Tag: government

  • Federal Government Is Now an Unreliable Partner (opinion)

    Federal Government Is Now an Unreliable Partner (opinion)

    When Linda McMahon was initially picked to be the secretary of education, I wrote a piece that detailed how comparing her to former secretary of education Betsy DeVos was likely inappropriate. I ended that piece by cautiously suggesting that McMahon would strongly align with elements of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and of the think tank she led, the America First Policy Institute. I also suggested that because the president is ambiguous in his attitudes toward following court orders, McMahon might feel emboldened to engage in similar behavior.

    Since my previous op-ed, McMahon was confirmed as secretary of education and has since shared her vision for the Department of Education in various interviews. While her focus is primarily on K-12 education issues, for higher education she has consistently emphasized that Pell Grants and loans will remain safe—a topic I will revisit later. However, the most predictable outcome has proven accurate: McMahon’s approach aligns closely with the intentions outlined by Heritage and AFPI, as ED is targeted for closure.

    One way to frame McMahon’s leadership and recent behavior as secretary is that she’s the agency’s appointed destructor (just before signing an executive order seeking the dismantlement of the department, President Trump quipped, “Hopefully she will be our last secretary of education.”) Now, ED cannot be eliminated without congressional approval. However, there are many decisions the administration can make to severely hobble the department and offices within it. Some of these decisions have already been executed.

    One of the most impactful and immediate policies that McMahon has pursued was an almost 50 percent reduction of staff at ED, from roughly 4,000 to 2,000 employees. These cuts have reduced employees at offices such as the Office of Federal Student Aid, the Institute of Education Sciences and the Office for Civil Rights. Communications from ED have suggested these cuts will not affect students’ ability to apply for and secure financial aid.

    Of the nearly 2,000 layoffs, more than 300 happened within the Federal Student Aid office—and almost immediately the Free Application for Federal Student Aid site went down for a few hours. Even with a full staff, the Biden administration had well-documented issues with keeping the FAFSA running smoothly, which led to a 9 percent decline in FAFSA submissions for first-time applicants in 2024, or about 432,000 fewer applications over all. Given the department’s reduced capabilities, I have little confidence that it can process FAFSA applications promptly.

    On March 21, President Trump announced that the Small Business Administration would take over the student loan portfolio, an interesting move given that McMahon was the SBA head during Trump’s first term. No clear explanation has been provided for why the SBA should take charge of the portfolio, and no public plan for such a transfer has been released. Additionally, the SBA intends to cut its staff nearly in half, reducing its 6,500-person workforce by about 2,700 employees, while managing this titanic task.

    Although it could be argued that the loan portfolio might be transferred out of the FSA (the “Performance-Based Organization”) based on performance, as outlined in the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, it remains unclear whether transferring the portfolio outside of ED is legally permissible. Additionally, the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 does not appear to support moving loans or other financial aid–related processes outside of ED.

    In recent interviews, McMahon has offered no further clarification on this decision, noting that additional ED functions might also be transferred to other departments. While she proposed working with Congress to interpret the legality of these actions, she also has hinted that congressional approval may not be necessary.

    In addition to concerns surrounding financial aid, we should anticipate weaker accountability measures and diminished academic research moving forward. ED’s Institute for Education Sciences has faced significant staff cuts. Although the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System remains active, providing essential data on enrollment, costs, financial aid and graduation rates, its future is uncertain. This data set is crucial for researchers at foundations and think tanks focused on accountability, as well as for academics studying outcomes in higher education. However, with the survey submission link recently down and limited staff to oversee the system, IPEDS may soon lack accuracy or even public accessibility. As other federal data sets also face potential risks, researchers may need to reconsider the standards for defining good work in this evolving landscape.

    Yet, the staff cuts may have been too abrupt, as ED recently asked several dozen employees to return to fulfill statutory obligations, including responsibilities related to financial aid and loans. However, uncertainty persists regarding how the administration and Secretary McMahon interpret these obligations and the level of efficiency required for their execution.

    McMahon’s influence on higher education has already extended beyond the “Sweet Chin Music” directive for ED (“Sweet Chin Music” is the finishing move of WWE legend Shawn Michaels—a super kick to the face). She seems eager to serve as a bridge for aligning higher education with conservative priorities, as demonstrated by her direct involvement with the revocation of $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University—the first test case in a broader strategy to pressure universities over allegations of campus antisemitism. Critics argue this is a pretext for advancing a conservative agenda rather than a genuine effort to protect Jewish students and employees, with similar tactics now being applied to Harvard and Princeton Universities. The administration also seems to be using a similar strategy to pressure other institutions like the University of Pennsylvania over issues related to Title IX and transgender athletes.

    To regain federal funding, Columbia was given a list of demands, which included enacting a new campuswide mask ban and placing the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department under academic receivership—actions widely criticized as federal overreach. Though Columbia has taken multiple steps to address concerns about antisemitism, including seeking the arrest of pro-Palestinian protesters for trespassing, expelling students and temporarily revoking diplomas, the administration in effect deemed these actions insufficient.

    Though Columbia has largely complied with the administration’s demands, there is little indication that the withheld funds will be restored or to what degree. Regardless of readers’ personal views on the outcome, Columbia’s compliance demonstrates that institutions likely are increasingly susceptible to federal interventions. Looking ahead, I expect both Republican and Democratic administrations to exert distinct political pressures on institutions, significantly reshaping higher education—a shift partly influenced by McMahon’s direct role in the Columbia negotiations.

    Since the National Institutes of Health grant cancellations began, I have described federal government agencies as “unreliable partners” for higher education. The “unreliable partners” label remains fitting as McMahon continues to dismantle ED and transfer its responsibilities to other departments, which is likely to cause extreme inefficiencies. I am especially concerned about delays in FAFSA processing and whether financial aid will reach institutions and students on time next academic year—if at all. Administrators should prepare for these risks. Furthermore, as Columbia has complied with the administration’s demands, it’s possible that future financial aid may come with new conditions (e.g., mask bans on all campuses)—or be intentionally withheld until expectations are met.

    Daniel A. Collier is an assistant professor of higher and adult education at the University of Memphis. His work focuses on higher education policy, leadership and issues like student loan debt and financial aid. Connect with Daniel on Bluesky at @dcollier74.bsky.social.

    Source link

  • An end to sticking plaster politics? Why the government needs to use its upcoming white paper to take a different approach to immigration

    An end to sticking plaster politics? Why the government needs to use its upcoming white paper to take a different approach to immigration

    The Labour Party was elected to government last year on a promise to reduce net migration. Their victory in the 2024 General Election followed a period in which net migration to the UK peaked at 906,000 and public concerns over migration began to rise again for the first time since the Brexit referendum.

    Unsurprisingly, Number 10 views progress on this issue as central to their re-election prospects. Precisely how the government will look to do this is still unclear, yet recent weeks have seen growing speculation over an immigration white paper which is expected to land pretty soon.

    White paper

    A new approach to immigration is needed. Too often, immigration policy has been dictated by the release of the latest migration figures and so the development of a white paper on immigration in and of itself is no bad thing. Moreover, it provides the government with an opportunity to take a more strategic approach to migration policy.

    Prior to the election, the Labour Party committed to a different style of governing which would end ‘sticking plaster’ politics. But how to apply this longer-term view to immigration policy? To be judged as successful, any new approach to immigration would need to see net migration reduced given their manifesto commitment. As such, tough choices need to be made about where further reforms could be made to reduce the overall number of people coming to the UK.

    This creates some obvious risks for UK universities given the importance of international students to the financial sustainability of our sector. Universities UK (UUK) has been clear that, over the long-term, international recruitment should not be the answer to the financial sustainability of higher education institutions. Instead, we need to work with government on a long-term plan, secure increased investment, and explore new approaches to efficiency and transformation in the sector.

    In the absence of a long-term plan to address the underfunding of the higher education sector, any new approach to immigration would, at the very least, need to enable universities to continue to attract international students to study in the UK to prevent current financial challenges from deteriorating further.

    Three tests

    This is no easy task, but it is possible. So, what could a different course of action on migration policy actually look like? I think there are three clear things we need:

    1. A joined up, coordinated approach.

    2. Look forward not back, (as the Labour Party once encouraged us to do).

    3. Draw a line between temporary and permanent migration.

     

    The left-hand ought to know what the right-hand is doing

    The starting point of any new immigration policy ought to be based on having a joined-up and co-ordinated approach. This may seem obvious but would be a welcome change.

    The key opportunity for the new government is to use their immigration white paper to finally align migration policy with wider government objectives. Based on what the Home Secretary has outlined, at least part of this would be to create much greater join-up between the UK’s visas and skills systems so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems, thereby reducing overall net migration. This is a good start, but the white paper offers an opportunity to go further.

    Under previous administrations, there was a distinct lack of coordination and coherence in policy and strategy. This can be seen most clearly in the development of an International Education Strategy – which set an explicit aim of government policy to grow the number of international students coming to the UK, but which then came up against a Home Office who had been instructed to curb the growth in international students.

    Don’t use the rear-view mirror

    With a clear joined-up strategy, the government should then look to shift the focus of immigration policy away from retrospective net migration trends, towards focussing on future forecasts, thereby creating a more realistic timeframe to achieve their strategy.

    It is quite clear that reducing net migration is going to continue to be the focus of government policy. Yet as we have seen, annual net migration focuses too much on short-term migration trends – be it the increase of people coming from Ukraine, or Hong Kong – and doesn’t focus enough on the anticipated impact of recent policy – such as changes to dependant’s which has led a dramatic reduction in the UK’s attractiveness as a study destination in certain countries.

    By shifting towards long-term projections (measured over a rolling 5-year average), the government could then create the political space to actually achieve their wider objectives. For example, providing a longer-term timeframe to work with employers to implement skills and training initiatives to support those roles where recruitment is primarily met through immigration.

    Any future forecast would, inevitably, be subject to changes and revisions but it would represent a far better metric than basing government policy on retrospective and highly volatile net migration trends from the previous year.

    Separate the temporary from the permanent

    A final welcome change would be for the government to distinguish more between ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’ migration. After all, while many migrants do settle in the UK, many others do not and have little intention of doing so.

    This applies to many international students. They may stay for a few years after their studies, but very few end up remaining in the UK for the long-term and get settlement. Rather than taking students out of net migration – which would only serve to highlight the contribution which international students do make to net migration while ignoring the impact which students do have on housing and local services – the government should look to place greater focus on different types of visas being granted to those coming to the UK.

    There are lots of ways this could be done, but focussing more on those visa routes which lead to settlement (or ‘indefinite leave to remain’) would help improve public understanding of migration and better reflect the fact that many migrants included in the net migration stats do not contribute significantly to the long-term population of the UK.

    Concerns about immigration are unlikely to go away anytime soon, but the opportunity for a better approach is there for the taking.

    Many parts of the world – particularly across the Anglosphere – are currently seeing higher levels of net migration, and how countries respond is an issue facing many governments.

    With aging societies, slowing rates of economic growth, not to mention an increasing number of people displaced due to climate change, conflict, and natural disasters, immigration will continue to be high on the political agenda.

    Through their immigration white paper, the new UK government has a clear opportunity to address this challenge head on and take a different approach to previous administrations and, in doing so, demonstrate that well-managed immigration can be – and indeed is – a force for good.

    In developing a more joined-up approach, while focussing on future projections – rather than retrospective trends – and which makes a clearer distinction between temporary and permanent migration, the UK government could go a long way to developing a more sensible approach to immigration policy.

    The opportunity is there, the question is whether the government will take it.

    Source link

  • Two tribal colleges have been allowed to rehire staff that had been cut by the federal government

    Two tribal colleges have been allowed to rehire staff that had been cut by the federal government

    After weeks of uncertainty, two tribal colleges have been told they can hire back all employees who were laid off as part of the Trump administration’s deep cuts across the federal workforce in February, part of a judge’s order restoring some federal employees whose positions were terminated.

    Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, widely known as SIPI, in New Mexico lost about 70 employees in mid-February amid widespread staffing cuts to federal agencies. While most of the nation’s 37 tribal colleges and universities are chartered by American Indian tribes, Haskell and SIPI are not associated with individual tribes and are run by the federal government.

    About 55 employees were laid off and 15 accepted offers to resign, according to a lawsuit filed last month by tribes and students. The colleges were forced to cancel or reconfigure a wide range of services, from sports and food service to financial aid and classes. In some cases, instructors were hired by other universities as adjuncts and then sent back to the tribal colleges to keep teaching.

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    It was not clear this week when and if the workers would return, whether the employees who resigned would also be offered their jobs back, or if the government would allow colleges to fill vacancies. Both colleges said some employees had turned down the offers.

    The Bureau of Indian Education, which runs the colleges, declined to answer questions except to confirm the laid-off workers would be offered jobs with back pay to comply with a judge’s order that the government reverse course on thousands of layoffs of probationary employees. But the agency also noted the jobs would be available “as the White House pursues its appeals process,” indicating possible turmoil if an appeals court reinstates the layoffs.

    Both colleges said the bureau also has refused to answer most of their questions.

    SIPI leaders were told last week that the positions were being restored, said Adam Begaye, chairman of the SIPI Board of Regents. The 270-student college lost 21 employees, he said, four of whom decided to take early retirement. All but one of the remaining 17 agreed to return, Begaye said.

    The chaos has been difficult for those employees, he said, and the college is providing counseling.

    “We want to make sure they have an easy adjustment, no matter what they’ve endured,” Begaye said.

    Related: How a tribe won a legal battle against the federal Bureau of Indian Education and still lost

    The chairman of Haskell’s Board of Regents, Dalton Henry, said he was unsure how many of the 50 lost employees were returning. Like SIPI, Haskell was forced after the layoffs to shift job responsibilities and increase the workload for instructors and others.

    Haskell was reviewed by accreditors in December, and Henry said he was worried how the turmoil would affect the process. Colleges and universities must be accredited to offer federal and state financial aid and participate in most other publicly funded programs.

    Henry declined to discuss his thoughts on the chaos, saying there was nothing the college could do about it.

    “Whatever guidance is provided, that’s what we have to adhere to,” he said. “It’s a concern. But at this point, it’s the federal government’s decision.”

    The Bureau of Indian Affairs declined to make the presidents of the two colleges available for interviews.

    Tribal colleges and universities were established to comply with treaties and the federal trust responsibility, legally binding agreements in which the United States promised to fund Indigenous education and other needs. But college leaders argue the country has violated those contracts by consistently failing to fund the schools adequately.

    In the federal lawsuit claiming the Haskell and SIPI cuts were illegal, students and tribes argued the Bureau of Indian Education has long understaffed the colleges. The agency’s “well-documented and persistent inadequacies in operating its schools range from fiscal mismanagement to failure to provide adequate education to inhospitable buildings,” plaintiffs claimed.

    Related: Tribal college campuses are falling apart. The U.S. hasn’t fulfilled its promise to fund the schools

    Sen. Jerry Moran and Rep. Tracey Mann, both Kansas Republicans, said before Trump took office that they plan to introduce a bill shifting Haskell from federal control to a congressional charter, which would protect the university from cuts across federal agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Education.

    “[F]or the last few years the university has been neglected and mismanaged by the Bureau of Indian Education,” Moran said in a written statement in December. “The bureau has failed to protect students, respond to my congressional inquiries or meet the basic infrastructure needs of the school.”

    The February cuts brought rare public visibility to tribal colleges, most of which are in remote locations. Trump’s executive orders spurred outrage from Indigenous communities and a flurry of national news attention.

    “We’re using this chaos as a blessing in disguise to make sure our family and friends in the community know what SIPI provides,” said Begaye, the SIPI board president.

    The uncertainty surrounding the colleges’ funding has left a lasting mark, said Ahniwake Rose, president and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, which advocates for tribal colleges. But she added she was proud of how the schools have weathered the cuts.

    “Indian country is always one of the most resourceful and creative populations,” she said. “We’ve always made do with less. I think you saw resilience and creativity from Haskell and SIPI.”

    Contact editor Christina A. Samuels at 212-678-3635 or samuels@hechingereport.org.

    This story about tribal colleges was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • So now will the government take the chainsaw to HE regulation?

    So now will the government take the chainsaw to HE regulation?

    The Prime Minister recently declared that Britain has ‘too much regulation and too many regulators’ before the shock announcement to abolish the world’s biggest quango, NHS England. Since December, the Government has been fighting a war against red tape, which it believes is hindering economic growth. University Alliance, and I suspect most of the higher education sector, has some sympathy with the PM on this – at least when it comes to higher education regulation. I cannot remember a meeting in the past several years when the burden of regulation was not brought up as a key source of the sector’s woes.

    We need to be clear here that regulating higher education is important. The recent Sunday Times coverage alleging serious fraud in the higher education franchised provision system is testament to that, and it is right that the government and the regulator continue to act robustly. The question, then, is less whether higher education needs regulating at all, but rather whether the right regulators are regulating the right activity in the right way. It should be perfectly possible to have a tough regulator that prevents fraud and acts in the student interest while also reducing duplication in the system and focusing in on the areas of highest risk.

    The sheer volume of external regulatory demand placed upon our sector goes well beyond the well-documented teething problems with our fledgling regulator, the Office for Students (OfS). To outside observer Alex Usher of Canada’s Higher Education Strategy Associates, it appears extreme:

    ‘Canada has no REF, no TEF, no KEF. We have nothing resembling the Office for Students. External quality assurance, where it exists, is so light touch as to be basically invisible. This does not stop us from having four or five universities in the Global top 100, eight in the top 200, and twenty or so in the top 500.’

    The volume of regulatory requirements is even higher for vocationally oriented and professionally accredited provision, which is the lifeblood of Alliance universities. In addition to the OfS, courses which provide access to the so-called ‘regulated professions’  are also overseen by a wide range of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs), each with their own requirements. PSRBs have wide authority over course content, assessment, and quality assurance, with formal reaccreditation required every three to six years on average.

    In some cases, particularly in the sphere of healthcare education, multiple PSRBs can have some degree of authority over a single course. For example, an undergraduate degree course in Occupational Therapy must meet the requirements of the OfS, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and the Royal College of Occupational Therapists (RCOT). Often, these different processes and requirements overlap and duplicate one another.

    If this seems excessive, it is nothing compared to the requirements imposed upon degree apprenticeships. Not only are they regulated by the OfS and likely PSRBs given their vocational nature, but they are also subject to the fiendishly complex funding assurance review procedure of the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA)  as well as in-person Ofsted inspections at least every 5 to 6 years that can take up to a week. A recent UA report on healthcare apprenticeships found that this means they are more expensive to deliver than traditional degrees.

    The problem of regulatory burden in higher education has been continually flagged by sector bodies and by the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee, which called for a Higher Education Data Reduction Taskforce. Despite this, the issue has been mostly ignored by policymakers, bar a few small initiatives. It does not feature in any of the Government’s higher education reform priorities, although the Education Secretary is asking universities to become more efficient and the OfS expects them to take ‘rapid and decisive action’ to avoid going bust.

    With 72% of higher education providers facing potential deficit by 2025/26,  it is a mystery why the higher education sector – an acknowledged engine of economic growth – appears to have been left out in the cold while this unexpected reprise of the bonfire of the quangos is being lit. To our knowledge, neither the PM nor the Chancellor have called on higher education sector regulators to demand a cut in the cost and burden of regulation as they have done for others.

    Universities are rightfully subject to robust regulation, but the current regime is disproportionate, diverting dwindling resources away from teaching, student services and research. In the absence of more funding, cutting the cost and burden of regulation would go a long way. The establishment of Skills England, with its convening power and wide-angle, long-focus lens, should be used meaningfully to cut bureaucracy for degree apprenticeships while maintaining quality. Responsibility for monitoring the quality of degree apprenticeships should be given back to the OfS rather than Ofsted, and the ESFA audit process should be simplified. The OfS should also make a public commitment to cut the cost and burden of its regulation and work more closely with other sector regulators and PSRBs to avoid overlap and duplication.

    At a time when the Chancellor has urged ‘every regulator, no matter what sector’ to enact a ‘cultural shift’ and tear down the regulatory barriers that are holding back growth, cutting the cost of regulation in higher education should be a top priority.

    Source link

  • Should the government punish you for allegedly ‘undermining’ American diplomacy?

    Should the government punish you for allegedly ‘undermining’ American diplomacy?

    American foreign policy is vast, complex, and can change by the hour. The First Amendment protects our right to support, challenge, protest, or question the policy of the United States and every other government around the world.

    But in seeking deportations of some legal residents in the United States, federal officials are claiming to target immigrants for expression that could, in their view, impact American diplomacy — and the implications for free expression are profound.

    This broad justification effectively means any legal immigrant in the United States cannot speak his or her mind about any political issue without risking deportation, lest their words in some way implicate present or future foreign policy matters.

    That’s the thing about broad justifications for censorship: They invite broad application.

    In the case of Badar Khan Suri — an Indian citizen, Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow, and recent deportation target — The New York Times reported last week that “an official familiar with Dr. Suri’s case” asserted that “the State Department justified his deportation by arguing that he engaged in antisemitic activity that would undermine diplomatic efforts to get Israel and Hamas to agree to a cease-fire.” 

    Suri is a fellow at Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. In a statement, the school said Suri “has committed no crime.” His father-in-law, Ahmed Yousef, was “a former adviser to Hamas” over a decade ago and “for his part, has criticized the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.” The ACLU of Virginia, which is serving on Suri’s legal team, asserts that his deportation is “in direct retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights and his family’s ties to Gaza.” 

    And on Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted that he “will continue to cancel the visas of those whose presence or activities have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for our country.”

    This justification should set off a warning bell for anyone concerned about protecting freedom of expression in the U.S. There is effectively no limiting principle around speech that would allegedly “undermine diplomatic efforts.” 

    Can legal immigrants in the United States discuss human rights violations in Xinjiang or Hong Kong, even though doing so could theoretically imperil tariff talks or trade negotiations with China? What about criticism of the notion that Canada should become the “51st state”? Can Ukrainian immigrants criticize the actions of President Vladimir Putin while the U.S. is involved in talks between Russia and Ukraine? 

    That’s the thing about broad justifications for censorship: They invite broad application.

    And that’s why, last week, FIRE filed a “friend of the court” brief along with a coalition of civil liberties groups contesting the federal government’s detention of lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil. 

    The brief challenged the administration’s use of a statute empowering the secretary of state to deport a lawful non-citizen resident if the secretary determines their “presence or activities” has a “potentially serious” effect on American foreign policy. 

    As FIRE explains, none of the many immigrants in the U.S., including the million-plus on campus, “will feel safe criticizing the American government of the day — in class, scholarship, or on their own time — if a current or future secretary of state may, whenever he chooses and at his unreviewable discretion, deem them adverse to American foreign policy and have them deported.”

    Noncitizens lawfully in the United States may lose their residency for many reasons, like criminal activity or overstaying beyond the authorized date.

    Exercising the freedoms protected by our First Amendment should not be one of them. 

    Source link

  • Government economic policy depends on a healthily diverse higher education ecosystem

    Government economic policy depends on a healthily diverse higher education ecosystem

    At GuildHE, we represent over 60 institutions that do not fit the traditional, large, generalist, research-intensive mould. These institutions are deeply focused on industrial readiness, employability, specialist skills and regional growth.

    They deliver vital skills in geographical areas and sectors where the UK faces acute shortages, and directly support the government’s own missions to grow, increase opportunity, develop a greener future, reduce crime levels and build a better NHS. Whether this is achieved through healthcare, the built environment, teaching, policing, agricultural innovations, law or the creative economy, the future talent pipeline to address these missions depends, in large part, on the success of these providers. However, the current funding landscape does little to protect and support them.

    The image of the large generalist, research-intensive traditional higher education institution is the model on which the funding and regulatory system in the UK is based. This model has become the DNA of our systems, which rely on assumptions about the sector as a whole: its strategic missions, delivery mechanisms and capacity. These assumptions naturally impact the incentives and levers that are built into policy frameworks.

    Policies often fail to recognise those that fall outside that image, so that smaller, specialist, and non-traditional institutions face increasing threats to their viability. Sector consolidation and investment in the historically-established HE model, as seen in other settings across the world such as Australia and the US, could undermine our global reputation, agility and responsiveness to diverse students and industries.

    Challenging these systems, and the methodologies on which they are built, will require the government to embrace innovative models of practice across education, skills and research, even if it comes with some associated risk. Indeed, it will require a brave examination of the effectiveness of the very regulatory and funding systems which are encouraging a level of homogenisation across the sector that could spell its own doom.

    To that end, we propose an approach to spending in the next period that focuses on reforms to encourage investment and rethinking the system to make it work smarter.

    Invest in the talent pipeline and protect student choice

    As part of this government’s vision to expand opportunity, we have seen the beginnings of multiple new strategies and administrative initiatives, including proposals for a new Industrial Strategy, a Get Britain Working strategy, a new ten-year plan for the NHS, reform of higher education and the introduction of Skills England. These new arrivals aim to improve economic growth, encourage efficiency in public services, produce a future skills pipeline and build an investment environment for UK business.

    Higher education drives the transformative forces required to raise levels of productivity and improve economic growth. Institutions do this by stimulating the higher-level skills needed in industry, providing lifelong opportunities to retrain and upskill, and expanding opportunities for all to do so. They also do it by cultivating ideas and new knowledge; a cornerstone of productivity and growth.

    Alongside these contributions, we need to protect student choice by preserving a variety of institutional types and locations across the country. Doing so is vital to ensuring the widest range of students can access the transformative power of higher education; a power that yields both individual improvements in life chances and direct improvements to employability, our public services and our economy. Furthermore, a system that boasts a diverse range of institutions and provision types is a healthy one that can deliver to local economies and communities across the country and thereby demonstrate ways in which higher education institutions are vital to those beyond us.

    Balancing government growth and skills priorities with student choice is not mutually exclusive. Models of higher education that prioritise industry practice, employer needs, innovation impacts and workplace experience can achieve these priorities. The capability to develop high-level specialist skills dynamically in a way which also builds the social resilience required to respond effectively to new, advancing technologies is quickly becoming a standard requirement of our graduates. We need reformed spending to achieve it.

    Do things differently, get different results

    Minister of State for Skills Jacqui Smith has said that the government is ready to review the education system and develop a way forward that “challenges the status quo.” To genuinely fulfil this ambition, we need fundamental change to the foundational regulatory and funding systems so that diversity in terms of institution, student, and pedagogical approach can survive into the future. If this government is serious about its ambitions to grow and future-proof education and skills, the following reforms are needed.

    Reform teaching funding to support priorities

    Government should establish funding streams for specific outreach programmes in priority subject areas like creative arts, teaching, healthcare, construction and agriculture. Doing so would acknowledge failures in the prevailing market ideology that implied industrial need for qualified graduates would shape applications into relevant programmes. Identified subject areas required by both our industrial sectors and broader society could provide a clearer rationale for funding allocations than student numbers across current Office for Students bandings.

    The Strategic Priorities Grant for 2024–25 has been used to support “work on high-cost subjects, student mental health, degree apprenticeships, equality of opportunity, technical qualifications and a range of other priorities.” It is hard to see how smaller and smaller block grant funding allocations have delivered to myriad priorities and we have yet to see an evaluation of the effectiveness of that funding to support them.

    Given the existing financial pressures within the sector, which some suggest should be addressed by increasing tuition fees (presumably within the same funding methodologies), we suggest a more ambitious review of the funding system is needed to drive support to where it is most needed to preserve a healthy, dynamic and diverse sector that can deliver to a wide range of students across a wide range of locations, especially where there are limited routes into and through higher education.

    Revise funding for skills, research and innovation to drive growth

    The Growth and Skills Levy needs reforming. It needs to better support SMEs, which comprise 99 per cent of all UK employers and account for 61 per cent of total employment. SMEs are critical to most sectors, but they make up the majority of some identified as crucial sectors in the government’s Industrial Strategy, including life sciences, advanced manufacturing and the creative industries. Data from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport suggests that the vast majority of businesses in the creative industries are micro-businesses. To meet the government’s own industrial ambitions, it must not only reconsider how funding can be delivered through and to those SMEs, but also how investment in training could be flexed.

    Recent announcements by the government indicating plans to defund all Level 7 apprenticeships feel tone-deaf for those working in construction, healthcare, engineering and data science fields. To our minds, more technical skills training in fields meant to drive economic growth, which includes a wide range of skills at different levels, is not only a good thing, but is a necessary investment if those ambitions are to be realised. This is not to say we should fund L7 at the expense of lower level apprenticeships. Rather, we are advocating for investment in apprenticeships at all levels indicated as necessary by employers in those sectors where critical skills shortages have been identified as key barriers to economic growth and improvements in our public services.

    But it’s not just about skills training via apprenticeships. It’s also about generating new ideas and innovations to help us work more productively and unlock our abilities to deliver more with fewer tangible resources. To deliver that ambition, both research and innovation funding streams need reform. Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) thresholds should be lowered to remove systemic biases that disadvantage smaller and specialist institutions. Research funding should be adjusted to provide reasonable minimum levels of allocation to all institutions where excellent research is being generated. Doing so would dramatically broaden the UK’s research base rather than deepen it by funnelling greater levels of funding to points where research is already established, thereby expanding research and development capabilities by widening the pool of contributors.

    Doing so would support a regional growth strategy. It would spread money to areas where infrastructure still needs development and could provide incentives in geographical areas where ERDF funding has been lost. Local authorities in non-mayoral regions should also have a clear role in shaping research and innovation policies, with greater collaboration and knowledge-sharing between them and MCA regions to create a more balanced and inclusive approach to regional development.

    A call for an inclusive funding model

    Higher education in the UK is built on a long history of tradition, prestige, and excellence. However, in a time of economic uncertainty and shifting international alliances, we must now innovate to maintain our position on the world stage. While large, generalist institutions continue to play a critical role in advancing knowledge and global competitiveness, they are just one part of the type of healthy higher education ecosystem needed to support 21st century democracies to deliver economically and socially for their citizens. Smaller-scale, specialist and non-traditional institutions with expertise in vocational, professional programmes are equally vital.

    The government has already acknowledged the importance of skills development, regional growth, and public sector workforce expansion in words, but these priorities must be reflected in its spending decisions, policy frameworks and implementation plans. The coming fiscal choices will contribute to whether the UK’s higher education system remains diverse, dynamic, and globally competitive—or whether it risks stagnation.

    Policymakers face a critical choice: will they promote a more balanced and inclusive approach to funding that embraces risk to boost excellence in research, innovation, and skills development? The future of our sector, the UK’s ability to meet its domestic goals, and the growing need for clear, strong and sustainable geopolitical values, depend on it.

    Source link

  • FIRE and coalition partners file brief rebuking the U.S. government for attempting to deport Mahmoud Khalil for his protected speech

    FIRE and coalition partners file brief rebuking the U.S. government for attempting to deport Mahmoud Khalil for his protected speech

    WASHINGTON, March 20, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a brief Thursday with a clear message: Jailing people for their political expression betrays America’s commitment to free speech.

    FIRE’s brief — joined by a coalition of civil liberties groups — explains the First Amendment violations stemming from the Trump administration’s unconstitutional detention of and attempts to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, for his expression. After 12 days in detention, the government still has not charged Khalil with a crime. 

    The “friend of the court” brief from FIRE, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Rutherford Institute, PEN America, and the First Amendment Lawyers Association argues the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Khalil constitutes textbook viewpoint discrimination and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

    “Khalil’s arrest, which President Donald Trump heralded as the ‘first of many to come,’ is an affront to the First Amendment and the cherished American principle that the government may not punish people based on their opinions,” said Conor Fitzpatrick, FIRE supervising senior attorney.

    In its attempt to deport Khalil, the government has thus far focused solely on Khalil’s protected speech rather than charging him with criminal behavior. An administration official told The Free Press that the “allegation here is not that he was breaking the law,” and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Khalil faces deportation because he was “siding with terrorists” and “distributed pro-Hamas propaganda flyers with the logo of Hamas.”

    The Supreme Court held in 1945 that non-citizens are entitled to full First Amendment protections. And those protections cover unpopular expression, especially when that expression is political speech. The Supreme Court held in its landmark Texas v. Johnson decision that “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.”

    The administration is relying on a rarely used Cold War-era statute that empowers the secretary of state to deport a lawfully present non-citizen if the secretary determines their “presence or activities” has a “potentially serious” effect on America’s foreign policy. The administration claims that authority extends even to deporting green card holders for protected speech.

    FIRE disagrees. The statute is unconstitutionally vague and gives the secretary of state unfettered discretion to deport lawful permanent residents without giving them notice of what conduct triggers expulsion. Not only does the First Amendment trump a Cold War-era statute, but the sweeping authority the administration claims it confers “places free expression in mortal peril,” as FIRE’s brief argues.

    The brief also explains that the contours of the United States’ foreign policy are ever-changing and provide no meaningful guidance as to what opinions lawful permanent residents may or may not voice. If lawfully present non-citizens can be deported simply for endangering American “foreign policy,” the only sure way to avoid deportation is to self-censor and not voice any opinions. 

    “No one in the United States of America should fear a midnight knock on their door because they voiced an opinion the government doesn’t like,” Fitzpatrick said. “Accepting Secretary Rubio’s position would irreparably damage free expression in the United States.”

    FIRE’s brief analogized the administration’s approach to Article 51 of the Chinese Constitution, which warns that exercising “freedom” must not conflict with the “interests” of the government. “Allowing the government to step in as a censor when it believes free speech threatens the government’s interests is a loophole with an infinite diameter,” Fitzpatrick said. “It has no place in America’s tradition of individual liberty.”

    If Khalil’s deportation proceeds, the chilling effect will be profound for other international students who are presently studying at American universities. 

    “Other foreign college students will have good reason to fear criticizing the American government during classroom debates, in term papers, and on social media,” FIRE attorney Colin McDonell said. “Holding students engaged in basic political expression to different standards based on their citizenship status is poisonous to free speech on campus.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:
    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215.717.3473 x335; media@thefire.org

    Source link

  • Marc Miller removed as Canadian immigration minister

    Marc Miller removed as Canadian immigration minister

    The cabinet reshuffle came upon Carney’s swearing-in ceremony as Canada’s new Prime Minister on Friday 14 March, following his landslide victory in the Liberal leadership race announced on March 10.  

    Miller has been replaced by Rachel Bendayan, formerly the minister of official languages and associate minister of public safety under Trudeau. Bendayan is one of 11 female ministers in Carney’s 24-member cabinet.  

    Holding various government positions since being elected to parliament in 2019, Bendayan was the first Canadian of Moroccan descent to join the federal government.  

    While a change of tack regarding immigration is unlikely until after the federal election, international education stakeholders are hopeful about Miller’s successor who will head up Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

    “Canada is due for a reset on the immigration file. The former minister rode a wave of negative sentiment to make Canada feel increasingly unwelcoming to international students and their family members,” Canadian immigration lawyer Matthew McDonald told The PIE News.

    “My hope is that Minister Rachel Bendayan will bring a more positive spirit to the country’s immigration conversation,” he added.

    Based on Bendayan’s role as minister for official languages, McDonald said he expected she would continue IRCC’s commitment to the prominence of the French language in permanent residence programs.

    Bendayan’s legal background also suggests that she may continue the “technocratic approach” to policy seen of her predecessor, he added.

    The former minister rode a wave of negative sentiment to make Canada feel increasingly unwelcoming to international students

    Matthew McDonald, Canadian Immigration Services

    “We are changing how things work, so our government can deliver to Canadians faster – and we have an experienced team that is made to meet the moment we are in. Our government is united and strong, and we are getting right to work,” said Prime Minister Carney.  

    Carney, formerly head of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, and a relative political newcomer, will succeed Justin Trudeau as relations hot up between the US and Canada over Donald Trump’s trade war against its northern neighbour.  

    Trudeau’s large cabinet was made up of 37 ministers, including his longtime personal friend and the best man at his wedding, immigration minister Marc Miller.  

    Carney himself never sat on Trudeau’s cabinet, which was part of his appeal to some Liberal voters.  

    While several Trudeau stalwarts have been dropped from Carney’s cabinet, there is still considerable overlap and only three new faces, which Carney’s team said would ensure “continuity”.

    We are changing how things work, so our government can deliver to Canadians faster

    Mark Carney, Canadian Prime Minister

    In the absence of an education minister at the federal level, Miller has delivered many of the turbulent policy changes in international higher education over the past 14 months. He has become notorious in the sector for repeatedly doing so on a Friday afternoon.  

    During this time, Canadian institutions have been delivered study permit caps, twice, restrictions on post-graduate work opportunities and procedural changes around recruiting and enrolling international students, among myriad further disruptions.  

    Against the backdrop of a recent increase in anti-immigration sentiment across Canada, McDonald said that Bendayan had “the opportunity to seize this existential moment for Canada and reinforce that we are a country whose past, present, and future is an immigration story”.

    Previous statements made by Carney about tackling Canada’s housing crisis, prioritising those already in Canada for permanent residency and reducing temporary foreign worker levels suggest the government’s ongoing immigration policy will largely align with Miller’s going forward.  

    While Carney has not explicitly said anything about limiting international students, he has previously voiced concerns about institutions’ reliance on international students and has advocated for increased funding for postsecondary education.  

    Under Canada’s current immigration levels plan, the government is aiming to reduce temporary residents including international students and temporary workers to 5% of the total population by 2027.  

    Canada’s next federal election is currently scheduled for October, though there is speculation that Carney could call an election before parliament is expected to return on March 24.  

    Source link

  • The government wants to financially bludgeon those seeking to defend constitutional rights

    The government wants to financially bludgeon those seeking to defend constitutional rights

    A new White House directive to heads of executive departments and agencies threatens to make it prohibitively expensive for Americans to defend the Constitution in court. The memo “directs” the departments and agencies to “demand” that courts make those seeking injunctions against federal actions “cover the costs … incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined.”

    The move could not be more transparent in attempting to scare off potential litigants challenging executive orders or other federal actions of questionable constitutionality.

    The White House deems this necessary because “activist organizations” are supposedly “inserting themselves into the executive policy making process” and have “obtained sweeping injunctions.” The administration claims Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates security bonds for all preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders to protect against the prospect of a later judicial ruling that the defendant was improperly enjoined.

    But this is misleading. That literal reading of the rule may make sense in the mine-run of private disputes, like claims in commercial contexts. But courts have long recognized exceptions for public-interest litigation, especially when it comes to those seeking to protect constitutional rights. In other words, “activist groups” like FIRE and the clients we proudly defend.

    Our free speech protections safeguard us from government incursion, they do not extend “rights” — that is, protection — to government actors.

    It’s bad enough Rule 65 already exempts “the United States, its officers, and its agencies” from the bond requirement if they win a preliminary injunction, and that the feds also avoid the obligation the Civil Rights Act imposes on state actors to pay attorney fees if a party sues to correct a constitutional violation and wins. But to insist on payment by a party challenging the constitutionality of government action — after that party has shown likelihood of succeeding on the claim, as is required for a preliminary injunction — clearly seeks to buck the case law on public interest litigation. In the name of disincentivizing challenges to constitutionally suspect federal action, no less. 

    And that’s just wrong — the government should not be in the business of financially punishing those who seek to vindicate their constitutional rights, or of erecting extra barriers to being able to do so. 

    FIRE made the same point in our recent friend-of-the-court brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in U.S. News v. Chiu. In that case, San Francisco’s city attorney took issue with U.S. News’ annual hospital rankings and launched a “false advertising” investigation that included subpoenas demanding, among other things, that the publisher disclose its ranking methodology and supporting documents. 

    So U.S. News challenged the subpoenas in court as retaliation against its protected speech. But the city attorney sought to dismiss the case as a meritless “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (SLAPP) under California’s anti-SLAPP law and sought attorney fees, as the statute allows for prevailing defendants. Troublingly, the court bought it, dismissing the case and ordering U.S. News to pay. 

    Just one problem: Anti-SLAPP laws protect defendants from frivolous lawsuits alleging defamation or similar claims that are designed not necessarily to prevail, but to silence or punish the exercise of free speech rights. And state actors operating in official roles do not exercise free speech rights at all, but rather, government powers, as the Sixth Circuit recently reaffirmed. Our free speech protections safeguard us from government incursion, they do not extend “rights” — that is, protection — to government actors, which is who wield the powers from which protection is needed. Exactly like those the city attorney wielded in subpoenaing U.S. News.

    That’s why, when U.S. News appealed, FIRE’s  brief argued the district court was wrong to award fees in granting the city attorney’s anti-SLAPP motion. Giving government officials anti-SLAPP protection serves only to chill people from challenging unconstitutional and illegal government actions, thus threatening the very rights that anti-SLAPP laws seek to protect. 

    The White House’s new directive suffers from the same chilling problem. If agencies insist that courts make people put up or shut up by having to cover potentially ruinous federal governmental costs if they preliminarily succeed in challenging unconstitutional behavior, then naturally fewer plaintiffs (and organizations that represent them) will be willing and able to vindicate First Amendment rights in court. 

    That would leave all of us less free. 

    Source link

  • 6 recommendations for AI in classrooms

    6 recommendations for AI in classrooms

    Key points:

    As states move forward with efforts to adopt artificial intelligence, the nonprofit Southern Regional Education Board’s Commission on AI in Education has released its first six recommendations for schools and postsecondary institutions.

    Because of its broad membership, regional breadth, early creation and size, SREB President Stephen L. Pruitt said the commission is poised to produce critical recommendations that will inform not only Southern education decision makers but those throughout the nation.

    “AI is fundamentally changing the classroom and workplace,” Pruitt said. “With that in mind, this commission is working to ensure they make recommendations that are strategic, practical and thoughtful.”

    The commission is set to meet for another year and plans to release a second set of recommendations soon. Here are the first six:

    Policy recommendation #1: Establish state AI networks
    States should establish statewide artificial intelligence networks so people, groups and agencies can connect, communicate, collaborate and coordinate AI efforts across each state. These statewide networks could eventually form a regional group of statewide AI network representatives who could gather regularly to share challenges and successes.

    Policy recommendation #2: Develop targeted AI guidance
    States should develop and maintain targeted guidance for distinct groups using, integrating or supporting the use of AI in education. States should include, for example, elementary students, middle school students, high school students, postsecondary students, teachers, administrators, postsecondary faculty and administrators and parents.

    Policy recommendation #3: Provide high-quality professional development
    State K-12 and postsecondary agencies should provide leadership by working with local districts and institutions to develop plans to provide and incentivize high-quality professional development for AI. The plans should aim to enhance student learning.

    Policy recommendation #4: Integrate into standards & curricula
    States should integrate into statewide K-12 standards and curricula the AI knowledge and skills students need to prepare them for success in the workforce.

    Policy recommendation #5: Assess local capacity and needs
    States should develop and conduct AI needs assessments across their states to determine the capacity of local districts, schools and postsecondary institutions to integrate AI successfully. These should be designed to help states determine which institution, district or school needs state support, what type of support and at what level. 

    Policy recommendation #6: Develop resource allocation plans
    States should develop detailed resource allocation plans for AI implementation in schools, school districts and institutions of postsecondary education to ensure that the implementation of AI is successful and sustainable.
    These plans should inform state fiscal notes related to education and AI.

    The 60-plus member commission was established in February of 2024. Members include policymakers and education and business leaders throughout the 16-state SREB region.

    For more information about the commission please see the following links:

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link