Tag: guidance

  • We must help the next generation get from classrooms to careers with real guidance, not guesswork

    We must help the next generation get from classrooms to careers with real guidance, not guesswork

    by Jason Joseph, The Hechinger Report
    December 2, 2025

    Too many high school graduates are unsure how their education connects to their future. Even the most driven face a maze of options, with little guidance on how classroom experiences connect to real-world careers. 

    It’s no wonder that fewer than 30 percent of high school students feel “very prepared” to make life-after-graduation decisions, according to a recent study. 

    This isn’t just an education gap; it’s an economic fault line. During this period of significant economic transition, when the labor market is demanding specialized skills and adaptability, students must be prepared for what comes next. 

    And yet they are not, in part because our job market is increasingly opaque to those without established networks. Many jobs are filled through networking and referrals. But few young people have access to such resources, and the result is a generation attempting to launch careers through guesswork instead of guidance. This lack of access is hindering not only the repopulation of America’s workforce but also American competitiveness on the world stage. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.  

    Consider this: Some 45 percent of employers struggle to fill entry-level roles — often because applicants lack the skills they need, a 2023 McKinsey survey found. Yet nearly half of recent college graduates end up underemployed, Higher Ed Dive reports, providing clear evidence of a disconnect between degrees earned and jobs available. 

    At the same time, many young people’s post-pandemic disengagement and companies’ growing interest in skills-based hiring and increasing automation have altered the employment landscape forever. 

    So let’s be clear — we need a top-to-bottom shift from reactive hiring to the pragmatic creation of more intentional pathways. Bipartisan voices are calling for better alignment between K-12 education and workforce needs. Attempting to improve this alignment, in turn, offers critical opportunities to invest in career navigation and employer engagement systems.  

    Some states are already demonstrating what’s possible. In South Carolina, SC STEM Signing Day honors students from every county who choose career paths in STEM, regardless of whether they’re attending a four-year college, a two-year program or starting a skilled apprenticeship.  

    This initiative reflects a broader truth: Higher education is one of many valuable pathways, but not the only one.  

    Initiatives such as SC Future Makers have facilitated tens of thousands of virtual conversations between students and professionals, helping young people understand real-world connections between classroom skills and career outcomes.  

    This model, which pairs digital scale with local relevance, offers a replicable playbook. And it’s working elsewhere. Tallo, a career development platform, powers dozens of virtual employer events and digital campaigns each year, from regional showcases to national hiring days. In partnership with AVID and SME, Tallo has helped young people secure job interviews, land internships and earn recognized credentials. 

    States like Indiana and Tennessee are also finding new ways to connect degrees to jobs. Through programs like Next Level Jobs and Tennessee Pathways, these states incentivize employer engagement in high school career navigation and align funding to skills-based training.  

    Related: What happened when a South Carolina city embraced career education for all its students 

    All these models emphasize scalable, bipartisan approaches, and they are not only much needed and possible — they’re already in motion. 

    The consequences of career misalignment extend beyond personal frustration — they ripple across the economy. Youth disconnection cost American taxpayers billions of dollars in government expenditures and in tax revenue lost.  

    Closing this gap is thus both a moral imperative and an economic strategy. Technology is ultimately playing a growing role in helping students make more informed decisions about their future. 

    Of course, real obstacles remain: resource constraints, outdated mindsets and legacy policies often slow progress. Yet successful states, communities and technological platforms are proving that it’s possible to build flexible, sustainable models when schools, employers and local leaders align around shared goals: coordinated investment, public-private alignment and bold leadership to move from promising pockets to national progress.  

    The stakes could not be higher. We need career pathways to succeed. 

    This is a generation ready to act if we give them the tools. That means better data, stronger networks and clearer paths forward.  

    Let’s replace chance with strategy and replace confusion with opportunity. 

    With smarter systems and stronger collaboration, we can help more young people build meaningful careers and meet the needs of a changing economy. 

    Jason Joseph is corporate chief of staff at Stride Inc., a leading education company that has served more than two million students nationwide. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about career education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-we-must-help-the-next-generation-get-from-classrooms-to-careers-with-real-guidance-not-guesswork/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113600&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-we-must-help-the-next-generation-get-from-classrooms-to-careers-with-real-guidance-not-guesswork/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • The latest LLE guidance: What do we need for it to succeed?

    The latest LLE guidance: What do we need for it to succeed?

    On 9 July 2025, the Department for Education released updated guidance on the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), launching a flexible, unified student finance system for post-18 learners in England.

    This means that from September 2026, learners can apply for funding to begin modules and courses from January 2027, with access to up to £38,140 of tuition loan finance and maintenance support for in-person studies. Crucially, the LLE supports modular study for specific courses, allowing learners to access 30-credit modules that form part of, or can stack towards, full qualifications.

    This announcement comes just months after HEPI and Instructure jointly published a Policy Note calling for a coherent lifelong learning strategy that unites the LLE with the upcoming Growth and Skills Levy, avoiding fragmentation between further and higher education. HEPI and Instructure’s analysis highlights the importance of:

    • A user‑friendly, low‑burden loan application process for modular study
    • A regulatory approach that supports modular learning without excessive bureaucracy
    • Enabling employer-funded pathways alongside individual loans 
    • Increased awarding of qualifications at Levels 4/5 as solid progression markers 

    So does the latest iteration of the LLE deliver on its potential to close skills gaps, improve employment opportunities and social mobility and welcome a broader range of learners into education? 

    What works, what doesn’t, and who is responsible? 

    Let’s start by acknowledging where the LLE has got it right. Unlike with previous higher education loans, learners can fund individual 30‑credit modules throughout their lives, rather than for a one-off qualification. This allows for flexibility to pursue new learning opportunities which align with career aspirations, upskilling requirements on both the learner and employer’s behalf, as well the learner’s personal circumstances. However, the LLE in its current form is still quite restrictive, and Instructure would like to make these recommendations to the following stakeholders.

    The DfE should widen loan eligibility 

    In reality, the range of modules eligible for LLE funding is still quite limited.  Funded modules must comply with a select list of priority skills areas outlined by the Government, offer at least 30 credits (roughly 300 hours of study) and form part of an established parent course. What’s more, modules from institutions that are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted or have a Gold or Silver TEF award, will have an easier time getting approved for LLE funding – those outside of this criteria will have to submit more evidence.

    However, the skills most in demand by employers, such as Generative AI development, Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) and green skills, are by nature, newer skill areas. In their infancy, these skills may not have have many, if any, available 30-credit modules which form part of an established parent course, and are offered by an institution that’s been highly-rated by TEF or Ofsted.

    Therefore we recommend the DfE considers funding modules which are smaller units of study, such as 15-20 credit microcredentials. These credentials could be offered by learning providers which may not have achieved industry accolades just yet but do have credibility upskilling learners in emerging skills areas.

    Lastly, while online modules are tuition-eligible, maintenance loans are not. We recommend that the Government extend maintenance support to fully online learners to improve access and social mobility.

    EdTech companies and learning providers need to be ‘credit-aware’

    In order to help become eligible for the LLE, we urge learning providers to design modular content intentionally, ensuring it is credit-bearing and responsive to labour market needs.

    Furthermore, EdTech should support flexible and credential-rich delivery. Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) platforms specifically should facilitate diverse delivery models, including asynchronous and hybrid formats, and support digital credentials and e-portfolio pathways.

    In short, the latest LLE guidance sets the foundation for modular pathways and stackable credentials in selected subject areas – a more viable option for many learners who are at varying stages of their learning journey. However, the LLE must be aligned with effective funding and regulation, coupled with coordinated action from providers, employers, and edtech partners – if this crucial policy is to meet its full potential.

    Instructure is a partner of HEPI and works with UK universities to pioneer flexible, modular and digital-first lifelong learning pathways.

    Source link

  • Agencies Share Guidance on Foreign Threats at U.S. Colleges

    Agencies Share Guidance on Foreign Threats at U.S. Colleges

    Federal agencies say that research at American universities contributes to the country’s national security and colleges need to guard against foreign threats.

    Warning American colleges and universities about increasing foreign threats to research, a group of federal intelligence agencies and the Education Department released new guidance this week outlining how the institutions can better protect themselves.

    For example, the 40-page “Safeguarding Academia” bulletin in part encourages colleges and researchers to be transparent about who else is involved in a research project, noting that failing to disclose foreign collaborations could lead to sanctions. The agencies urged researchers to do their due diligence on any potential collaborators and outlined other cybersecurity best practices.

    “Protecting the integrity of U.S. research—while fostering international collaboration—is critical to maintaining a robust and secure research ecosystem,” the bulletin states. “Striking this balance is essential to preserving academic freedom, safeguarding researchers’ lifework, and ensuring that innovation continues to thrive in a secure and principled manner.”

    James Cangialosi, the acting director at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, added in a statement that while American colleges conduct research key to the country’s global competitiveness and national security, “foreign adversaries are increasingly exploiting the open and collaborative environment of U.S. academic institutions for their own gain.”

    “Today’s bulletin highlights this evolving security threat and provides mitigation strategies that academic institutions can implement to better protect their research, their institutions, as well as their staff and students,” Cangialosi said. “With the new school year starting, it’s critical to get these materials in the hands of academic institutions now.”

    Source link

  • Education Department rescinds EL equal access guidance

    Education Department rescinds EL equal access guidance

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education quietly rescinded Obama-era guidance that called on states and districts to ensure English learners “can participate meaningfully and equally” in school and “have equal access to a high-quality education and the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential.”

    • The 40-page Dear Colleague letter, issued in 2015, commended districts for “creating programs that recognize the heritage languages of EL students as valuable assets to preserve.” 

    • The department said in a statement to K-12 Dive that it rescinded the guidance because “it is not aligned with [Trump] Administration priorities.”  The rescission of the guidance is part of a broader effort from the Trump administration to center the English language above all others.

    Dive Insight:

    The comprehensive and long-standing guidance included information on identifying and assessing potential EL students, evaluating EL students for special education services, ensuring their parents have meaningful access to information, and avoiding “unnecessary segregation” of EL students, among other tasks districts typically undertake when serving English learners. 

    Dear Colleague letters are not legally binding, but are often used to communicate to education stakeholders administration’s priorities and policy interpretations.

    The current administration’s rescission of the guidance follows the department’s closure of the Office of English Language Acquisition, which was shut down entirely as part of the agency’s downsizing efforts that began in March. 

    Before its closure, that office helped ensure that English learners and immigrant students gained English proficiency and academic success, schools preserved students’ heritage languages and cultures, and that all students had the chance to develop biliteracy or multiliteracy skills. 

    The department’s erasure of the office and guidance that would have helped districts and states serve English learners comes amid other efforts from the Trump administration to prioritize the English language.

    In March, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring English the national language, despite the country still having no legally established national language. 

    The order undid a Clinton-era order that required federal agencies to improve access to their programs for those with limited English proficiency.

    The recent federal push to prioritize English over other languages and to reduce access for English learners comes at a time when the percentage of English learners in public schools is increasing. 

    There were approximately 5.3 million English learner students in fall 2021, compared with 4.6 million such students a decade prior, according to data from the Education Department last updated in 2024. 

    Source link

  • Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance struck down in federal court

    Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance struck down in federal court

    A federal judge on Thursday struck down the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance that threatened to strip colleges and K-12 schools of their federal funding over diversity, equity and inclusion practices it deemed unlawful. 

    U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher’s final judgment in the case comes after she and another federal judge temporarily blocked the guidance while litigation proceeded. 

    Her ruling vacates the Education Department’s Feb. 14 guidance. It also strikes down a Trump administration directive that ordered K-12 school districts to certify they’re not using DEI practices or risk losing federal funding. However, the Trump administration had already withdrawn the requirement due to a prior court ruling. 

    The Education Department, Gallagher wrote Thursday, didn’t take the proper steps to issue the new guidance. She also ruled that the guidance violated constitutional rights by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on classroom speech and using vague language that didn’t make clear what kind of DEI initiatives were prohibited. 

    The ruling deals a blow to one of the Trump administration’s many efforts to stamp out DEI practices in colleges and elsewhere. 

    The Feb. 14 guidance letter immediately sparked outcry from educator groups, who argued that it would limit what they could teach in the classroom, including instruction on history or systemic racism. They also argued it would prohibit campus resources, such as college cultural centers. 

    Shortly after its release, the guidance and related actions from the Education Department sparked at least three separate lawsuits. Gallagher’s ruling is in response to the complaint brought by the American Federation of Teachers, the union’s Maryland affiliate, the American Sociological Association and an Oregon school district. 

    Those groups hailed the ruling Thursday. 

    “Today’s ruling makes it clear that, regardless of President Trump’s wishes and endless attacks, our public education system will continue to meet the diverse needs of every student — from teaching true history to providing critical resources,” AFT-Maryland President Kenya Campbell said in a statement. 

    The required steps for new policies

    The sweeping Feb. 14 guidance interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court case striking down race-conscious admissions to extend to every aspect of education, arguing that colleges and K-12 schools were prohibited from considering race in any of their policies. The letter said that ban extended to scholarships, housing and graduation ceremonies. 

    The letter also took aim at classroom instruction and DEI practices. 

    “Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, wrote in the letter. “Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them — particularly during the last four years — under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”

    The Trump administration has maintained that the Feb. 14 guidance merely restates colleges and K-12 schools’ existing obligations under Title VI, which bars federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. However, Gallagher pushed back on that argument, writing that the guidance created new policies for colleges and schools to follow. 

    Title VI — along with the landmark court decision striking down race-conscious admissions — have “never been interpreted to preclude teaching about concepts relating to race,” Gallagher wrote. 

    The Trump administration could have issued guidance to note that it would prioritize Title VI enforcement to “discrimination against all groups, even those in the majority,” Gallagher added. “But it went much farther than that by expanding the definitions of ‘stereotyping,’ ‘stigmatizing,’ and ‘discrimination’ to reach entirely new categories of conduct.” 

    Moreover, the Education Department cited the Feb. 14 letter the following month when it launched investigations into more than 50 colleges over allegations that their programs or scholarships have race-based restrictions. Most of the institutions were targeted because of their relationship with The PhD Project, a nonprofit that for years provided support for underrepresented groups earning doctoral degrees in business but recently adopted a broader mission.

    Source link

  • More Than Half the States Have Issued AI Guidance for Schools – The 74

    More Than Half the States Have Issued AI Guidance for Schools – The 74


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

    Agencies in at least 28 states and the District of Columbia have issued guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in K-12 schools.

    More than half of the states have created school policies to define artificial intelligence, develop best practices for using AI systems and more, according to a report from AI for Education, an advocacy group that provides AI literacy training for educators.

    Despite efforts by the Trump administration to loosen federal and state AI rules in hopes of boosting innovation, teachers and students need a lot of state-level guidance for navigating the fast-moving technology, said Amanda Bickerstaff, the CEO and co-founder of AI for Education.

    “What most people think about when it comes to AI adoption in the schools is academic integrity,” she said. “One of the biggest concerns that we’ve seen — and one of the reasons why there’s been a push towards AI guidance, both at the district and state level — is to provide some safety guidelines around responsible use and to create opportunities for people to know what is appropriate.”

    North Carolina, which last year became one of the first states to issue AI guidance for schools, set out to study and define generative artificial intelligence for potential uses in the classroom. The policy also includes resources for students and teachers interested in learning how to interact with AI models successfully.

    In addition to classroom guidance, some states emphasize ethical considerations for certain AI models. Following Georgia’s initial framework in January, the state shared additional guidance in June outlining ethical principles educators should consider before adopting the technology.

    This year, Maine, Missouri, Nevada and New Mexico also released guidelines for AI in schools.

    In the absence of regulations at the federal level, states are filling a critical gap, said Maddy Dwyer, a policy analyst for the Equity in Civic Technology team at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit working to advance civil rights in the digital age.

    While most state AI guidance for schools focuses on the potential benefits, risks and need for human oversight, Dwyer wrote in a recent blog post that many of the frameworks are missing out on critical AI topics, such as community engagement and deepfakes, or manipulated photos and videos.

    “I think that states being able to fill the gap that is currently there is a critical piece to making sure that the use of AI is serving kids and their needs, and enhancing their educational experiences rather than detracting from them,” she said.

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


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

    Source link

  • Middle and high school students need education, career guidance

    Middle and high school students need education, career guidance

    Key points:

    Students need more support around education paths and career options, including hands-on experiences, according to a new nationwide survey from the nonprofit American Student Assistance.

    The survey of more than of 3,000 students in grades 7-12 offers insights into teens’ plans after high school. The research, Next Steps: An Analysis of Teens’ Post-High School Plans, uncovers evolving trends in teenagers’ attitudes, perceptions, and decision-making about their post-high school plans.

    “This analysis of teens’ post high school plans reveals shifts in students’ thinking and planning. We need to change the way we help young people navigate the complex and evolving landscape of education and career options,” said Julie Lammers, Executive Vice President of ASA. “Starting in middle school, our young people need early access to opportunities that empowers them to explore careers that match their interests and strengths; hands-on, skills-based experiences in high school; and information and resources to navigate their path to postsecondary education and career. All of this will enable them to graduate informed, confident, and empowered about what they want to do with their futures.” 

    The survey offers notable findings regarding parental influence on teens’ planning, perceptions of nondegree pathways like trade or technical school, apprenticeships, and certificate programs, and a continued drop-off in kids’ plans to go to college immediately after high school graduation.

    Key findings include:

    Teens’ interest in college is down while nondegree paths are on the rise. Nearly half of all students said they aren’t interested in going to college, with just 45 percent saying two- or four-year college was their most likely next step. Meanwhile 38 percent of teens said they were considering trade or technical schools, apprenticeships, and technical bootcamp programs, although only 14 percent say that such a path is their most likely next step.

    Parents are one of teens’ biggest influencers—and they’re skeptical of nondegree options. A vast majority (82 percent) of teens said their parents agree with their plans to go to four-year college, while only 66 percent said parents supported plans to pursue a nondegree route. In fact, teens reported parents were actually more supportive (70 percent) of foregoing education altogether right after high school vs. pursuing a nondegree program.    

    A concerning number of young people don’t have plans for further education or training. Nearly one quarter (23 percent) said they have no immediate plans to continue formal education or training upon graduation. Teens not planning to continue education after high school indicated they were thinking of beginning full-time work, entering a family business, starting their own business, or joining the military.

    Teens, and especially middle schoolers, are feeling better prepared to plan their futures. In recent years policymakers, educators, employers, and other stakeholders have pushed to make career-connected learning a more prominent feature of our education to workforce system. Survey results say it’s paying off. Agreement with the statement “my school provides me with the right resources to plan for my next steps after high school” grew from just 59 percent in 2018, to 63 percent in 2021, to 82 percent in 2024. Notably, the largest increase occurred at the middle school level, where confidence in in-school planning resources jumped from 60 percent in 2018 to 90 percent in 2024.

    Girls are much more likely to plan to attend college than boys. Boys and girls are equally interested in college when they’re in middle school, but by high school, more than half (53 percent) of girls say they’re likely to attend college compared to just 39 percent of boys. The gender gap is smaller when it comes to nondegree pathways: 15 percent of high school boys say they will likely attend vocational/trade school, participate in an apprenticeship, or take a certificate program, compared to 10 percent of high school girls.

    City kids aren’t as “into” college. Urban teens were least likely (39 percent) to say they plan to go to college. Suburban teens are much more likely to plan to attend a college program (64 percent) while 46 percent of rural students planned on college.

    Students of color are college bound. More than half (54 percent) of Black teens and 51 percent of Hispanic youth are planning to go to college, compared to 42 percent of White teens.  

    This press release originally appeared online.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • State Department Unveils Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Social Media Vetting Guidance – CUPA-HR

    State Department Unveils Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Social Media Vetting Guidance – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 24, 2025

    On June 18, the Department of State issued a cable to all U.S. diplomatic and consular posts formally expanding the screening and vetting process for applicants of F, M and J (FMJ) nonimmigrant visas. The State Department guidance resumes FMJ appointment scheduling after a previous announcement from the agency paused all student visa interviews as they prepared for the new social media screening and vetting guidance.

    Background

    At the end of May, the State Department announced that U.S. embassies and consular sections were pausing new student visa interviews as they awaited further guidance on new social media screening and vetting requirements. CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and other higher education associations on a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio requesting the agency quickly implement the new vetting measures to ensure new student visas could be efficiently processed before the 2025-2026 academic year. No further guidance was publicly announced between the announced pausing of student visa interviews and the cable sent out to all diplomatic and consular posts.

    New Screening and Vetting Guidance

    The cable directs consular sections to resume scheduling FMJ appointments after implementing the new vetting procedures. The guidance requires officers to conduct “a comprehensive and thorough vetting of all FMJ applicants, including online presence, to identify applicants who bear hostile attitudes toward our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles; who advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to U.S. national security; or who perpetrate unlawful antisemitic harassment or violence.” The posts are directed to implement the new guidance within five business days.

    As explained in the cable, consular officers are directed to conduct intake and interviews in accordance with standard procedures, but once an FMJ applicant is otherwise eligible for the requested nonimmigrant status, officers must temporarily refuse the case under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). After refusing the case, officers must request the applicant set all social media accounts to “public,” after which the officer must examine “the applicant’s entire online presence — not just social media activity — using any appropriate search engines or other online resources.”

    The new vetting procedures could limit the consular officers’ ability to process student visa applications quickly and efficiently as the cable also mentions that consular sections should “consider the effect of this guidance on workload” when resuming the scheduling of FMJ appointments. Even with these concerns, the cable does request expedited appointments for certain FMJs, including J-1 physicians and F-1 students seeking to study at U.S. institutions where the international student body constitutes 15 percent or less of the total student population.

    While much of the advocacy from interested stakeholders on this issue revolves around students, individuals seeking J-1 visas to participate in cultural and educational exchange programs to conduct research or teach at institutions could be subject to an enhanced level of scrutiny. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to the FMJ vetting processes.



    Source link

  • Do states have ‘statutory right’ to Education Department data and guidance?

    Do states have ‘statutory right’ to Education Department data and guidance?

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

    States suing the U.S. Department of Education over its mass layoffs claim the reduction in force is impacting the agency’s legally required functions, including research and grant distribution. But in documents submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, the Education Department said states “have no statutory right to any particular level of government data or guidance.”

    The department is pushing the high court to let its massive RIF go through after being paused by both a federal district judge and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In court documents, the agency said “it can carry out its statutorily mandated functions with a pared-down staff and that many discretionary functions are better left to the States.”

    Its request to carry through on the RIFs comes even as the agency notified “all impacted employees” on administrative leave in a June 6 email obtained by K-12 Dive that it is “actively assessing how to reintegrate you back to the office in the most seamless way possible” to comply with the court orders. 

    On June 16 — the same day as the agency’s latest Supreme Court filing —  it also emailed RIFed staff for information to help the department in “understanding potential reentry timelines and identifying any accommodations that may be needed.” 

    However, several of the more than 1,300 department employees put on administrative leave in March told K-12 Dive last week that they do not think the agency intends to actually bring them back. This is despite many of the employees having worked on legally required tasks the department has lagged on or trimmed down since the layoffs, as well as the department’s efforts to seemingly comply with the court orders. 

    “While they’re saying we’re coming back, they’re also still appealing the [RIF] process,” said one Education Department employee who is on administrative leave because of the RIF. “It feels like they’re slow-walking it.” 

    Employees ‘in limbo’ as department lags on statutory tasks

    The department is still paying all these employees’ salaries — amounting to millions of dollars — only for them to sit tight. 

    According to an email from American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, the union representing a majority of the laid-off employees, the Education Department is spending at least $7 million in taxpayer dollars per month to workers on leave.

    That amount is, in fact, only for 833 of the 962 laid-off Education Department workers that the union represents and whom it was able to reach for its analysis. Thus, much more than $7 million is actually being spent per month to keep the more than 1,300 laid-off employees on payroll. 

    Since March, the department has spent approximately $21.5 million on just those 833 employees, according to data provided by AFGE Local 252.

    While the Education Department emailed laid-off employees multiple times in the past month to gather information for “reintegration and space planning efforts” on government IDs, retirement plans and devices, among other things, several employees called this a superficial effort to comply with court orders. 

    In the meantime, employees are free to apply to other jobs, start their own organizations, and go on vacation if they so choose, according to employees K-12 Dive spoke with as well as an AFGE Local 252 spokesperson. 

    “We feel like we’re in limbo,” said an employee who has been on administrative leave since March. “They haven’t talked to us.” 

    This employee and the others who spoke to K-12 Dive asked to remain anonymous for fear that identification could negatively affect their employment status or severance terms.

    Condition of Education report falls behind

    This employee would have been working at the National Center for Education Statistics on data related to the Condition of Education Report, which is required by law — and for which the department missed its June 1 deadline “for the first time ever,” according to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. 

    After leaving just a handful of employees in NCES, the department has so far released only a webpage titled “Learn About the New Condition of Education 2025: Part I,” which includes significantly less information than in previous years.

    “Now all we have is a bare-bones ‘highlight’ document with no explanation to Congress or to the public,” Murray said in a June 5 Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing. “And that is really unacceptable — students, families, teachers all deserve to see a full report.” 

    In 2024, the report was a 44-page document including new analysis, comparisons with past years, and graphs to visualize the data. It included over 20 indicators grouped by topics from pre-kindergarten through secondary and postsecondary education, labor force outcomes and international comparisons. Individual indicators ranged from school safety issues like active shooter incidents to recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. 
      
    This year, the department said it would be “updating indicators on a rolling basis” due to its “emphasis on timeliness” and would determine “which indicators matter the most.” More than two weeks after its missed June 1 deadline, however, the report still only includes a highlights page with five indicators linking to data tables, many of which had already been released. 

    Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have also expressed concerns that the department lagged on its statutory responsibilities to disburse key federal funds, including for Title I-A — which they said took three times as long to distribute than under the last administration. The delay in funding distribution gave states and districts less time to plan for helping underserved students, including those experiencing homelessness, lawmakers said.

    The U.S. Department of Education did not respond to K-12 Dive’s requests for comment on its missed June 1 deadline for the report or on how it will increase government efficiency and cut costs while spending millions on salaries for employees who are not working. 

    Sen. Patty Murray speaks into a microphone

    Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., questions McMahon during a hearing about the proposed 15% cut to the Education Department’s budget on Capitol Hill June 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The budget was consistent with President Trump’s executive order to wind down the Education Department.

    Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images via Getty Images

     

    Department says RIF impacts are “speculative”

    However, in its Supreme Court filing on Monday, the department dismissed as “speculative allegations” states’ complaints of disruptions to services as a result of the RIFs.

    The states, in their filing last week seeking to block the RIFs, said that “collection of accurate and reliable data is necessary for numerous statutory functions within the Department that greatly affect the States.” 

    The department relies on this data “to allocate billions of dollars in educational funds among the States under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” the states said in their June 13 response to the administration’s plea to the Supreme Court to let its RIFs take effect. The department has given “no explanation of how such allocation can occur without the collection and analysis of underlying data, or of how the data can be collected or analyzed without staff,” their filing said.

    In its Monday response, the department maintained that it is not required by law to maintain “a particular quality of audit.” The states arguing to maintain the department’s previous staffing levels are trying to “micromanage government staffing based on speculation that the putative quality of statutorily mandated services will decline,” the agency said.

    However, when pressed by Sen. Murray in a budget hearing earlier this month, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said “no” analysis was conducted about how the firings would impact the agency’s functions or how it would continue its statutorily required responsibilities without much of its staff. The department did read “training manuals and things of that nature” prior to the layoffs, she said, and had conversations with “the department.” 

    But several laid-off staffers told K-12 Dive that they were never spoken to about how their responsibilities would continue to be fulfilled after their departure. 

    “They don’t understand what they’ve cut,” an employee said.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Free speech guidance, R&D

    Podcast: Free speech guidance, R&D

    This week on the podcast we examine the Office for Students’ new free speech guidance as controversial requirements prepare to take effect from August 1st.

    What do the “deeply disturbing” YouGov findings about academic self-censorship really tell us, and how should universities navigate campus protests and challenging research topics?

    Plus we discuss outgoing UKRI chief Ottoline Leyser’s stark warning about “inevitable consolidation” in university research.

    With Mark Peace, Professor of Innovation in Education at King’s College London, Arti Saraswat, Senior Policy Manager for Higher Education at the Association of Colleges, Livia Scott, Partnerships Coordinator at Wonkhe, and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Sussex fined almost £600k over free speech

    So are universities allowed to chill misogyny or not?

    The franchise problem may not have a quick answer

    Welcome to the walk-in degree

    What is the franchising boom doing to drop-out?

    Source link