Tag: gap

Legal defense fund will seek to fill gap left by OCR reduction

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

Education attorneys are set to launch a new organization by fall 2025 that would defend students’ civil rights in court and also track and report civil rights data. The effort, according to its founding nonprofit, aims to fill the gap left by the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education and its civil rights enforcement arm.

The Public Education Defense Fund will be launched by the National Center for Youth Law, which advocates for educational equity among other youth-related issues. It will contract with former Office for Civil Rights attorneys.

“At a time when civil rights protections for students are under unprecedented attack, preserving those rights is not negotiable — it’s vital,” said Johnathan Smith, chief of staff and general counsel at NCYL. “We can’t stand by while the federal government abandons its responsibility to uphold the basic rights of children and young people in this country.”

As part of the administration’s efforts to “end bureaucratic bloat” and send educational control to the states, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon laid off half of the Education Department’s staff as part of what she called the agency’s “final mission.” The move was followed by an executive order from President Donald Trump calling for the department to be shut down to “the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights took a major blow, with the department shuttering seven of the 12 regional offices that were in charge of more than half of the nation’s open civil rights cases. Over 200 OCR employees were laid off as part of the reduction in force.

Under the Biden administration, those employees carried a load of more than 40 cases per person. Attorneys fired as part of the reduction in force were in charge of investigating civil rights complaints related to discrimination and harassment in schools, as well as overseeing resolution agreements with school districts. These agreements guide the school systems involved in making policy changes to improve educational access, especially for historically marginalized students.

Prior to the announcement of the Public Education Defense Fund, NCYL filed a lawsuit against the Education Department in March to challenge the changes at the OCR. The lawsuit said the civil rights enforcement arm “stopped investigating complaints from the public based on race or sex discrimination, it cherry-picked and, on its own initiative, began targeted investigations into purported discrimination against white and cisgender students.”

Source link

May 27, 2025
Bridging the Gap: Active Learning Strategies for Traditional and Online Classrooms – Faculty Focus

There I was, standing in front of my face-to-face Introduction to Psychology class on a sunny Monday afternoon in spring 2024. I was watching as a few of my students took notes while the remaining students sat passively, perhaps hoping my animated gestures and pacing would somehow osmotically transfer my explanation of classical conditioning into their brains. Meanwhile, in my online section of the same course, students worked through carefully crafted modules at their own pace, their participation in discussion boards ebbing and flowing unpredictably. That’s when it hit me—despite years of teaching experience, I’m still searching for ways to spark the same level of engagement whether I’m interacting with students face-to-face or through carefully designed asynchronous activities. These parallel yet distinct teaching environments demand intentional strategies that can adapt while maintaining their power to actively engage students in the learning process.

Rethinking Active Learning for Asynchronous Spaces

Traditional active learning techniques that work beautifully in my face-to-face classes often fall flat in the asynchronous online environment. Take the classic “turn to your neighbor and discuss” prompt that energizes my traditional classes—there’s no direct equivalent when students are logging in at different times throughout the week. Yet simply abandoning these proven engagement strategies isn’t the answer. Instead, we need to reimagine active learning for both spaces, maintaining the core principles while adapting the execution. The key is finding techniques that preserve what makes active learning so powerful—student engagement, peer interaction, and immediate application of concepts—while acknowledging the unique constraints and opportunities of each learning environment.

One of the most powerful techniques in my traditional classroom is the think-pair-share discussion format. Students have those precious moments to gather their thoughts before turning to a classmate to discuss concepts like confirmation bias or the impact of classical conditioning on everyday behavior. The students are energized as pairs merge into small groups, building on each other’s insights before sharing with the whole class. But how do we capture that same collaborative energy in an asynchronous environment?

I’ve found success by structuring online discussions in three distinct phases that mirror the in-person experience. First, students post their initial response to a thought-provoking prompt (the “think” phase). Then, they must meaningfully respond to two classmates’ posts, building on their ideas rather than simply agreeing (the “pair” phase). Finally, students return to their original post and reflect on how their understanding has evolved after engaging with their peers’ perspectives (the “share” phase). The key is crafting prompts that demand critical thinking—instead of asking “What is classical conditioning?” I might ask “How would you use classical conditioning principles to help someone overcome their fear of public speaking?”

Timing matters, too. In my face-to-face class, I allow two to three minutes for individual reflection, five minutes for pair discussions, and 10 minutes for group sharing. Online, I’ve found success with a similar proportional structure: two days for initial posts, three days for peer responses, and two days for final reflections. This creates a rhythm that keeps the discussion moving while accommodating varied schedules.

Designing Collaborative Learning Experiences

Interactive content creation transforms how students engage with course material in both environments. In my traditional classes, I divide students into small groups to create concept maps exploring the relationships between different psychological disorders. Armed with markers and paper, they work collaboratively to connect concepts like anxiety, depression, and trauma responses, discovering links they might have missed studying alone. The energy is palpable as groups share their maps, debating connections and building on each other’s insights.

For my online students, I’ve adapted this activity using collaborative digital tools. Students work in small groups throughout the week to build their concept maps using shared online workspaces. Each student must add at least three concepts and make meaningful connections to their groupmates’ contributions. The asynchronous format actually offers an advantage here – students have time to think deeply about their contributions and can watch their group’s map evolve over several days. I provide specific deadlines for initial contributions and peer feedback to maintain momentum.

I have found that the key to success in either environment lies in providing clear examples of strong concept maps at the outset, establishing specific criteria for meaningful connections, and requiring students to explain their reasoning for each link they create. Deadlines for each phase keep the momentum going, while incorporating peer evaluation into the final grade ensures consistent participation. The resulting maps often reveal insights that surprise both me and my students, demonstrating how collaborative learning can deepen understanding regardless of the teaching modality.

Measuring Engagement and Refining Strategy

One-minute papers serve as powerful self-assessment tools in my traditional classes. For example, at the end of our discussion on memory formation, I ask students to quickly write down the most important concept they learned and one question they still have. This simple exercise reveals gaps in understanding and helps students consolidate their learning. In our next class, I address the most common questions, creating a feedback loop that keeps everyone engaged.

For my online students, I’ve transformed this into structured reflection journals. After completing each module, students must identify their key takeaway and pose one substantive question about the material. The asynchronous format allows for deeper reflection, and I’ve noticed online students often make fascinating connections to their personal experiences. Each week, I compile the most thought-provoking questions into a FAQ document, creating a collaborative resource that benefits the entire class.

Success in both formats require clear guidelines about what constitutes a meaningful reflection versus surface-level observations. Students stating that “the limbic system processes emotions” won’t suffice—they need to explain how this knowledge changes their understanding of human behavior. This approach not only reinforces learning but also develops critical thinking skills that serve students well beyond our course.

Measuring engagement across different learning environments requires that I use a systematic approach. In my traditional classroom, I track participation through observation and collect quick feedback via index cards. For my online students, I monitor not just the frequency but the quality of their discussion posts and collaborative work. The key metrics that I use remain consistent across both spaces: depth of analysis, peer interaction quality, and concept application.

I use a simple framework that examines three elements: initial engagement (participation in discussions or activities), sustained interaction (meaningful responses to peers), and learning application (connecting concepts to real-world scenarios). For each component, I look for evidence of critical thinking rather than mere completion. This approach helps identify which strategies are working and which need adjustment.

Beyond quantitative measures, I pay attention to qualitative indicators like the sophistication of student questions and the complexity of peer-to-peer discussions. These insights guide my refinement of teaching strategies in both environments, ensuring that active learning remains effective regardless of delivery method.

As the spring semester progressed, I saw the impact of the adapted strategies in both my traditional and online psychology classes. Those initially passive students in my traditional class began to engage in our active learning exercises, while my online students built an active learning community through their thoughtful asynchronous interactions. In my experience, the key isn’t choosing between traditional and online teaching methods—it’s understanding how to preserve active learning while adapting strategies to fit each unique environment. By reimagining rather than simply transplanting these strategies, we can create engaging learning experiences that work effectively across both spaces.

Dr. Dunja “Dee” Trunk, a professor of psychology at Bloomfield College of Montclair State University, has a passion for teaching and a genuine belief in the transformative power of education.

Source link

May 5, 2025
Bridging the Gap: Active Learning Strategies for Traditional and Online Classrooms – Faculty Focus

There I was, standing in front of my face-to-face Introduction to Psychology class on a sunny Monday afternoon in spring 2024. I was watching as a few of my students took notes while the remaining students sat passively, perhaps hoping my animated gestures and pacing would somehow osmotically transfer my explanation of classical conditioning into their brains. Meanwhile, in my online section of the same course, students worked through carefully crafted modules at their own pace, their participation in discussion boards ebbing and flowing unpredictably. That’s when it hit me—despite years of teaching experience, I’m still searching for ways to spark the same level of engagement whether I’m interacting with students face-to-face or through carefully designed asynchronous activities. These parallel yet distinct teaching environments demand intentional strategies that can adapt while maintaining their power to actively engage students in the learning process.

Rethinking Active Learning for Asynchronous Spaces

Traditional active learning techniques that work beautifully in my face-to-face classes often fall flat in the asynchronous online environment. Take the classic “turn to your neighbor and discuss” prompt that energizes my traditional classes—there’s no direct equivalent when students are logging in at different times throughout the week. Yet simply abandoning these proven engagement strategies isn’t the answer. Instead, we need to reimagine active learning for both spaces, maintaining the core principles while adapting the execution. The key is finding techniques that preserve what makes active learning so powerful—student engagement, peer interaction, and immediate application of concepts—while acknowledging the unique constraints and opportunities of each learning environment.

One of the most powerful techniques in my traditional classroom is the think-pair-share discussion format. Students have those precious moments to gather their thoughts before turning to a classmate to discuss concepts like confirmation bias or the impact of classical conditioning on everyday behavior. The students are energized as pairs merge into small groups, building on each other’s insights before sharing with the whole class. But how do we capture that same collaborative energy in an asynchronous environment?

I’ve found success by structuring online discussions in three distinct phases that mirror the in-person experience. First, students post their initial response to a thought-provoking prompt (the “think” phase). Then, they must meaningfully respond to two classmates’ posts, building on their ideas rather than simply agreeing (the “pair” phase). Finally, students return to their original post and reflect on how their understanding has evolved after engaging with their peers’ perspectives (the “share” phase). The key is crafting prompts that demand critical thinking—instead of asking “What is classical conditioning?” I might ask “How would you use classical conditioning principles to help someone overcome their fear of public speaking?”

Timing matters, too. In my face-to-face class, I allow two to three minutes for individual reflection, five minutes for pair discussions, and 10 minutes for group sharing. Online, I’ve found success with a similar proportional structure: two days for initial posts, three days for peer responses, and two days for final reflections. This creates a rhythm that keeps the discussion moving while accommodating varied schedules.

Designing Collaborative Learning Experiences

Interactive content creation transforms how students engage with course material in both environments. In my traditional classes, I divide students into small groups to create concept maps exploring the relationships between different psychological disorders. Armed with markers and paper, they work collaboratively to connect concepts like anxiety, depression, and trauma responses, discovering links they might have missed studying alone. The energy is palpable as groups share their maps, debating connections and building on each other’s insights.

For my online students, I’ve adapted this activity using collaborative digital tools. Students work in small groups throughout the week to build their concept maps using shared online workspaces. Each student must add at least three concepts and make meaningful connections to their groupmates’ contributions. The asynchronous format actually offers an advantage here – students have time to think deeply about their contributions and can watch their group’s map evolve over several days. I provide specific deadlines for initial contributions and peer feedback to maintain momentum.

I have found that the key to success in either environment lies in providing clear examples of strong concept maps at the outset, establishing specific criteria for meaningful connections, and requiring students to explain their reasoning for each link they create. Deadlines for each phase keep the momentum going, while incorporating peer evaluation into the final grade ensures consistent participation. The resulting maps often reveal insights that surprise both me and my students, demonstrating how collaborative learning can deepen understanding regardless of the teaching modality.

Measuring Engagement and Refining Strategy

One-minute papers serve as powerful self-assessment tools in my traditional classes. For example, at the end of our discussion on memory formation, I ask students to quickly write down the most important concept they learned and one question they still have. This simple exercise reveals gaps in understanding and helps students consolidate their learning. In our next class, I address the most common questions, creating a feedback loop that keeps everyone engaged.

For my online students, I’ve transformed this into structured reflection journals. After completing each module, students must identify their key takeaway and pose one substantive question about the material. The asynchronous format allows for deeper reflection, and I’ve noticed online students often make fascinating connections to their personal experiences. Each week, I compile the most thought-provoking questions into a FAQ document, creating a collaborative resource that benefits the entire class.

Success in both formats require clear guidelines about what constitutes a meaningful reflection versus surface-level observations. Students stating that “the limbic system processes emotions” won’t suffice—they need to explain how this knowledge changes their understanding of human behavior. This approach not only reinforces learning but also develops critical thinking skills that serve students well beyond our course.

Measuring engagement across different learning environments requires that I use a systematic approach. In my traditional classroom, I track participation through observation and collect quick feedback via index cards. For my online students, I monitor not just the frequency but the quality of their discussion posts and collaborative work. The key metrics that I use remain consistent across both spaces: depth of analysis, peer interaction quality, and concept application.

I use a simple framework that examines three elements: initial engagement (participation in discussions or activities), sustained interaction (meaningful responses to peers), and learning application (connecting concepts to real-world scenarios). For each component, I look for evidence of critical thinking rather than mere completion. This approach helps identify which strategies are working and which need adjustment.

Beyond quantitative measures, I pay attention to qualitative indicators like the sophistication of student questions and the complexity of peer-to-peer discussions. These insights guide my refinement of teaching strategies in both environments, ensuring that active learning remains effective regardless of delivery method.

As the spring semester progressed, I saw the impact of the adapted strategies in both my traditional and online psychology classes. Those initially passive students in my traditional class began to engage in our active learning exercises, while my online students built an active learning community through their thoughtful asynchronous interactions. In my experience, the key isn’t choosing between traditional and online teaching methods—it’s understanding how to preserve active learning while adapting strategies to fit each unique environment. By reimagining rather than simply transplanting these strategies, we can create engaging learning experiences that work effectively across both spaces.

Dr. Dunja “Dee” Trunk, a professor of psychology at Bloomfield College of Montclair State University, has a passion for teaching and a genuine belief in the transformative power of education.

Source link

May 5, 2025
Social capital and the degree awarding gap: spaces, places and relationships
- Amira Asantewa is Director of Programmes, Grit Breakthrough Programmes
- Reuel Blair is Lead Diversity Programmes Coordinator at the Centre for Student and Community Engagement, Nottingham Trent University
Progress on the Black-white degree awarding gap has gone into reverse. Figures published by Higher Education Student Data (HESA) in autumn 2024 show that in 2022/23 the difference in the percentage of Black students and white students getting a first- or upper-second-class degree went up to 21.4 percentage points (pps) – from 19pps in 2021/22 and 17.6pps in 2020/21.

Across the sector, institutions are responding. Access and Participation Plans have been signed off. Work towards achieving Race Equality Charter marks is underway. Faculties and departments are decolonising curricula, diversifying assessment modes, tackling the lack of Black representation in the staff body and the postgraduate community.

While there are debates about the way the sector analyses and addresses the awarding gap, what we do know is there is, as yet, little to say about what works in UK universities. However, evidence from our work with students of Black Heritage that suggests social capital is key.

Black leaders

It was back in 2019 that Nottingham Trent University and Grit Breakthrough Programmes co-designed with students the Black Leadership Programme (BLP) – a mix of community-building activities, mentoring, inspirational speakers and work with both employers and global institutions. Centrepiece workshops are delivered by Grit: breakthrough programmes.

Six years on and an independent TASO-funded evaluation found strong statistical evidence of impact on final year grades and that these higher grades were likely to have been caused, not by increased academic engagement, but instead by increased motivation, social capital and sense of belonging.

This reinforced the findings of the independent evaluation of Grit’s Black Leaders and Students of Colour programme across seven universities, which suggested that students were able to apply skills and confidence from having expanded networks and engagement in new experiences, to their academic lives. And the students tell us what this looks like.

Spaces for Black students

Students talk about the importance of access to Black spaces. This space, this community, is a place where Black students are not, as Anike from Liverpool John Moores University puts it, ‘self-censoring to make myself palatable to white people.’ Instead, it is where ‘I can get into the conversations I always wanted to have, feel free to talk about what’s important to me.’

Research describes how Black-affirming campus spaces are vital for Black student academic success and supporting Black student inclusion and well-being. Kwaku from Nottingham Trent University describes the value of ‘a space where there isn’t the weight of always being different. I want a space to connect with people, people who I can talk to about how I am feeling, what I am going though, and who I know would understand.’

So social capital is also about belonging. Zelena from Bath Spa University describes wanting ‘to belong to a community of people we can all turn to, to draw strength from, to look up to and connect with.’

Identity and representation

It is about identity. Students tell us about the importance of ‘realising the value of my own upbringing, my heritage, my culture… that it is not something to be left behind or discarded… I want to explore and appreciate who I am and what I am.’ As Gemma from the University of Greenwich says, it’s about ‘finally claiming my identity. Becoming proud of being Black.’ University is a time for building a new independent life, figuring out who you really are and how your evolving identity fits in this new space. And there is a strong correlation between identities and deeper approaches to learning.

It is about representation, both in the messaging about opportunities and in the ability of those delivering them to relate to the racial identity and cultural backgrounds of the students. Or, as Kane from Nottingham Trent University says, ‘it’s about how we have the right to be noticed, feel heard, to see that my voice, my opinion matters.’

And social capital is also about wanting to make a difference, making a contribution. Afreya from the University of Manchester describes ‘helping other people who are feeling the same as I was. Going out of my way to be visible, showing how anyone just like me, can be successful.’

Students are very clear about social capital: ‘I made friends from the programme. I’ve joined societies… I’ve been a course rep and a Student Ambassador… I’ve been part of a project supporting young Black learners in schools in the city…’

They are very clear about its value: ‘It gave me strength… I’ve been relentless in seizing every opportunity available… I work more efficiently… harder and smarter… I feel that the university has an interest in nurturing Black talent and my growth and development.’

So, alongside all the institutional plans, strategies and initiatives, there also have to be the spaces, places and relationships for Black students to be their full, authentic, very best selves and, just like their white peers, grow the social capital to thrive and succeed in their time at university and beyond.

On 5^th June at Nottingham Trent University, Grit Unleashed will take a deep dive into the university experience for Black students and Students of Colour across the UK in a day co-designed and co-delivered by student participants. For more details email [email protected]
Source link
April 23, 2025
A Logical Gap Behind Attacks on the Humanities (opinion)

Researchers across the country who had been awarded prestigious grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities recently learned that their awards had been canceled. As Department of Government Efficiency reductions sweep through critical government agencies, higher education has been a clear target—not only through cuts at federal agencies like the NEH, but also through pressure levied on institutions like Columbia and Harvard Universities and, horribly, through Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainments that seem to take aim at politically engaged scholars like Rümeysa Öztürk. This targeting builds on decades of disinvestment—underfunding, fewer faculty lines and program closures—that have left humanities education fragile, and therefore vulnerable.

But the arguments used to justify both the active dismantling and the long-term disinvestment fundamentally contradict each other. One argument imagines the humanities to be both powerful and dangerous, while the other sees humanities education as irrelevant and a waste of time. Both cannot simultaneously be true. The tension between them reveals the real driver: a pervasive fear of critical thought and the social change it may foster.

As a humanities scholar who works with institutions nationwide to develop meaningful, equitable programs in higher education, I’ve watched countless colleges and universities grapple with the implications of this fear. Over the past decade, the claim of irrelevance has been used to justify budget cuts and program closures. Last year, Boston University suspended doctoral admissions to the humanities and social sciences. In 2023, West Virginia University eliminated numerous humanities programs and faculty lines—the cuts included all of WVU’s foreign language degree programs—with many other institutions considering similar measures.

Those who support these actions tend to cite declining numbers of humanities majors as evidence that students don’t care about the subject matter, or that they think a humanities degree is a financial dead end. However, even the economic piece of this argument is not borne out by the data. Recent research from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences shows strong state-by-state employment trends for humanities graduates, with advanced degree holders earning a median salary of about $84,000. Their research shows that a remarkably high 87 percent of all humanities majors feel satisfied with their careers—and that percentage climbs to 91 percent for advanced degree holders.

The rhetoric may be false, but it is nonetheless dangerous. It is true that humanities majors are trending downward—but why? We know that students do care about humanities topics. Every instructor I talk to reports high levels of student engagement in humanities courses. It’s not lack of interest, or economic realities, but intentional disinvestment that erodes the humanities and leads to program closures. That disinvestment serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy, as students invariably notice which parts of the university landscape are prioritized; it’s visible in buildings, in classroom spaces and in faculty offices. Students may hear messages from parents or from the media that nudge them in other directions. The resulting decreased enrollment fuels legislative actions and budget cuts that undermine the potential of humanistic inquiry and education.

The other line of argument does not rest on the supposed irrelevance of the humanities, but rather their power—and in doing so, it negates the first argument. This is the logic that leads DOGE to demand that the NEH and other agencies stop funding projects that explore race and gender equity. It’s the logic that leads to the dismantling of the federal Department of Education. It’s the same logic that has led conservative groups like Moms for Liberty to try to get books about LGTBQ+ kids pulled from library shelves, that led state officials like Ron DeSantis to block the teaching of African American studies. Why bother to fight against these projects, books and courses if they don’t hold power? No: In these cases, critics know that exposure to the humanities has the potential to change our individual and collective thinking, to bring new perspectives into the light, and to loosen the hold of dominant perspectives on the social psyche. That, to many, is terrifying.

The results of these critiques are profoundly damaging. The NEH cuts—paired with similar cuts to the Institute of Museum and Library Services, where the entire staff has been placed on leave—threaten a whole generation of research and community-engaged practice and will leave us with a diminished cultural landscape and limited possibility to interpret what’s left. The Trump administration is already trying to control what is displayed in national museums, particularly those that highlight underrepresented artists. Local libraries and state humanities councils are losing critical operating funds. As books, art and culture disappear, we need scholars trained to ask why—but with humanities programs in shambles, who will be ready to do that work?

Our cultural heritage is our nation’s portrait; there is power in seeing oneself represented in books, art and music. This is especially true for people who are marginalized in many social structures; broadly representative books on library shelves can be a lifeline for queer kids, trans kids, immigrant kids. Kids with names that white teachers find hard to pronounce. Kids looking for affirmation that, yes, they’re OK. Removing titles because of characters that share these identities is an act of erasure, a way of saying, no, actually, you’re not welcome here. Given that trans kids already have alarming rates of suicidality, the stakes are unspeakably high.

The far right is correct about one thing: The humanities are powerful. It is through the humanities that we are fighting tooth and nail for democracy—which is why we must defend these institutions and the people who make them work. With a news cycle that is so rapid and confusing as to cause whiplash among even the most savvy readers, historians like Heather Cox Richardson and David M. Perry provide context that extends beyond our current time and place to help us collectively understand the patterns of the present moment—and, more importantly, to envision possible paths out. Artists provide solace and catharsis through pieces that express what words cannot, such as Chavis Mármol’s “Tesla Crushed by an Olmec Head,” which is exactly what it sounds like. These interventions matter deeply when our collective sense of reality is being threatened by outright lies from people at the highest levels of leadership.

What we’re seeing now are the results of a systematic and structural push that has been slowly unraveling the humanities ecosystem for decades. But it needs to stop. The NEH cuts, the threats to education, the book bans, the program closures—and the rhetoric that brings them about—foreclose opportunities for students and for society. We are in a moment that requires stronger nationwide investment in the humanities, not their diminishment. Former NEH chair Shelly Lowe—the first Native American to lead the organization, unceremoniously pushed out by President Trump in March—urged participants at last year’s National Humanities Conference to find hope in dark times by turning to poetry. Riffing on Seamus Heaney’s “The Cure at Troy,” she urged us to “believe that further shores exist, even if they are out of sight.” Art and culture provide avenues for expression, beauty, understanding and meaning—especially when our world feels like it’s crumbling.

The right knows the humanities are powerful; it’s time for the left to truly believe in that power, and to call out the hypocrisy driving the right-wing attacks on our shared cultural heritage.

Source link

April 17, 2025
ED and USDA Should Do More to Close the SNAP Gap

The Government Accountability Office is urging the Education and Agriculture Departments to better coordinate their efforts to connect students with SNAP benefits.

Alex Potemkin/E+/Getty Images

A new Government Accountability Office report concludes that the Education and Agriculture Departments should be doing more to ensure college students receive federal food assistance. Despite reforms, too few students are notified they could be eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

For instance, the GAO found that the Education Department’s plan to notify students about food assistance programs misses about 40 percent of those eligible for the aid.

The report, released Thursday, partly blames faulty communication and data sharing between the Education Department, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, colleges, and state agencies.

“It’s crucial that ED and USDA collaborate effectively, so that all eligible students can access the resources they need to thrive,” Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said in a statement. (He also emphasized that for the Education Department to help students, it has to remain intact.)

To reach its conclusions, the GAO interviewed officials at both federal agencies and at colleges and SNAP offices in California, Massachusetts and Washington, states actively working on student outreach, to learn more about students’ access to SNAP benefits. The report also based its findings on interviews with members of multiple higher education associations and an analysis of data from the Education Department’s 2020 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. The audit took place between May 2023 and February 2025.

‘Gaps in Planning and Execution’

The report pointed out that the Education Department and USDA have new legal avenues to help students obtain SNAP benefits.

The FAFSA Simplification Act, which passed in 2020 and included provisions related to student outreach that took effect last summer, requires the Education Department to notify low-income students of federal benefits, like SNAP, based on their Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The law also allows the Education Department to share FAFSA data with the USDA and state SNAP agencies to reach out to potentially eligible students and streamline their enrollment in the program.

The report commended the two federal agencies for taking steps to connect students with SNAP benefits, including a memorandum of understanding in September 2024 with commitments from both agencies to take action on student access to SNAP. Notably, the Department of Education agreed to send out annual emails with information about SNAP to colleges and potentially eligible low-income students, sending emails to approximately eight million students in November 2024.

“But gaps in planning and execution remain,” according to the report.

The GAO accused the Education Department of initially offering insufficient guidance as to how data sharing would work, leaving colleges and state higher ed agencies in the dark.

In a December 2023 survey, 11 out of 19 state higher ed agency officials said it was unclear to them whether organizations could use student data for SNAP outreach, 15 out of 19 weren’t sure if they needed students’ consent to use certain data, and 12 out of 19 didn’t know which rules applied to which data sources. A 2023 survey of colleges by the Higher Learning Advocates and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators similarly found that fewer than a quarter of 182 colleges did outreach to students about federal benefits because of worries they’d incorrectly use FAFSA data. The department later provided more clear guidance.

The GAO also found that there still isn’t a clear, written process in place for data sharing between the Education Department and other federal and state SNAP agencies. The process involves obtaining student consent and establishing individual data-sharing agreements with each agency that administers benefits, according to department officials, but the details remain hazy.

“While officials told us they intend to move forward with sharing FAFSA data with other agencies, Education does not have a formal plan in place for how it would implement this effort, nor has the agency estimated a timeframe for when it would begin sharing data,” the report noted. “This could lead to delays in vulnerable college students getting information that could help them access food and benefits they are eligible for.”

The GAO also identified flaws in the Education Department’s system for notifying students about SNAP benefits.

As of November 2024, students eligible for Pell Grants who report their households receive at least one federal benefit automatically get a notification on their FAFSA submission page about other federal benefit programs with a link to more information. But the GAO’s analysis of Education Department data found that an estimated 40 percent of students who could be eligible for SNAP don’t meet both criteria. For example, some Pell-eligible students don’t apply for federal benefits, and graduate students may be eligible for SNAP but can’t receive Pell Grants. The GAO critiqued the department for not consulting with the USDA or other agencies on its approach.

The report also doesn’t let the USDA off the hook. The GAO argued that the USDA urged state SNAP agencies to target outreach to students but, like the Education Department, left out key details in its guidance, creating “areas of ambiguity.” College and state SNAP agency officials reported to the GAO that they weren’t sure if or when they could access or use students’ SNAP data and had trouble getting their questions answered at the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service regional offices.

“Without clear guidance on using and sharing SNAP data for student outreach and application assistance, states and colleges could inconsistently and inaccurately interpret what is allowable,” the report stated. “This could lead to missed opportunities for informing outreach and application efforts or some unintentionally engaging in noncompliance.”

What’s Next

The report offered a series of recommendations to the Education Department and the USDA to improve their work on behalf of students.

Notably, the GAO urged the education secretary to write up a formal plan for sharing FAFSA data with SNAP administrators, consult with the USDA to evaluate its system for notifying potentially SNAP-eligible students and better inform colleges and state SNAP agencies about the notification system. The USDA was also tasked with issuing better, more updated guidance to state SNAP agencies, in partnership with the Education Department, to clarify how student data can be used in outreach.

The GAO asserted that the stakes are high if these processes don’t improve.

“In fiscal year 2023, the U.S. Department of Education spent approximately $31.4 billion dollars [sic] on Pell Grants to help over 6 million students with financial need attend college,” the report read. “This substantial federal investment in higher education is at risk of not serving its intended purpose if college students drop out because of limited or uncertain access to food.”

Source link

April 11, 2025
13-Percentage-Point Gap in Pell vs. Non-Pell Completion
A survey of community colleges finds, across five states, Pell Grant recipients have lower success rates compared to their peers.

Eduard Figueres/iStock/Getty Images
Low-income students can experience a variety of barriers to success in college, and new data from the Richmond Federal Reserve points to gaps in success and completion among Pell Grant recipients at community colleges, compared to their peers.

An analysis of a 2024 survey of two-year public institutions in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia identified a 13-percentage-point gap in success rates between Pell Grant recipients and those who do not receive the Pell Grant. Forty percent of Pell Grant students achieved at least one metric of success, versus 53 percent of non-Pell recipients.

Methodology

The 2024 Survey of Community College Outcomes includes data from five states—Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia—and 121 colleges. Data includes all degree- or certificate-seeking students enrolled during the 2019–20 academic year, including dual-enrollment students.

Around 34 percent of students included in the study received a Pell Grant while enrolled at a community college, (compared to the national average of 32 percent). Dual-enrollment students are not eligible for the Pell Grant.

The background: Pell Grant recipients, who are low-income students enrolled in a college or university in the U.S., are more often to be enrolled at public institutions, and the greatest share are from families who earn less than $20,000 annually.

Success, as defined by the Richmond Fed, means a degree- or certificate-seeking student at a community college completed one of the following over a four-year period following enrollment:
- Earned an associate degree
- Earned a diploma or credit-bearing certificate
- Earned an industry- or employer- recognized licensure or credential
- Transferred to a four-year institution prior to degree or award attainment
- Persisted by completing at least 30 credit hours
Over all, Pell and non-Pell students completed an associate degree at similar rates (19 percent), but Pell students were less likely to transfer (10 percent of Pell versus 20 percent of non-Pell) or complete a credential (6 percent versus 7 percent).

Digging into the data: Researchers qualify that while there is a correlation between receiving a Pell Grant and graduation, that does not imply causation, or that receiving Pell Grant funding leads to lower outcomes.

“Students who qualify for and receive Pell Grant funding may have substantively different characteristics than non-Pell students—differences that could be driving the differences in outcomes,” wrote Laura Dawson Ullrich, director of the Community College Initiative at the Richmond Fed, in a blog post.

North Carolina was the only state with higher associate degree completion rates among Pell students, but this could be due to how the state classifies dual-enrollment students as degree-seeking and their ineligibility for the Pell Grant.

South Carolina had the highest transfer rate among Pell (19.3 percent) and non-Pell recipients (27 percent), which could be a result of Clemson University and the University of South Carolina’s bridge programs with community colleges, Ullrich wrote.

Low-income students are more likely to experience basic needs insecurity, which can hinder persistence and completion. The Richmond Fed plans to conduct more surveys focusing on wraparound student supports and how the existence of these resources may contribute to Pell Grant recipients’ success.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe to the Student Success newsletter here.
Source link
March 31, 2025
Bridging the Gap: Why Intergenerational Learning is Crucial Now More Than Ever

Dr. Maureen RubyAccording to the Stanford Center on Longevity, “The hundred year life is here. And we’re not ready.” The Center identified 10 principles to guide working through the challenges of longevity and capitalize on the opportunities. As a soon-to-be septuagenarian, current university faculty member and educational researcher, the guiding principle “learn throughout life” resonates with me. In my personal journey, I completed a second doctorate as I reached the half-century mark. Both then, as K-12 educator and grandmother of six, and now in my university work, my life is iteratively enriched through intergenerational learning. I am lucky.

While we may not share the 122-year life span of Jeanne Calmet, Stanford’s The New Map of Life Years to Thrive reports that half of current kindergartners will have a life expectancy of 100. Given the projected certainty of a future of centenarians, universities must embrace intergenerational learning. The OECD states that education is a predictor of the quality of life as it positively influences physical and mental health, financial stability, cognitive functions, resilience social status and engagement. Thus, with our unprecedented longevity, it’s important for the traditional image of college students, those transitioning from high school and primarily in the second and third decades of life, to evolve. The work and research of the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Age-Friendly University Global Network advocate for supporting our “globally aging world” by harnessing the power of intergenerational learning.

Intergenerational learning engages different generations in learning together, exchanging knowledge and experiencing mutual growth. Beyond coexisting, it is about genuine dialogue, connection and shared learning. Intergenerational learning programs combat ageism, reduce social isolation, promote community and demonstrate benefits to both older adults and younger generations. Age diversity in colleges and universities is a net asset for our global society.

For college students, intergenerational learning is more than interacting with older adults. It provides valuable perspectives to challenge assumptions and deepen understanding of the world. Through the “elders’” firsthand accounts of history, culture or societal events, students gain insights unavailable from textbooks and PowerPoints. Imagine hearing directly from a participant in the Civil Rights Movement in history class; a person living the aging process in a sociology class; a retired bank executive or CEO in an accounting or finance class; or a physical therapist in an anatomy class. Such interactions bring together research and theory with lived experience and practice and contribute to an enriched learning culture that capitalizes on empathy, critical thinking and authenticity.

Social media, virtual interactions, and fragmented communication are abundant today and have negative consequences for our youth. As shared by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), developing empathy and strong social-emotional skills are essential to future success. Intergenerational learning offers students opportunities to engage in face-to-face dialogue with people from different generations and backgrounds. Through these interactions, students practice active listening, respect for diverse perspectives, development of interpersonal skills and emotional awareness. These skills are essential for effective communication and building healthy relationships in academic settings, the workplace and personal life.

For older adults, in addition to the intellectual stimulation so essential for cognitive wellness, a college environment offers opportunities to remain socially connected, contribute meaningfully, and participate in cultural, sports, personal conditioning and academic activities offered on campus. Intergenerational programs reduce time spent alone and ignite an augmented sense of belonging and purpose. Older adults feel valued for the knowledge and experience they bring to the table while also reaping opportunities to learn new skills and stay mentally sharp. Intergenerational program participation increases life satisfaction, while mentoring younger generations promotes a sense of accomplishment and a positive outlook on life.

Intergenerational learning also fosters mutual understanding, reduces ageism and helps break down stereotypes. In an increasingly polarized society, where the media and social media often reinforce generational biases, divisions and misunderstandings and create barriers between generations, intergenerational learning leads to social cohesion and inclusive communities, and bridging generational divides.

Through seeking and celebrating diversity of thought, intergenerational learning in academia will advance more holistic, compassionate learning environments. Colleges and universities, as centers of learning and innovation, are uniquely positioned to lead the way in supporting a new learning paradigm by incorporating intergenerational programs into their curricula and campus life. From shared classrooms to mentorship programs, the integration of older adults into the academic experience is an essential step toward creating a culture of inclusive learning requisite for our changing global demographics. Intergenerational learning supports creation of a society that values mutual respect, shared knowledge and lifelong growth. It’s time for educational institutions to embrace intergenerational learning, paving the way for a future where people of all ages learn, grow and thrive together. We will be learning alongside our grandchildren. I am excited for my next 30 years!

Dr. Maureen Ruby is an associate professor at the Farrington College of Education & Human Development at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, CT.

Source link

March 30, 2025
Hiding in plain sight? A simple statistical effect may largely explain the ethnicity degree awarding gap
- By Sean Brophy (@seanbrofee), Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Decent Work and Productivity, Manchester Metropolitan University.
A persistent challenge in UK higher education is the ethnicity degree awarding gap – the difference between White and ethnic minority students receiving top degrees (firsts or 2:1s). The Office for Students (OfS) aims to entirely eliminate this gap by 2030/31, but what if most of this gap reflects success in widening participation rather than systemic barriers?

Between 2005/6 and 2021/22, university participation grew 21% faster for Asian students and 17% faster for Black students compared to White students. This remarkable success in widening access might paradoxically explain one of the UK’s most persistent higher education challenges.

Figure 1 presents ethnicity gaps over time compared to a White baseline (the grey line constant at zero). The data for 2021/22 shows significant gaps: 21 percentage points for Black students, 9 for Asian students, and 4 for Mixed ethnicity students compared to their White peers. Traditional explanations focus on structural barriers, cultural differences, and potential discrimination, and much of the awarding gap remains unexplained after adjusting for prior attainment and background characteristics. However, a simpler explanation might be hiding in plain sight: the gap may also reflect a statistical effect created by varying participation rates across ethnic groups.

Ethnicity Degree Awarding Gap (2014/15 – 2021/22)

Figure 1. Source: HESA

Here is the key insight: ethnic minority groups now participate in higher education at remarkably higher rates than White students, which likely then drives some of the observed ethnicity awarding gaps. Figure 2 presents the over-representation of ethnic groups in UK higher education relative to the White reference group (again, the constant grey line). The participation gap has grown substantially – Asian students were 22 percentage points more likely to attend university than White students in 2021/22, with Black students 18 points higher.

Over-representation of ethnic groups in HE compared to White baseline (2005/6-2021/22)

Figure 2. Source: UCAS End Of Cycle Report 2022

This difference in participation rates creates an important statistical effect, what economists call ‘compositional effects’. When a much larger proportion of any group enters university, that group may naturally include a broader range of academic ability. Think of it like this: if mainly the top third of White students attend university, but nearly half of ethnic minority students do, we would expect to see differences in degree outcomes – even with completely fair teaching and assessment.

This principle can be illustrated using stylized ability-participation curves for representative ethnic groups in Figure 3. These curves show the theoretical distribution of academic ability for Asian, Black, and White groups, with the red shaded area representing the proportion of students from each group accepted into higher education in 2021/22. It would be surprising if there was no degree awarding gap under these conditions!

Stylized ability-participation curves by ethnic group

This hypothesis suggests the degree awarding gap might largely reflect the success of widening participation policies. Compositional effects like these are difficult to control for in studies, and it is noteworthy that, to date, no studies on the ethnicity awarding gap have adequately controlled for these effects (including one of my recent studies).

While this theory may offer a compelling statistical explanation, future research pursuing this line of inquiry needs to go beyond simply controlling for prior achievement. We need to examine both how individual attainment evolves from early education to university, using richer measures than previous studies, and how the expansion of university participation has changed the composition of student ability over time. This analysis must also account for differences within broad ethnic categories (British Indian students, for example, show different patterns from other Asian groups) and consider how university and subject choices vary across groups.

My argument is not that compositional effects explain everything — rather, understanding their magnitude is crucial for correctly attributing how much of the gap is driven by traditional explanations, such as prior attainment, background characteristics, structural barriers, or discrimination. Only with this fuller picture can we properly target resources and interventions where they’re most needed.

If this hypothesis is proven correct, however, it underscores why the current policy focus on entirely eliminating gaps through teaching quality or support services, while well-intentioned, may be misguided. If gaps are the statistically inevitable result of differing participation patterns among ethnic groups, then institutional interventions cannot entirely eliminate them. This doesn’t mean universities shouldn’t strive to support all students effectively – but it does require us to fundamentally rethink how we measure and address educational disparities.

Rather than treating all gaps as problems to be eliminated, we should:
1. Fund research which better accounts for these compositional effects.
2. Develop benchmarks that account for participation rates when measuring degree outcomes.
3. Contextualize the success of widening participation with acknowledging awarding gaps as an inevitable statistical consequence.
4. Focus resources on early academic support for students from all backgrounds who might need additional help, particularly in early childhood.
5. Explore barriers in other post-16 or post-18 pathways that may be contributing to the over-representation of some groups in higher education.
Source link
February 12, 2025
Humanity and the Moral Gap (Noam Chomsky)

Source link

January 14, 2025