Tag: Education

  • Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    by CUPA-HR | March 3, 2025

    On March 1, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a Frequently Asked Questions  document providing further guidance on OCR’s February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague” letter.

    The February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    The “Dear Colleague” letter outlines OCR’s enforcement position with respect to the legal requirements “under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities,” in light of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA). The letter states SFFA “clarified that the use of racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful, sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race by state actors and entities covered by Title VI.” OCR declares in the letter that, in accordance with SFFA, federal law “prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” The letter states that OCR will “take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date,” which was February 28. OCR also notes in the letter that institutions that fail to comply “face potential loss of federal funding.”

    CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and dozens of other higher education associations in a February 25, 2025, letter to OCR noting  that the language in the “Dear Colleague” letter is ambiguous and, as a result, campuses are confused about their compliance responsibilities. CUPA-HR, ACE and the other associations requested in the letter that the department rescind the “Dear Colleague” letter and “engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of their legal obligations in this area.”

    The FAQ

    The March 1, 2025, FAQ provides details on how to file a discrimination complaint, the department’s view on what type of activity is unlawful and the department’s approach to enforcement.

    Enforcement

    With respect to the department’s approach to enforcement, the FAQ states that if OCR “determines that a school failed to comply with the civil rights laws that it enforces, [it] will contact the school and will attempt to secure its willingness to negotiate a voluntary resolution agreement.” The FAQ then states that “if a school is unwilling to negotiate a resolution agreement, OCR will inform the school of the consequences, which may result in OCR initiating enforcement through administrative proceedings or referring the case to the Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.”

    Unlawful Activity

    OCR notes in the FAQ that OCR’s assessment of whether an institution’s policies and programs are lawful “depends on the facts and circumstances of each case,” but provides more details on specific activities that do or may violate the law. The FAQ notes that it regards the following activities as unlawful:

    • preferences and stereotypes as a factor in admissions, hiring, promotion, scholarship, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and other programs and activities;
    • any programming, graduation ceremonies, housing, or any other aspect of school life that allows one race but not another or otherwise separates students, faculty, or staff based on race; and
    • policies that appear neutral on their face but are made with racially discriminatory purpose.

    With respect to the last bullet, OCR states in determining “whether a school acted with a racially discriminatory purpose, [it] may analyze different types of circumstantial evidence that, taken together, raise an inference of discriminatory intent.” OCR provides the following “non-exhaustive list,” which may include:

    • whether members of a particular race were treated differently than similarly situated students of other races;
    • the historical background or administrative history of the policy or decision;
    • whether there was a departure from normal procedures in making the policy or decision;
    • whether there was a pattern regarding policies or decisions towards members of a particular race;
    • statistics demonstrating a pattern of the policy or decision having a greater impact on members of a particular race;
    • whether the school was aware of or could foresee the effect of the policy or decision on members of a particular race; and
    • the school’s history and stated policy of using racial classifications and race-based policies to further DEI objectives, “equity,” a racially oriented vision of social justice, or similar goals.

    The FAQ also describes activities that could be unlawful. Specifically, the FAQ notes that “extreme practices at a university — such as requiring students to participate in privilege walks, segregating them by race for presentations and discussions with guest speakers, pressuring them to participate in protests or take certain positions on racially charged issues, investigating or sanctioning them for dissenting on racially charged issues through DEI or similar university offices, mandating courses, orientation programs, or trainings that are designed to emphasize and focus on racial stereotypes, and assigning them coursework that requires them to identify by race and then complete tasks differentiated by race — are all forms of school-on-student harassment that could create a hostile environment under Title VI.”

    DEI?

    The FAQ notes, “whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” but rather whether it discriminates “based on race, color, or national origin.” The FAQ notes that institutions “may not operate policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races,” or programming that “discourages members of all races from attending, either by excluding or discouraging students of a particular race or races.”

    The FAQ also notes, however, that “programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race.” OCR also states that “educational, cultural, or historical observances — such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events — that celebrate or recognize historical events and contributions, and promote awareness,” are lawful “so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination.”

    Next Steps

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor and keep members apprised of any further developments.



    Source link

  • Income-driven repayment applications on hold for three months

    Income-driven repayment applications on hold for three months

    Student loan borrowers won’t be able to apply for income-driven repayment plans for at least three months, The Washington Post reported.

    The Post obtained a memo sent last week from the Department of Education to student loan servicers directing them to stop processing all income-driven repayment and consolidation applications until at least May. The memo offers more clarity on how the department plans to proceed after a federal appeals court blocked the department from implementing a new income-driven repayment option for borrowers put in place by the Biden administration. That injunction also implicated parts of other income-driven repayment plans.

    Up until this point, all that student aid experts knew was that the department had disabled new online applications. Now, they know that all existing applications have also been included in the freeze.

    The application freeze is a problem for some borrowers who rely on income-driven repayment plans for more affordable payments and to avoid default. Under the plans, borrowers’ monthly payments are based on their disposable income and other factors, and after 20 to 25 years of payment, the remaining balance would be forgiven. But now, millions of borrowers no longer have access to IDR and are left with only the most expensive loan repayment options.   

    Scott Buchanan, executive director of the Student Loan Servicing Alliance, a trade group for loan servicers, told the Post that “there is a lot to clean up.”

    “We will be working for [the Office of Federal Student Aid] to implement that transition once courts clear things up and bring some finality so borrowers can have certainty and confidence in their options now and in the future,” Buchanan said.

    The Education Department has said the pause is necessary under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruling, but paper applications for loan consolidation will be allowed. 

    “A federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing the U.S. Department of Education from implementing the SAVE Plan and parts of other income-driven repayment (IDR) plans,” a department spokesperson said. So “The department is reviewing repayment applications to conform with the Eighth Circuit’s ruling.” 

    But legal experts on federal loans have told Inside Higher Ed taking down the applications entirely is not necessary. As the department noted in its statement, the injunction only declares “parts” of the IDR plans—such as the end-of-program loan forgiveness—illegal. It does not ban the use of lessened monthly payments.

    Source link

  • One-day event creates institutional goals for student success

    One-day event creates institutional goals for student success

    Across higher education, identifying stakeholders who are engaging in similar initiatives or working toward mutual student success goals can be a challenge, and this is true at the institutional level as well.

    In a 2024 survey of student success professionals conducted by Inside Higher Ed and Hanover, over half (59 percent) of respondents said they believe their institution is very or extremely effective at making student success an institutional priority.

    Two administrators at DePaul University in Chicago created a one-day event on campus to unite practitioners and leaders who care about student success to identify common goals and challenges.

    “It’s so necessary … to think about the gathering of individuals, because it really elevates what was most important for us, which is student success being everyone’s job,” says Ashley Williams, director of student success initiatives.

    Gathering together: The inaugural summit took place Dec. 3, 2024, with 350 staff, faculty members and administrators participating. The event featured outside experts, such as Monica Hall-Porter from the University of Texas at Austin as the keynote speaker, and the university president and provost addressed institutional goals for student success and closing achievement gaps.

    The goals for the summit, as outlined by organizers, included defining student success, determining how success is measured, fostering a coordinated culture for student success, charting a road map for enhancing student success and creating awareness of technology, systems and data relevant to student success, as well as sharing of best practices in place at the institution.

    The summit was titled Charting Student Success From Orientation Through Graduation, to reflect the student life cycle and how each practitioner contributes to student success. DePaul, as a Catholic institution, also frames student success through St. Vincent DePaul’s mission.

    Organizers were intentional about selecting individuals from various areas and disciplines across the university to drive creative and diverse conversations, says Michael Roberts, senior assistant dean for student success.

    DePaul’s summit united diverse professionals from a variety of areas and disciplines on campus.

    “I think folks can get … tunnel vision in trying to solve their problems and [trying] to cultivate expertise within their immediate or closest community,” Williams says. “We know there’s a lot of knowledge and strengths that exist across in the institution and in places you may not necessarily [be] thinking about in your day-to-day.”

    Unsiloing the institution and breaking organizational barriers allows for sharing resources, strengths, ideas and innovation through collaboration, Williams says.

    Putting it together: When creating the summit, Roberts and Williams prioritized institutional buy-in and ensuring their work was collaborative and not in competition with the work of others who engaged in student success spaces.

    The organizers engaged with others who were leaders in student success to contribute to planning and guide decision-making to ensure the event could execute goals in the ways they intended, Williams says.

    Partnerships also included identifying internal and external groups that could contribute resources and serve as sponsors to finance and run the event.

    One facet that was important to Roberts was not having the summit be a pep rally to gather enthusiasm, but something that could apply to faculty or staff members’ work directly. “Like, ‘this event is going to matter to me, and I’m going to be able to take something away from this and actually make use of it,’” he says.

    Looking ahead: The inaugural summit had a goal of 50 attendees, so reaching over 300 was a happy surprise, Roberts says. Attendees were a mix of faculty and staff, and feedback was overwhelmingly positive, Williams shares.

    Anecdotally, organizers heard that having a space to discuss topics and be exposed to other work happening across campus was valuable to attendees, as was building community with peers.

    “People felt informed; they walked away enlightened and kind of motivated, inspired to think about how they could lead, how they could pivot some of their work to better fit within a standard model of student success,” Williams says.

    In the future, organizers are looking to implement more programming that allows practitioners to participate in hands-on activities that allow them to engage in work directly.

    What’s being done at your institution to ensure administrators and practitioners in various areas are aware of and using data relevant to student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Penn State blocks embattled trustee from re-election

    Penn State blocks embattled trustee from re-election

    Embattled Pennsylvania State University trustee Barry Fenchak’s time on the board may be nearing an end: A subcommittee voted Wednesday that he was “unqualified and ineligible” to run again.

    Fenchak is one of nine trustees on the 36-member board who are elected by alumni. His term is set to expire at the end of June. But Fenchak—who is already locked in litigation with Penn State over what he considers its lack of fiscal transparency—plans to fight the decision.

    “This is completely in line with Penn State’s long-standing pattern with regard to trying to maintain their secrecy, and myself and our legal team will be evaluating these recent actions by Penn State and taking the appropriate actions in the court,” Fenchak told Inside Higher Ed.

    The outspoken trustee has been at the center of controversy for nearly a year as he has sought to obtain more details on the university’s rising endowment management fees, even filing a lawsuit for that information. Penn State initially refused to provide the financial details that Fenchak, an investment adviser, said he needed to perform his fiduciary duties; he argued that endowment management fees inexplicably climbed from 0.62 percent in 2013–14 to 2.49 percent by 2018–19. Eventually, as a result of his litigation, he was able to obtain the requested documents, he told Inside Higher Ed.

    His lawsuit is one of two brought against the university last year by trustees alleging a lack of transparency by the board. A local media outlet has also sued for alleged violations of open meetings laws.

    Efforts to Remove Fenchak

    Fellow trustees previously tried to boot Fenchak from the board last fall after he made a crude joke to a female staff member. Paraphrasing the PG-rated Tom Hanks movie A League of Their Own, Fenchak—who is bald and had just received a Penn State baseball cap as a gift at a university event—joked that it made him look like “a penis with a hat on,” according to court records.

    Fenchak’s remark prompted the board to call a meeting in October in an effort to remove him. However, a judge intervened, halting the board’s attempt to oust Fenchak.

    In his opinion granting the preliminary injunction, Centre County Court Judge Brian J. Marshall wrote that while he “is not suggesting that plaintiff should not be sanctioned,” the court had been “presented with credible and, in many instances uncontroverted, evidence that Plaintiff has been subject to ongoing retaliation by Defendants.”

    The judge also noted that Fenchak had sued Penn State just three days before the remark that the board used as justification for his removal.

    Now, months later, the board landed on a new tactic to remove Fenchak: The nine-member nominating subcommittee voted 8 to 1 last week to bar him from running for re-election.

    Daniel Delligatti, vice chair of the subcommittee, argued that Fenchak had been warned multiple times about “inappropriate behavior” and that he failed to live up to the board’s code of conduct.

    Fenchak’s attempt at humor made staff members feel uncomfortable, Delligatti said, and his candidacy for a second term was not in “alignment with Penn State’s mission and values.”

    Trustee Jay Paterno was the sole dissenting vote. He argued that “the process” as he understood it was “outside the scope of our review.”

    Fenchak attended the virtual meeting but was denied an opportunity to speak on his own behalf.

    Deliberations on blocking Fenchak from running for re-election were largely confined to a closed executive session meeting of the nominating subcommittee, which preceded the deciding vote.

    A Legal Fight

    Though a judge halted Penn State’s initial efforts to remove Fenchak, the board and the university’s legal team are again trying to oust him. The same day that the nominating subcommittee shot down Fenchak’s re-election bid, the university filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction that allowed Fenchak to remain on the board as his lawsuit proceeded.

    Fenchak alleges the motion was filed mere minutes after the subcommittee’s decision, which would prevent him from finishing his current term as well as serving another one.

    Penn State officials did not provide a comment on the situation.

    In response to a request for an interview with trustees, Shannon Harvey, assistant vice president and secretary for the board, referred Inside Higher Ed to a video of the subcommittee’s virtual meeting.

    As of publication, Fenchak had not filed a legal response. But he noted one is coming. Beyond the impact on him personally, he also has broader concerns about the board’s process to bar trustees from re-election, which was adopted over the last year as he pressured the university to release financial documents.

    “Forget about my specific situation. This process disenfranchises and essentially steals the vote from our alumni,” Fenchak said. “That’s a right our alumni have had for 150 years, and now we are telling those alumni who they can and who they cannot vote for to represent them on the board. Frankly, that’s unconscionable. As a Penn Stater, it’s heartbreaking.”

    Changes to the way alumni trustees are elected have also caught the attention of state lawmakers.

    At a Feb. 20 Pennsylvania House Appropriations Committee hearing, Republican representative Marla Brown questioned Penn State president Neeli Bendapudi about the change. Brown said she had fielded complaints from constituents and seemed skeptical about the new processes.

    “I can tell you that people are not happy about it, and the optics on it are not good. As I’m sure you’re aware, it looks like a conflict of interest that the board is mainly concerned with picking and choosing the muscle in which the candidates will be serving on the board,” Brown said.

    Asked why Penn State made the change, Bendapudi noted it was a board decision.

    “Did you support the change?” Brown asked.

    “I report to them and I have no say in it one way or the other,” Bendapudi answered.

    Source link

  • Five strategies for improving campus career centers (opinion)

    Five strategies for improving campus career centers (opinion)

    For decades, work-life balance has been seen as the gold standard of career success. The idea suggests that professionals should allocate time and energy evenly between work and personal life, ensuring equilibrium between competing responsibilities. But in reality, balance is often an illusion—an unattainable tightrope walk that leaves individuals feeling guilty, unfulfilled and stretched too thin.

    The workforce of today—and especially the workforce of tomorrow—no longer aspires to a segmented life. Instead, workers seek career and life integration, a holistic approach where career, personal growth and well-being are deeply interconnected. Unlike the concept of work-life balance, which implies a constant trade-off, career and life integration builds synergy between personal and professional aspirations.

    Workday’s Global Workforce Report found that employees who perceive their work as meaningful feel 37 percent more accomplished than those who don’t, even when facing workloads they describe as “challenging.” An Inside Higher Ed Career Advice piece written by a University of Michigan administrator explored the importance of integrating values into the career exploration process. Additionally, research highlighted in the Journal of Personality indicates that young adults’ personal values significantly influence their career-related preferences, suggesting a strong desire for roles that reflect their core values. ​

    If higher ed institutions continue to treat career development as separate from personal well-being, they will fail to meet the evolving needs of students and professionals alike. Career centers must evolve into career and life design labs—hubs of lifelong guidance, personal development and future readiness. This piece outlines five strategic imperatives that institutions must embrace to lead this transformation.

    1. Moving from work-life balance to career and life integration.

    The traditional work-life balance model assumes a strict separation between career and personal life, often emphasizing boundaries rather than synergy. The statistics tell a compelling story:

    • A Deloitte study found that 66 percent of employees report feeling chronically overworked or burned out despite efforts to maintain work-life balance.
    • Research from Gallup indicates that 76 percent of millennials believe a successful career should seamlessly integrate with personal fulfillment rather than be kept separate.
    • A recent Moodle study indicates that job burnout has reached an all-time high of 66 percent in 2025. ​

    Campus career services leaders must reframe their approach. Students need tools to design careers that complement their life aspirations rather than forcing them to choose between professional success and personal fulfillment.

    Most students and alumni struggle with clarity—they pursue careers based on external pressures rather than intrinsic motivations. Career centers must facilitate career and life vision workshops to help individuals align their inner purpose with external opportunities. By integrating career and life design principles into career services, institutions empower students to prototype different pathways, develop adaptability and connect their academic and professional lives with personal meaning.

    By using a reflective, experiential approach, students learn that career development is not a rigid ladder but a fluid, evolving process.

    1. Integrating emotional agility into career coaching.

    One of the greatest barriers to success is not external—it’s internal. It is not a lack of skills. It is a lack of confidence, clarity and emotional agility. Many students enter the workforce grappling with impostor syndrome, career anxiety and fear of failure. A research study titled “The Impostor Phenomenon,” published in the International Journal of Behavioral Science, shows that over 70 percent of people experience impostor syndrome at some point in their lives.

    Institutions must integrate emotional intelligence training into their strategic plans. Students need to learn how to navigate career uncertainty with resilience rather than fear. Instead of merely offering job search strategies, career coaches should incorporate cognitive reframing techniques to help students shift from self-doubt to empowerment. This involves helping students recognize negative thought patterns and replace them with action-oriented mindsets.

    For instance, instead of viewing rejection as a failure, students should be encouraged to see it as an iteration in the career and life design process. Career setbacks, industry changes and professional pivots are inevitable.

    Practical steps for career centers:

    • Train career coaches in cognitive-behavioral coaching techniques to help students recognize and reframe self-limiting narratives.
    • Integrate self-awareness exercises that help students identify core fears (of failure, rejection or inadequacy) and develop action plans to overcome them with emotional strength.
    • Provide group coaching sessions focused on overcoming impostor syndrome, building confidence and developing a growth mindset.
    • Use AI-driven career reflection tools to help students track their confidence growth over time.
    • Incorporate mindfulness practices and journaling into safe spaces and welcoming career and life design studios to help students reframe failure as part of their evolving unique narrative.

    Emotional agility is a core component of career development. Success today isn’t about having the perfect career path—it’s about navigating uncertainty with emotional agility. Career services must equip students with resilience and adaptability to thrive in ever-changing industries.

    1. Merging personal, career and professional development.

    Career and life design should be deeply personal, shaped by self-awareness, curiosity and personal reflection. We mention “personal” first, because we begin with the person.

    Career services has historically focused on résumé reviews, job placement and networking strategies—important elements, but not enough for long-term success. A 2023 report by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that students who integrate personal development with career planning—through leadership training, mentorship and values-based exploration—are significantly more career-ready upon graduation. Rather than pushing students toward the highest-paying or most prestigious jobs, career centers should help them define success on their own terms.

    Practical steps for career centers:

    • Develop integrated mentorship networks that connect students with professionals who exemplify career and life integration.
    • Help students build personalized business plans that help them take ownership of the story they are both writing and telling.
    • Leverage design thinking principles, encouraging students to experiment with career pathways that embrace uncertainty, adaptability and iterative learning rather than rigid, predetermined plans.

    AI can assist in career trajectory mapping, skills assessment and predictive job market insights, while human coaches focus on deep coaching, the power of stories and career and life integration strategies.

    1. Considering AI-powered hyperpersonalized career coaching.

    While traditional career advising has relied heavily on in-person interactions, the next evolution of career services will be AI-empowered, data-informed and hyperpersonalized. AI-driven career exploration tools can analyze a student’s experiences to offer real-time, customized career insights. AI agents such as the 24-7 virtual Career and Life Design Lab provide personalized career simulations, self-actualization exercises and self-realization insights to help individuals align their career paths with their purpose.

    This mindset shift in career services will blend AI and human coaching. AI can assist in career trajectory mapping, skills assessment and predictive job market insights, while human coaches focus on deep coaching, the power of stories and career and life integration strategies. This synergy allows for scalable yet deeply personalized career services.

    Practical steps for career centers:

    • Integrate AI-driven solutions and experiential learning methodologies.
    • Introduce future-self mapping, where students interview their future selves and map out short- and long-term goals.
    • Use reverse-engineering techniques, working backward from the desired impact to identify the necessary skills, experiences and trajectories.
    • Implement AI-powered career simulations, allowing students to test and refine career decisions in a risk-free environment that tackles limiting beliefs and impostor syndrome.
    1. Scaling lifelong learning beyond graduation.

    The future of work demands continuous upskilling, reskilling and career agility. Institutions must create a culture of lifelong learning, where students and alumni receive ongoing support throughout their careers. Career services must expand their scope to lifelong learning and helping students and alumni develop not résumés, but portfolios of experiences.

    Practical steps for career centers:

    • Create career and life integration circles, where alumni engage in peer coaching, mentorship and accountability partnerships.
    • Offer subscription-based career services, ensuring alumni have access to coaching, upskilling and career reinvention programs throughout their professional lives.
    • Establish annual career and life re-evaluation workshops, helping alumni recalibrate their career and life vision.

    Conclusion: The New Paradigm

    The future of work is not about balance. It is about integration. By embedding the career and life design theoretical framework into institutional frameworks, universities can better equip students for a rapidly changing world. Colleges and universities that fail to adapt will be left behind, while those that embrace career and life design—leveraging both AI and a holistic approach to personal, career and professional development—will supercharge their teams with scale and empower students to craft lives of purpose, adaptability and lasting impact.

    The question is no longer whether career centers should evolve—it is whether they can afford not to.

    Does your career center offer group coaching sessions focused on confidence building, growth mindset or related topics? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • VMI board rejects extension for superintendent

    VMI board rejects extension for superintendent

    Virginia Military Institute’s Board of Visitors voted 10 to 6 on Friday against a contract extension for Major General Cedric Wins, a VMI graduate and the first Black leader in the college’s history.

    All 10 votes against the extension came from members appointed by Republican governor Glenn Youngkin, though four Youngkin appointees voted to renew the contract, joining two holdovers named to the board by Democratic governors, The Richmond-Times Dispatch reported.

    Wins’s contract expires June 30.

    The vote will end a contentious tenure for Wins, who joined VMI in 2021. He replaced General J. H. Binford Peay III, who led the college from 2003 to 2020, when he stepped down after an investigation determined systemic racism and sexism went unchecked under his watch.

    (Peay was awarded VMI’s highest honor in 2022 despite those findings.)

    Wins’s tenure at VMI, where he was tasked with righting the ship amid the fallout from the investigation, has been marked by controversy. He has faced off with alumni, whom he accused of spreading mistruths about VMI’s curricular offerings; clashed with student journalists over alumni involvement in the campus newspaper; and faced accusations that he went too far with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at VMI, which didn’t accept Black students until 1968 and women until 1997.

    Alumni have called for his firing and complained about his bonuses in recent years.

    Source link

  • Why California Still Doesn’t Mandate Dyslexia Screening – The 74

    Why California Still Doesn’t Mandate Dyslexia Screening – The 74


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

    California sends mixed messages when it comes to serving dyslexic students.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the most famous dyslexic political official in the country, even authoring a children’s book to raise awareness about the learning disability. And yet, California is one of 10 states that doesn’t require dyslexia screening for all children. 

    Education experts agree that early screening and intervention is critical for making sure students can read at grade level. But so far, state officials have done almost everything to combat dyslexia except mandate assessments for all students.

    “It needs to happen,” said Lillian Duran, an education professor at the University of Oregon who has helped develop screening tools for dyslexia. “It seems so basic to me.”

    Since 2015, legislators have funded dyslexia research, teacher training and the hiring of literacy coaches across California. But lawmakers failed to mandate universal dyslexia screening, running smack into opposition from the California Teachers Association.

    The union argued that since teachers would do the screening, a universal mandate would take time away from the classroom. It also said universal screening may overly identify English learners, mistakenly placing them in special education. 

    The California Teachers Association did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In a letter of opposition to a bill in 2021, the union wrote that the bill “is unnecessary, leads to over identifying dyslexia in young students, mandates more testing, and jeopardizes the limited instructional time for students.”

    In response, dyslexia experts double down on well-established research. Early detection actually prevents English learners — and really, all students — from ending up in special education when they don’t belong there.  

    While California lawmakers didn’t vote to buck the teachers union, they haven’t been afraid to spend taxpayer money on dyslexia screening. In the past two years, the state budget allocated $30 million to UC San Francisco’s Dyslexia Center, largely for the development of a new screening tool. Newsom began championing the center and served as its honorary chair in 2016 when he was still lieutenant governor. 

    “There’s an inadequate involvement of the health system in the way we support children with learning disabilities,” said Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini, co-director of UCSF’s Dyslexia Center. “This is one of the first attempts at bridging science and education in a way that’s open sourced and open to all fields.”

    Parents and advocates say funding dyslexia research and developing a new screener can all be good things, but without mandated universal screening more students will fall through the cracks and need more help with reading as they get older.

    Omar Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the governor did not respond to questions about whether Newsom would support a mandate for universal screening. Instead, he listed more than $300 million in state investments made in the past two years to fund more reading coaches, new teacher credentialing requirements and teacher training.

    The screening struggle

    Rachel Levy, a Bay Area parent, fought for three years to get her son Dominic screened for dyslexia. He finally got the screening in third grade, which experts say could be too late to prevent long-term struggles with reading. 

    “We know how to screen students. We know how to get early intervention,” Levy said. “This to me is a solvable issue.”

    Levy’s son Dominic, 16, still remembers what it felt like trying to read in first grade.

    “It was like I was trying to memorize the shape of the word,” he said. “Even if I could read all the words, I just wouldn’t understand them.”

    Dyslexia is a neurological condition that can make it hard for students to read and process information. But teachers can mitigate and even prevent the illiteracy stemming from dyslexia if they catch the signs early.

    Levy, who also has dyslexia, said there’s much more research today on dyslexia than there was 30 years ago when she was first diagnosed. She said she was disappointed to find that California’s policies don’t align with the research around early screening.

    “Unfortunately, most kids who are dyslexic end up in the special education system,” Levy said. “It’s because of a lack of screening.”

    Soon after his screening in third grade, Dominic started receiving extra help for his dyslexia. He still works with an educational therapist on his reading, and he’s just about caught up to grade level in math. The biggest misconception about dyslexia, Dominic said, is that it makes you less intelligent or capable.

    “Dyslexics are just as smart as other people,” he said. “They just learn in different ways.”

    The first step to helping them learn is screening them in kindergarten or first grade.

    “The goal is to find risk factors early,” said Elsa Cárdenas-Hagan, a speech-language pathologist and a professor at the University of Houston. “When you find them, the data you collect can really inform instruction.”

    Cárdenas-Hagan’s home state of Texas passed a law in 1995 requiring universal screening. But she said it took several more years for teachers to be trained to use the tool. Her word of caution to California: Make sure teachers are not only comfortable with the tool but know how to use the results of the assessment to shape the way they teach individual students.

    A homegrown screener

    UC San Francisco’s screener, called Multitudes, will be available in English, Spanish and Mandarin. It’ll be free for all school districts. 

    Multitudes won’t be released to all districts at once. UCSF scientists launched a pilot at a dozen school districts last year, and they plan to expand to more districts this fall. 

    But experts and advocates say there’s no need to wait for it to mandate universal screenings. Educators can use a variety of already available screening tools in California, like they do in 40 other states. Texas and other states that have high percentages of English learners have Spanish screeners for dyslexia.

    For English learners, the need for screening is especially urgent. Maria Ortiz is a Los Angeles parent of a dyslexic teenager who was also an English learner. She said she had to sue the Los Angeles Unified School District twice: once in 2016 to get extra help for her dyslexic daughter when she was in fourth grade and again in 2018 when those services were taken away. Ortiz said the district stopped giving her daughter additional help because her reading started improving.

    “In the beginning they told me that my daughter was exaggerating,” Ortiz said.

     “They said everything would be normal later.”

    California currently serves about 1.1 million English learners, just under a fifth of all public school students. For English learners, dyslexia can be confused with a lack of English proficiency. Opponents of universal screening, including the teachers association, argue that English learners will be misidentified as dyslexic simply because they can’t understand the language. 

    “Even the specialists were afraid that the problem might be because of the language barrier,” Ortiz said about her daughter’s case.

    But experts say dyslexia presents a double threat to English learners: It stalls them from reading in their native language and impedes their ability to learn English. And while there are some Spanish-language screeners, experts from Texas and California say there’s room for improvement. Current Spanish screeners penalize students who mix Spanish and English, they say. 

    Duran, who helped develop the Spanish version of Multitudes, said the new screener will be a better fit for how young bilingual students actually talk. 

    “Spanglish becomes its own communication that’s just as legitimate as Spanish on its own or English on its own,” Duran said. “It’s about the totality of languages a child might bring.”

    Providing Multitudes free of cost is important to schools with large numbers of low-income students. Dyslexia screeners cost about $10 per student, so $30 million might actually be cost-effective considering California currently serves 1.3 million students in kindergarten through second grade. The tool could pay for itself in a few years. Although there are plenty of screeners already available, they can stretch the budgets of high-poverty schools and districts.

    “The least funded schools can’t access them because of the cost,” Duran said.

    In addition to the governor, another powerful state lawmaker, Glendale Democratic state Sen. Anthony Portantino, is dyslexic. While chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he has repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, authored legislation to require public schools to screen all students between kindergarten and second grade. 

    Portantino’s 2021 bill received unanimous support in the Senate Education and Appropriations committees, but the bill died in the Assembly Education Committee. Portantino authored the same bill in 2020, but it never made it out of the state Senate.

    “We should be leading the nation and not lagging behind,” Portantino said. 

    Portantino blamed the failure of his most recent bill on former Democratic Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell, who chaired the Assembly Education Committee, for refusing to hear the bill. 

    “It’s no secret, Patrick O’Donnell was against teacher training,” Portantino said. “He thought our school districts and our educators didn’t have the capacity.”

    O’Donnell did not respond to requests for comment. Since O’Donnell didn’t schedule a hearing on the bill, there is no record of him commenting about it at the time.

    Portantino plans to author a nearly identical bill this year. He said he’s more hopeful because the Assembly Education Committee is now under the leadership of Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Democrat from Torrance. Muratsuchi would not comment on the potential fate of a dyslexia screening bill this year.

    Levy now works as a professional advocate for parents of students with disabilities. She said without mandatory dyslexia screening, only parents who can afford to hire someone like her will be able to get the services they need for their children.

    “A lot of high school kids are reading below third-grade level,” she said. “To me, that’s just heartbreaking.”

    This was originally published on CalMatters.


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

    Source link

  • Senate Advances Bill to Ban Corporal Punishment on Disabled Oklahoma Students – The 74

    Senate Advances Bill to Ban Corporal Punishment on Disabled Oklahoma Students – The 74


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

    OKLAHOMA CITY – A bill that would ban schools from using corporal punishment on students with disabilities passed the Senate on Tuesday despite concerns it removes local control and could go against parental wishes.

    The state Department of Education has already prohibited the practice, but Senate Bill 364 seeks to codify into state law a ban against deliberately causing pain by using physical discipline on students with federally protected disabilities.

    “I have never, ever, ever met a parent of a disabled child call for the beating of their child to make them better,” said Sen. Dave Rader, R-Tulsa, the author.

    Rader said some of the protected disabilities include deafness, emotional disturbance, intellectual disability, visual impairment or an orthopedic injury.

    It defines corporal punishment as the deliberate infliction of pain by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical force used as a means of discipline.

    Rader said corporal punishment could not be used by a school even if a parent agreed to it.

    “Perhaps the parent of the child, in most cases, knows best what that child is going to respond to and how the child is going to perform his or her duties in the classroom,” said Sen. Warren Hamilton, R-McCurtain, who voted against the bill.

    A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1977 allows corporal punishment usage in schools, but leaves it to states to set their own rules.

    Traditionally, Oklahoma lawmakers have left those decisions to local districts, but the state Department of Education quietly barred the practice on children with disabilities starting in the 2020-21 school year. A 2017 law also prohibits the practice on children with the most “significant cognitive disabilities.”

    During the 2017-18 school year, over 20% of  corporal punishments in Oklahoma schools were administered on disabled children, according to federal statistics.

    Other forms of discipline are available, Rader said. The bill does not prohibit parents from using corporal punishment, Rader said.

    Previous efforts to ban the practice have proven controversial. A similar effort last year cleared the state Senate, but died in the House.

    Sen. Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, said Tuesday that banning the practice in schools amounts to “a top down socialist aligned ideological, unilateral divorce between parents’ ability to collaborate with their local schools to establish a disciplined regimen.”

    He also said it “is a violation of scripture,” and cited Proverbs 22:15 which he said says “folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.”

    “There are going to be times when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we won’t have to fear evil because your rod and your staff comfort me,” Rader responded.

    Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, said there could be negative consequences to removing a partnership between parents and local administrators and forcing the removal of a historically necessary and important disciplinary tool for order.

    “This is not a blanket ban,” Rader said.

    The vote was 31-16.

    The measure moves to the House for possible consideration.

    Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions: [email protected].


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

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer Approaches Half Million Views

    Higher Education Inquirer Approaches Half Million Views


     

    Source link

  • It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    Dr. Detris AdelabuOn the day of his death in 2020, an op-ed appeared in the New York Times, pre-written by Congressman John Lewis, urging Americans to stand up for justice and what he called “good trouble, necessary trouble.  Even in his death, Congressman Lewis fought for a more equitable America, where every individual recognizes their moral obligation to persist in the struggle for a more just nation.

    The recent Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions policies, followed by anti-equity legislation across more than 40 states and at the highest level of government, erodes decades of collective efforts to rectify a history of gross social and structural inequities. In higher education, these legislative attacks have led to a decline in Black and Latino student enrollment at selective colleges and universities and have prompted institutions to abandon their commitment to equity.  Universities such as Harvard, Rutgers, Northeastern, the University of Texas, and Louisiana State University are scrubbing their website of all references to diversity, equity, and inclusion, shuttering DEI offices and laying off staff, and scrutinizing the curriculum for any references to DEI.  If ever there was a time for “good trouble” in higher education, that time is now.  But can higher education leadership muster the political will to stand firm for equity?

    Institutional Responsibility and Moral Leadership

    Legislative setbacks to equity beckon colleges and universities to take bold and creative strategies to reaffirm their commitment to equitable access to resources and opportunities in education. Institutions can, for example, place greater emphasis on partnering with under-resourced high schools and expand outreach to marginalized communities to signal their commitment to equity. While such measures are imperfect, they signal a refusal to yield to a regressive interpretation of equity and justice.

    Higher education institutions can leverage their platforms to articulate their mission and commitment to equity beyond their campuses by working together to:

    1. Form Multi-Institutional Alliances to Challenge Anti-DEI Legislation: Colleges and universities can form alliances on a national scale to amplify their collective advocacy against policies that restrict access to resources and opportunities. Sharing strategies and best practices can strengthen collective efforts to promote equity. Dr. Felicity CrawfordDr. Felicity Crawford
    2. Invest in Community Partnerships: By deepening relationships with K-12 schools, particularly those in strategically under-resourced areas, institutions can create robust pathways for diverse talent. Mentorship programs, financial support, and academic preparation initiatives can help bridge gaps in access and opportunity.
    3. Prioritize Transparency and Accountability: By publishing detailed reports on their equity and diversity metrics, institutions can enhance accountability and demonstrate their progress towards equity.

    Upholding the Educational Mission of Higher Education

    The mission of higher education extends beyond the transmission of knowledge. It encompasses the cultivation of informed, engaged, and socially responsible citizens. Failing to prioritize equity undermines this mission, leaving graduates ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of a global society. Institutions that acquiesce to the erosion of equity risk not only their reputations but also their relevance in a rapidly changing world.

    Resisting harmful laws and policies that oppose equity is not without risks. Institutions may face political backlash, reduced funding, or legal challenges. However, the cost of inaction—both in terms of societal impact and institutional integrity—is far greater. By taking a principled stand, colleges and universities can position themselves on the right side of history, inspiring future generations to do the same. Equity, when implemented with fidelity, fosters diversity.

    The current sociopolitical landscape presents a defining moment for higher education. Gross social and structural inequities will not resolve themselves. Left unattended, they will continue to generate detrimental social and economic consequences for American society, with effects that can span generations. By developing innovative strategies, advocating for systemic change, and upholding their educational missions, institutions can resist attacks on progress and continue to serve as beacons of opportunity and justice. In doing so, they not only honor their moral and societal obligations but also preserve the transformative power of education for generations to come.Dr. Linda Banks-SantilliDr. Linda Banks-Santilli

    This moment calls for moral leadership in higher education that not only resists the immediate consequences of anti-DEI legislation but also envisions a more just and inclusive future. This moment calls for good trouble. To echo the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

    “In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”

    Dr. Detris Honora Adelabu is a Clinical Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Felicity A. Crawford is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Linda Banks-Santilli is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Source link