interconnected world. Joined-up progress is essential, from UNESCO and suchlike to the teacher and class of students. The key is the individual institution of higher education, which now has a responsibility to become aware of its multiple ecosystem environment and work out a game-plan in each of the nine ecosystems identified above.

    At the heart of that ecosystem scanning has to be the individual student. Let this design process start from the bottom-up – the flourishing of the individual student living into the C22.  It would be a design process that tackles head-on what it is to live purposefully in a world of constant change, challenge and conflict and what might we hope for from university graduates against such a horizon.  Addressing and answering this double question within each university – for each university will have its own perspective – will amount to nothing less than a revolution in higher education.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Oxford Brookes University

    Higher education postcard: Oxford Brookes University

    Greetings from Oxford!

    As reported in the Oxford Times, on 21 March 1865 – which by my count is very nearly 160 years ago – a meeting was held in Oxford. This led to the establishment of the Oxford School of Art, which opened its doors to students on 22 May that year.

    The initial curriculum included freehand drawing, shading in chalk, perspective and model drawing, figure drawing and anatomy, and painting in oil and watercolour. There were separate classes for men, women, and children under 15. Men and children paid two shillings a month (with discounts for larger periods paid up front); women paid four shillings per month. It isn’t clear to me why the fees were different, but as L P Hartley says, “the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

    The school was initially housed on the ground floor of the Taylor Institute, a library for European languages within the University of Oxford. In 1868 or 1870 (sources differ) a school of science was added. But trouble was brewing. John Ruskin, who had recently been appointed as the Slade Professor of Fine Art at the university, did not approve of the way drawing was taught at the Oxford School of Art, and established the Ruskin School of Drawing to address this. The Ruskin School needed space, and so the School of Art and Science was moved to the basement of the Taylor Institute. The Ruskin School of Drawing is now, by the way, the Ruskin School of Art, and is the University of Oxford’s department of fine art. This tells you who won that argument in the long run!

    The move to the basement proved short lived. In 1888 chemistry labs in the Wesleyan school, Witney, were used by the school of science. In 1891 the school was taken over by the city council, following legislative changes enabling local authorities to fund education and to act as trustees, and was renamed the Oxford City Technical School. And in 1894 a new site, at St Ebbe’s in Oxford, was acquired for the school.

    The new site enabled growth in activities – so rapid that in 1899 the government Department of Art and Science declared it inadequate. Needless to say, the school remained on that site for another fifty years, albeit it also occupied other sites across the city.

    We now need to fast forward to 1928 and introduce a new character: John Henry Brookes.

    Brookes had trained as a silversmith, and was a part-time teacher of sculpture at the school. In 1928 he was appointed vice principal of the school of art (the schools of art and science were technically separate organisations); and in 1934 when the schools of art and science were formally merged to form the Schools of Technology, Art and Commerce, Brookes was appointed its first principal, and was to remain in that post until 1956.

    A pressing issue was accommodation, and in 1949 a 25 acre site in Headington was secured for the school. Planning permission was not granted until 1952, having been initially rejected in 1950, and it wasn’t until 1955 that the foundation stone for the new suite was laid. In 1952 a new name was also given: the school became the College of Technology, Art and Commerce. The Headington site was not formally opened until 1963, fourteen years after the site was acquired.

    In 1956 Brookes retired. His impact on the institution was clearly great. The college was once again renamed as the Oxford College of Technology; this and Brookes’ retirement were not, I believe, related events.

    In 1970 the college became Oxford Polytechnic and, in line with national policy which encouraged the amalgamation of smaller specialist colleges into more generalist institutions, it started to expand by incorporation. First came the Lady Spencer-Churchill College – this had been an emergency teacher training college, established in 1947. The Oxford School of Nursing joined in 1988; and in 1992 the Dorset House School of Occupational Therapy also joined the polytechnic. And also in 1992, the polytechnic became a university.

    Oxford Brookes University was the chosen name, in honour of John Henry Brookes. A few of the polytechnics had chosen names to commemorate local people – for example, Liverpool John Moores, Lanchester Polytechnic in Coventry – but I think Oxford Brookes is the only one named for a former principal. If you know different, please do say!

    In 1993 the university acquired Headington Hill Hall, formerly owned by Robert Maxwell, enabling an expansion of the Headington site. And in 2000 Westminster College, a methodist teacher training college, merged with the university.

    Being a university sharing a city with the University of Oxford can’t be easy: comparisons will mostly be tiresome. But here’s a surprising one: Oxford Brookes is arguably the best university in the UK at which to row (as in, propel a boat by oars, not argue) – see, for example, this report on the Henley regatta, 2023. Bet you didn’t know that!

    And here’s a jigsaw of the postcard, which I found more challenging than I expected.

    Happy 160th birthday, Oxford Brookes University!

    Source link

  • Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Scheduled for ASU+GSV Summit, April 8, 2025

    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Scheduled for ASU+GSV Summit, April 8, 2025

    On April 8, 2025, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon will give a fireside chat at ASU+GSV, an edtech conference held in San Diego, California.  

    President Trump has tasked McMahon with dismantling the federal agency that oversees federally funded K-12 and higher education programs. In less than two weeks she has done just that.  

    Half of ED’s staff have already been fired or taken a payout, and the $1.7T student loan portfolio is likely to be transferred to the US Treasury. 

    There is no word yet on whether there will be demonstrators at the conference, but we expect some form of vocal nonviolent resistance.  AFT President Randi Weingarten is also scheduled to appear.  

    Source link

  • U.S. Department of Education slashes staff

    U.S. Department of Education slashes staff

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    The U.S. Department of Education announced March 11 that it’s cutting its workforce nearly in half–a move that Education Secretary Linda McMahon said is a first step toward eliminating the department.

    Roughly a third of staff will lose their jobs through a “reduction in force,” the department said in a press release. Combined with voluntary buyouts, the Education Department will have just under 2,200 employees by the end of the month, compared with 4,133 when President Donald Trump took office with promises to shutter the department.

    The layoffs represent a significant escalation of Trump’s efforts to reduce the department’s role in education, which is mostly run by states and school districts. Already, the administration has canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and contracts that paid for education research, technical assistance to states and school districts, and teacher training programs.

    Affected staff will be placed on administrative leave starting March 21, the department said. Ahead of the announcement, workers were told to leave the office by 6 p.m. Tuesday and that the office would remain closed until Thursday “for security reasons.” McMahon later said this was standard corporate process when layoffs occur.

    “Today’s reduction in force reflects the Department of Education’s commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers,” McMahon said in a press release. “I appreciate the work of the dedicated public servants and their contributions to the Department. This is a significant step toward restoring the greatness of the United States education system.”

    The Education Department administers major federal funding programs such as Title I, which provides extra money to high-poverty schools, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which supports special education. It also investigates civil rights complaints and oversees an accountability system that pushes states to identify low-performing schools and provide them with additional resources.

    Exactly how the layoffs will affect specific programs was not immediately clear. A former Education Department staffer, who spoke with Chalkbeat on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the information, said the entire Office for Civil Rights teams based in Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Cleveland, Boston and New York were let go. That represents half of regional civil rights offices.

    The department said all divisions are affected but did not describe specific positions that were eliminated. In the press release, department officials said all functions required by law will continue.

    Only Congress can eliminate the department, but such deep cuts could leave the department a shell of its former self.

    Appearing on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News shortly after the layoffs were announced, McMahon said Trump had given her a clear mandate to shutter the department. She said she would work with Congress to do that. Immediately cutting these positions would help the federal government send more money to the states, she said.

    “I said ‘OK we have to identify where the bloat is, where the bureaucracy is, and we’re going to start there,’ McMahon said. “We need to make sure that that money does get to the states.”

    Trump is expected to sign an executive order to start the process of eliminating the department, but has not yet done so. Conservatives say that for decades the department has failed to adequately address low academic performance and is a bloated bureaucracy.

    On Fox, McMahon reassured viewers that programs such as IDEA would still be funded through congressional appropriations. Asked what IDEA stood for, McMahon responded, “I’m not sure I can tell you exactly what it stands for except that it’s programs for disabled needs. It’s my fifth day on the job, and I’m really trying to learn quickly.”

    Conservative state school chiefs said in a letter to McMahon last month that they need more flexibility in how to use federal money, rather than following complex rules that ensure specific funding streams benefit certain student groups.

    Public education advocates fear that if money flows unrestricted to states, there’s no guarantee it will help the most vulnerable students. Even without an executive order, they worry that administrative changes could affect the department’s ability to perform basic functions.

    Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, condemned the layoffs.

    “Denuding an agency so it cannot function effectively is the most cowardly way of dismantling it,” she said in a statement. “The massive reduction in force at the Education Department is an attack on opportunity that will gut the agency and its ability to support students, throwing federal education programs into chaos across the country.”

    Sheria Smith, president of the American Federation of Government Employee Local 252, which represents 2,800 Education Department employees, said the union will fight back against the layoffs and against what she called a misinformation campaign about the department’s work.

    “We must ask our fellow Americans: do you want your and your children’s rights enforced in school? Do you want your children to have the ability to play sports in their school districts? Do you need financial aid for college? Are you a fellow civil servant that relies on student loan forgiveness? Does your school district offset property taxes with federal funding?” she said in a statement.

    “If yes, then you rely on the Department of Education, and the services you rely on and the employees who support them are under attack.”

    Shortly after she was confirmed, McMahon sent a message to Education Department staff describing a “final mission” that would affect staffing, budgets, and agency operations.

    Department staff were given one-time offers of up to $25,000 to retire or resign in advance of a “very significant reduction in force.” More than 500 employees took some form of buy out.

    Another 1,300 employees are losing their jobs through the reduction in force, McMahon announced.

    Employees who are laid off will be paid through June 9.

    This story has been updated to include comments from Linda McMahon on Fox News, reaction to the layoffs, and additional information about affected offices.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more on education policy, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Half of OCR eliminated after Trump Education Department layoffs

    Half of OCR eliminated after Trump Education Department layoffs

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

    The U.S. Department of Education has let go of hundreds of its employees charged with protecting the civil rights of students and educators. The agency also shuttered seven of its 12 civil rights enforcement offices, according to former department employees.

    Offices in Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, Dallas, San Francisco, Boston and Cleveland have been closed. Those in Atlanta, Denver, Kansas City and Seattle remain open, as well as the OCR headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

    In total, the seven closed offices of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights oversaw half of the nation’s states, impacting nearly 60,000 public schools and over 30 million K-12 students.

    Those fired include scores of civil rights attorneys, according to an internal memo from the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. The union represents nearly 1,000 of the roughly 1,300 Education Department employees laid off Tuesday evening as part of the Trump administration’s sweeping effort to gut the department, including at least 240 OCR staff.

    More than 6,000 investigations impacted

    “The Department of Education has turned its back on civil rights in schools,” said Catherine Lhamon, who led OCR under the Biden administration. “It’s not possible to resolve cases… effectively with fewer than half the investigative staff that the office had had two days ago” 

    The agency’s civil rights enforcement arm is responsible for implementing protections for all students, including underserved students. It is tasked with ensuring that, among others, students with disabilities, students from all racial backgrounds, and sexual assault survivors have equal access to education. 

    Doing so requires investigations of alleged civil rights violations and compliance reviews of school systems that sometimes take years — even with all 12 offices operating and fully staffed. The offices that were closed were in charge of many of those cases. 

    “You’re talking about cases being in the middle of mediation right now,” said Victoria DeLano, who worked for the Atlanta office as an equal opportunity specialist prior to her termination. 

    The cases OCR settles with schools and universities often set the tone for civil rights policies and practices in schools nationwide. The seven offices shuttered had over 6,000 open investigations as of Jan. 14, according to OCR’s website that was last updated under the Biden administration.

    With the abrupt closures and layoffs, however, much of that is up in the air.

    “I can’t even comprehend it — the fallout that this is going to have,” said DeLano.

    Offices close as complaints climb

    In the past few years, the office’s caseload had been steadily climbing. In fiscal year 2023, the office received 19,201 complaints, representing a 2% increase from 2022 and nearly triple the number of complaints in 2009.

    Prior to the new administration and its sweeping layoffs, each OCR investigative staff was juggling a caseload of about 50 complaints, which Lhamon already considered “untenable.” In fact, the high number of cases and slim number of investigators at the time had prompted former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to request more funding from Congress, which would have helped hire additional OCR staff. 

    In contrast, the Trump administration has cited a desire to reduce the Education Department’s budget as part of the reason driving the sweeping layoffs.

    Some of those cut as part of President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s effort to “end bureaucratic bloat” were onboarded just months before being fired without notice, according to DeLano, who was hired in December under the former administration and then terminated in February. 

    DeLano realized she was out of a job after being locked out of her government laptop, and she only received a formal notice of termination after six days of being denied access.

    “It was done just completely heartless,” DeLano said. “I cannot believe that 50% of OCR is gone.”

    The massive cuts come after the administration told OCR staff to hit pause on its open investigations, and — instead of addressing public complaints — directed its resources to addressing the president’s priorities, like scaling back Title IX to exclude LGBTQ+ rights. Following a Feb. 5 executive order barring transgender women from playing on sports teams aligning with their gender identities, the Education Department launched multiple investigations into athletic associations, colleges and schools over their sports policies.

    Source link

  • Johns Hopkins Plans for Layoffs Amid $800M Cut to Federal Grants

    Johns Hopkins Plans for Layoffs Amid $800M Cut to Federal Grants

    Johns Hopkins University is planning for staff layoffs after the Trump administration canceled $800 million in U.S. Agency for International Development grants for the Baltimore-based institution, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

    The grants supported a variety of health-related initiatives overseen by Johns Hopkins, including a breastfeeding support project in Baltimore and mosquito-net programs in Mozambique.

    The foreign aid agency was one of the first targets of the Trump administration’s crusade against alleged widespread “waste, fraud and abuse” of federal funding. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said earlier this week that he’s purged 83 percent of USAID’s programs and the remaining contracts will be administered by the U.S. Department of State.

    The $800 million in cuts comes on top of another $200 million Johns Hopkins stands to lose if the National Institutes of Health succeeds in capping indirect research costs at 15 percent. Johns Hopkins is among numerous universities, states and other organizations that have sued the National Institutes of Health over the plan to limit research funding, which a federal judge has temporarily blocked.

    “At this time, we have little choice but to reduce some of our work in response to the slowing and stopping of grants and to adjust to an evolving legal landscape,” JHU president Ronald Daniels wrote in a letter to campus, according to The Baltimore Banner. “There are difficult moments before us, with impacts to budgets, personnel, and programs. Some will take time to fully understand and address; others will happen more quickly.”

    Such drastic cuts to Johns Hopkins—the nation’s largest spender on research and development and the biggest private employer in Baltimore—will reverberate far beyond the campus itself.

    “Johns Hopkins has bet very heavily on a century and a quarter of partnership with the federal government,” Theodore Iwashyna, a JHU critical care physician who is currently overseeing an NIH grant studying at-home care for pneumonia patients, told the Journal. “If the federal government decides it doesn’t want to know things anymore, that would be bad for Johns Hopkins and devastating for Maryland.”

    Source link