Tag: Higher

Trump Proposes $161M Cut to Tribal Colleges’ Funding

The Trump administration is asking Congress to cut funds for tribal colleges and universities by nearly 90 percent, according to the Department of the Interior’s proposed budget released Monday.

Tribal college advocates told ProPublica, which first reported on the cuts, that tribal colleges could have to shutter if Congress approves the plan, leaving thousands of students without the support they need to complete a degree program. And reports from ProPublica show that it will only further devastate institutions that were already underfunded.

“The numbers that are being proposed would close the tribal colleges,” Ahniwake Rose, president and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, told ProPublica. “They would not be able to sustain.”

The budget request calls for about $860 million to operate Indian Education Programs, which includes two federally controlled tribal colleges—Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. Of that $860 million, about $22 million would go toward postsecondary programs. That’s about a $161 million cut compared to fiscal year 2024.

Tribal colleges argue that their funding is protected by treaties and contend that the institutions up for discussion are critical providers in some of the country’s poorest areas.

“It doesn’t make sense for them to [approve the cuts[ when they’re relying on us to train the workforce,” Dawn Frank, president of Oglala Lakota College in South Dakota, told ProPublica. “We’re really relying on our senators and representatives to live up to their treaty and trust obligation.”

Source link

June 6, 2025
Judge Restores AmeriCorps Funding in 24 States, D.C.

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore funding to AmeriCorps programs in 24 states and Washington, D.C., following a lawsuit that challenged the April cuts to the program, The Hill reported Thursday.

The judge, Obama appointee Deborah Boardman, ruled that the states were likely to succeed in their argument that the agency’s funding could not legally be cut without a notice-and-comment period. The ruling did not reinstate any of the agency’s staff.

AmeriCorps volunteers and grants support at least 100 college-access organizations across the U.S., many of which had to lay off their AmeriCorps members in the wake of the cuts.

It’s the latest court order blocking the administration’s crusade to reduce the size of the federal government; recently, judges reversed layoffs at the Department of Education and ruled that a lawsuit challenging funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health could move forward.

Source link

June 6, 2025
Trump Proclamations Escalate International Student Attacks

President Trump issued two directives targeting international students just hours apart on Wednesday night. One is a ban on entering the U.S. for citizens from 12 countries and heightened visa restrictions for those from another seven. The other bans all international students, researchers and other “exchange visitors” from Harvard University.

The orders represent another escalation of the Trump administration’s simultaneous, and sometimes overlapping, campaigns to both punish Harvard and curtail the number of foreign students studying in the U.S.

Chris Glass, a professor of higher education at Boston College and a member of the college’s Center for International Education, said the combination of the travel ban and the Harvard order are part of the administration’s “flood the zone” strategy for its higher education agenda. He added that the timing of the dual orders, following on the heels of a “seemingly indefinite” pause on student visa interviews and a promise to “aggressively revoke” Chinese students’ visas, seems intended to cause the most chaos possible.

“The timing couldn’t be worse … this is when 70 percent of international students are getting or renewing their visas,” he said. “It injects catastrophic uncertainty, and the uncertainty is the strategy from my perspective.”

On Thursday evening, Harvard filed a legal challenge to the proclamation targeting the university and asked a judge to issue a temporary restraining order against the administration. Judge Allison Burroughs from the District of Massachusetts quickly granted that request and extended the current restraining order issued last month. She set a hearing for June 16.

2017 Again

The last time Trump instituted a travel ban, in his first term, it threw colleges into chaos and left students and researchers stranded for months in the middle of winter break, sending colleges scrambling to find ways to bring them back. Higher ed has been bracing for a repeat of that travel ban since Trump was elected in November; many institutions told their international students to return to campus before the inauguration to avoid the same fate.

The new ban is not as drastic as many predicted; when the White House initially proposed another travel ban in March, officials rolled out a list of 43 potential target countries. But it is more expansive than the 2017 ban—it affects 19 countries instead of eight—and, combined with the administration’s barrage of attacks on international students over the past three months, could be even more damaging to international enrollment.

The full ban applies to Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen—largely Middle Eastern and African countries with substantial Muslim populations. Trump also restricted visas from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

The travel ban doesn’t immediately affect students currently in the U.S. or who have already been approved for visas. But with many admitted international students still languishing in a visa process that the State Department halted two weeks ago, it will likely prevent thousands of students from attending in the fall and upend institutions’ projected enrollments.

The countries on the list send a relatively small number of students to U.S. colleges. Of the affected countries, Iran has by far the most students studying in the U.S. It is the 15th most common origin country for international students, with 12,430 studying at American colleges and universities as of fall 2024, according to the latest report from the Institute for International Education.

Still, the order is likely to compound the uncertainty and fear that has grown among international student populations, leading to signs of a large decline in student visa applications. Glass’s research, along with more recent reports, shows a double-digit decline in student visas from March 2024 to this March alone; the latest moves could double that, he said.

“[The] COVID [pandemic] was a disruption of 15 percent,” he said. “This looks like it could be more significant than COVID, if the pause is extended and the uncertainty continues.”

In his proclamation announcing the travel ban, Trump wrote that the targeted countries had “deficient” vetting and screening processes for visa applicants, or had “taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals.”

Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said the rationale outlined in the travel ban—that students pose a unique national security threat and have been overstaying their visas—doesn’t align with reality.

“If this is for national security concerns, our students are some of the most vetted visas out there,” she said. “And I don’t know if our students actually overstay their visas very often.”

Fanta Aw, the president of NAFSA, an association of international educators, echoed Spreitzer and said that international students are already “among the most tracked individuals entering the United States.”

“Actions such as halting student visa issuance and implementing nationality-based travel bans do not enhance national security,” she wrote in an email. “Instead, they weaken it—undermining our economy, diminishing our global competitiveness and eroding our country’s ability to effectively engage with the global population.”

The 2017 travel ban was amended twice after being challenged in the courts and eventually exempted nonimmigrant visas, including student and exchange visas. Spreitzer said the administration’s outsize focus on student visa holders over the last few months makes that outcome less likely, but only time—and the courts—will tell.

Havoc at Harvard

The travel ban came on the heels of another White House proclamation Wednesday night, this one banning foreign students and scholars from attending Harvard.

Trump restricted visa applicants from entering the country “solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard,” claiming that allowing foreign students on campus would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard’s conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers.”

A Harvard spokesperson wrote that the proclamation is “another illegal retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard’s first amendment rights” and that the university “will continue to protect its international students.”

The proclamation is the latest jab in a weeks-long fight over international students on Harvard’s campus. Last month the Trump administration attempted to revoke Harvard’s Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification, which would have banned the university from enrolling international students altogether, affecting not just visa applicants but also foreign students and researchers currently on campus. Harvard challenged the effort in court, and a judge swiftly granted the university an injunction; on Monday, the Trump administration lost its appeal to overturn that decision.

Harvard amended that lawsuit to include a challenge to the newest proclamation, calling it “an unlawful evasion of the Court’s order.”

“When the Court enjoined the Secretary [of State’s] efforts to revoke Harvard’s certifications and force its students to transfer or depart the country, the President sought to achieve the same result by refusing to allow Harvard students to enter in the first place,” the amended suit reads.

Unlike the SEVP decertification attempt, Trump’s executive proclamation doesn’t immediately affect international students currently enrolled at Harvard, only those who have yet to secure visas—though it does instruct the State Department to determine whether current students “should have their visas revoked.”

The proclamation runs through a gamut of justifications for its international student ban. Trump cites data on increasing campus crime rates in the interest of student safety, alleges discrimination in the admissions process that he claims foreign students exacerbate and points to academic partnerships and financial contributions from countries like China that he says endanger U.S. national security interests.

Notably, Trump also says Harvard has failed to cooperate with the administration’s demands for student misconduct records; the university has provided data on “only three students,” which Trump wrote was evidence that “it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.”

Glass said the move is almost certainly an attempt to work around the court injunction using executive powers rather than the visa bureaucracy. And making the issue about constitutional authority in the national security realm—rather than whether the proper SEVP decertification process was followed—could change the legal calculus in court.

“That’s what’s going to set a precedent for generations,” Glass said. “Will the precedent of autonomy and academic freedom at Harvard win in the courts? Or will the precedent of national security powers for the government win the day?”

(This story has been updated to correct the list of banned countries to include Republic of the Congo.)

Source link

June 6, 2025
A Chance for Constructive Engagement (opinion)

Earlier this spring, I was one of hundreds of college, university and scholarly society leaders to sign “A Call for Constructive Engagement” published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. The statement speaks out against “the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” It calls for the freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how and by whom, while engaging in constructive reform and openness to legitimate government oversight.

Deciding whether to make such a public statement merits careful consideration. This is because by making the statement, a higher education leader will likely not be reflecting the viewpoints of all of their institution’s constituents.

An email from an alum from the 1970s reminded me of this. The alum chastised me for signing the statement, for overreaching and speaking for some members of our university community such as him, and for banding together with other higher learning institutions that have become “liberal cesspools of propaganda and misinformation … [that] openly permit anti-Israeli protests led by anti-Semitic educators … [and] become another left-wing terrorist organization supporting the likes of Hamas.”

The alum asked me to remove my signature from the AAC&U statement on account of the concerns that he had raised. One higher education leader has so far done so, likely because of receiving input such as that provided by our alum.

I opted to reply to our alum, thereby putting to practice the constructive engagement preached by the AAC&U statement. My reply asked the alum how long it had been since he had last visited campus and whether he knew that, thanks to the philanthropic generosity of some fellow graduates, we renovated our campus’s Hillel House last summer.

I asked the alum whether he had heard of the Common Ground program Alfred instituted in 2018 through the philanthropic support of our trustees. It is a required course for all of our new undergraduate students and consists of small-group dialogue facilitated by a faculty or staff member with two key objectives: 1) to better appreciate the different backgrounds (including geographies, ethnicities and religions), aspirations and interests that our new students bring to Alfred (artists think differently than engineers, liberal arts students think differently than business students), and 2) to arrive at some shared values that our new students will commit to living by as citizens of the Alfred community—such as commitment to constructive dialogue.

By fostering constructive engagement, our Common Ground program likely helped prevent the strife that occurred on many other college campuses in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the ensuing war in the Middle East. When members of campus communities have built meaningful relationships with one another, they are less likely to retreat to their ideological corners when a potential conflict arises. Instead, they talk as friends.

I closed my email by asking the alum whether he had any impactful mentors as a student.

To my pleasant surprise, the alum replied by recounting a particularly impactful faculty mentor in the field of astronomy who had given him many applied learning opportunities and inspired a lifelong interest in stargazing, which he continues to do to this day from his home. He also noted how well his college education had positioned him for the professional success that he has enjoyed.

We have since spoken by phone. While there are certain matters upon which we still disagree, we have found some common ground.

We agree that institutions of higher learning are potent engines for promoting the success of graduates as well as the prosperity of our nation and the health and well-being of our broader population. There are nearly 4,000 institutions of higher learning across our nation—spanning public and private and including community colleges, technical training institutions, arts schools, religious institutions and HBCUs. This constellation, in which anyone can find a place, provides powerful opportunities for professional and personal advancement, social mobility, entrepreneurial innovation, access to health care, national defense, social services and cultural offerings.

We agree that the core focus of institutions of higher learning should be on providing an education of enduring value through fostering knowledge and curiosity.

We also agree that universities, like individuals and nations, do not always uniformly arc toward wisdom. They can stumble and thus benefit from constructive reform. Our field of higher education can and should be better listeners to our public, more concerned about the cost of college and more focused on student success and less on prestige.

Notwithstanding the stumbles, however, institutions of higher learning, as noted by Israeli historian Yuval Hariri in his recent book Nexus, have some powerful self-correcting mechanisms such as peer review. Authoritarian regimes, by contrast, lack such self-correcting mechanisms when they suppress inquiry and criticism.

Consider Katalin Karikó, who emigrated from her native Hungary to the United States with $1,200 cash sewn into her daughter’s teddy bear to do research on mRNA. While at the University of Pennsylvania, her hypothesis regarding the potency of mRNA research was derided by most fellow researchers around the globe. She was denied a tenure-track position and demoted. Yet, the research that she kept pursuing was pivotal to the development of COVID vaccines and earned her a Nobel Prize in 2023.

And while our alum and I still disagree on whether my signature should be affixed to the AAC&U statement, we have ended up agreeing both on the value of constructive engagement and the criticality of promoting it as a central value in higher education.

Mark Zupan is president of Alfred University.

Source link

June 6, 2025
Housing Program Increases Student Success in Calif.

An estimated 20 percent of college students experience housing insecurity and 14 percent experience homelessness, according to fall 2024 data from Trellis Strategies. Yet many colleges are ill-equipped to address student housing concerns, particularly institutions with nonresidential campuses or those that serve adult learners.

The state of California created an initiative in 2020 to provide housing and short-term support to students who were experiencing housing insecurity while enrolled at one of the three public systems—the California State Universities, California Community Colleges or the University of California.

A recently published analysis of the state’s College Focused Rapid Rehousing (CFRR) program identified promising practices and lessons learned from the pilot. The study—authored by the Center for Equitable Higher Education (CEHE) at California State University, Long Beach—found that students who participated were more likely to remain enrolled and graduate compared to their peers, and a majority had established stable housing one year later.

The background: Passed in July 2019, Assembly Bill 74 allocated funding for college-focused rapid rehousing programs, which give students rental subsidies, moving assistance, wraparound supports, case management and emergency grants. The community college system received $9 million, CSU $6.5 million and UC institutions $3.5 million to invest in long- and short-term initiatives, depending on each system’s unique student needs.

According to 2023 data included in the report, over half of CSU students and 65 percent of CCC’s who receive financial aid experience housing insecurity. One-quarter of CCC students and 11 percent of CSU students experienced homelessness during the 2022–23 academic year.

The CEHE study evaluated the program over three years at eight CSU campuses and two community colleges. In total, 639 students participated in CFRR across the 10 institutions, and 3,949 received short-term assistance—often in the form of an emergency grant—from spring 2020 to spring 2024. Approximately 540 students fell into both categories, receiving short-term support before enrolling in CFRR.

Some historically underserved populations were more likely to participate in CFRR: Black students and former foster youth were heavily overrepresented relative to the general population, and first-generation, transfer and returning students were also overrepresented to a smaller degree.

Addressing housing insecurity: The program was successful in its goal of mitigating homelessness for enrolled students. After engaging with CFRR, participants experienced substantial housing stability, with an average of nine consecutive months of housing.

In addition, a majority of students who left the program graduated (27 percent) or reached permanent housing (27 percent), while 15 percent failed to meet academic requirements, which is a common barrier to sustaining housing assistance.

The greatest share of students (37 percent) were placed in stable housing in less than six months, though one-third took over 12 months to get housing from a community partner. The breakdown highlights the challenges in placing students in viable housing options, according to the report. However, two-thirds of surveyed students (n=181) said they believe they had been housed relatively quickly.

One year after exiting the program, a majority of participants indicated that they were residing in an apartment or home that they directly leased or owned. Eighteen percent lived with a family member.

Students credited the program with supporting their long-term success; 71 percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their current housing situation was better because of the assistance they received.

However, many still struggled with financial insecurity. Sixty-two percent said it was difficult to pay increased rent in the first year after exiting the program, and 25 percent underpaid or missed at least one rent payment during this period. Three in 10 said they had to move more than twice due to financial difficulties, and one-quarter of program graduates reported at least one episode of homelessness.

Impacting student success: In addition to meeting students’ basic needs, the program had a demonstrated effect on persistence and attainment rates.

Participants were more likely to remain enrolled or graduate (56 percent) compared to students receiving short-term housing assistance (47 percent). At CSU, CFRR students graduated within four years at higher rates than the broader CSU population (43 percent versus 35.5 percent), as well.

Data also pointed to the impact housing crises can have on students’ academic performance, with housing-insecure students reporting their lowest GPA the semester they engaged in support interventions and the semester following.

A graph showing the average GPA of CFRR participants compared to their peers who received short-term assistance from their institution.

Twelve months after receiving assistance, CFRR students were significantly less likely to stop out of school compared to their peers who received just a short-term housing subsidy. Survey data showed students were more likely to engage in school activities, but a majority (70 percent) still held jobs to pay for college, working an average of 25 hours per week. Eighty percent of CFRR participants said they had difficulty balancing school and life responsibilities.

Program participants were also more likely to be employed six months after entering housing (70 percent) versus three months before entering the program (56 percent).

Housing insecurity can damage students’ mental health and in turn affect their persistence in higher education. At intake into CFRR, 76 percent of participants said they felt lonely, but that number dropped to 63 percent in follow-up surveys. Just under half of housing-insecure students experienced serious psychological distress at intake, while closer to one-third indicated distress at follow-up. These numbers remain elevated compared to the total student population at CSU, where 20 percent experienced serious psychological distress.

The program also increased students’ emotional and mental resilience. Students rated their ability to handle personal problems higher after securing housing as well, from 33 percent to 52 percent during follow-up.

If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

Source link

June 6, 2025
What America Needs Most From the Class of 2025

You, who made the dreams of your immigrant families come true by earning your college degrees, are what America needs right now.

You, who yourselves are immigrants who came to this country with nothing but have earned a degree or certificate that could transport you out of poverty and into the middle class, are what America needs right now.

You, who survived poverty, food insecurity and homelessness to make it here to your college graduation, are what America needs right now.

You, who know firsthand what it is like to be discriminated against because of where you are from, how you talk, how you look and who you love, but yet, refuse to sit idly by while others suffer injustices, are what America needs right now.

Even those of you who have no firsthand experience with discrimination but yet also refuse to sit idly by while others suffer injustices are what America needs right now.

You, who served your time, turned your lives around, were released from jails and prisons, then ultimately inspired others in your communities by earning college degrees, are what America needs right now.

You, who bravely served in our nation’s military, then came to college and are graduating today with the same enduring commitments to freedom—thank you for your service—you are what America needs right now.

You, who are committed to building and protecting a just and equitable nation that none of us have ever seen, are what America needs right now.

Eighteen states are yet to elect a woman governor—she could be you. The United States needs its first woman president—she could be you. Fortune 500 companies need more indisputably qualified CEOs and executives who reflect our nation’s diversity—that could be you. Higher education will soon need a new generation of professors and administrators to educate and ensure the success of future students—that could be you.

Class of 2025, what our nation needs most at this time is you.

Source link

June 6, 2025
What America Needs Most From the Class of 2025

You, who made the dreams of your immigrant families come true by earning your college degrees, are what America needs right now.

You, who yourselves are immigrants who came to this country with nothing but have earned a degree or certificate that could transport you out of poverty and into the middle class, are what America needs right now.

You, who survived poverty, food insecurity and homelessness to make it here to your college graduation, are what America needs right now.

You, who know firsthand what it is like to be discriminated against because of where you are from, how you talk, how you look and who you love, but yet, refuse to sit idly by while others suffer injustices, are what America needs right now.

Even those of you who have no firsthand experience with discrimination but yet also refuse to sit idly by while others suffer injustices are what America needs right now.

You, who served your time, turned your lives around, were released from jails and prisons, then ultimately inspired others in your communities by earning college degrees, are what America needs right now.

You, who bravely served in our nation’s military, then came to college and are graduating today with the same enduring commitments to freedom—thank you for your service—you are what America needs right now.

You, who are committed to building and protecting a just and equitable nation that none of us have ever seen, are what America needs right now.

Eighteen states are yet to elect a woman governor—she could be you. The United States needs its first woman president—she could be you. Fortune 500 companies need more indisputably qualified CEOs and executives who reflect our nation’s diversity—that could be you. Higher education will soon need a new generation of professors and administrators to educate and ensure the success of future students—that could be you.

Class of 2025, what our nation needs most at this time is you.

Source link

June 6, 2025
Senate Dems Grill Trump’s Pick to Lead Civil Rights Office

Kimberly Richey, a Florida education official, made her case Thursday about why she should lead the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, pledging “unwavering” support of the administration’s priorities such as protecting Jewish students.

“Should I be confirmed as assistant secretary for civil rights, I will proudly be joining an administration that will not allow students to be intimidated, harassed, assaulted or excluded from their institutions,” she said in her opening remarks.

But repeatedly throughout the hearing, Democratic senators interrogated her on how she plans to address a massive backlog in complaints—which one senator said has more than doubled since Trump took office, to 25,000—with a reduced staff.

“This administration has fired more than half of the staff at OCR, and President Trump is now asking, in his budget, to slash that by $49 million next year, so explain to me how those firings and that funding cut will help reduce that backlog? I want to understand how you’re going to square that circle,” Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington, asked early on in the hearing.

Richey mostly avoided answering the questions, arguing that she had not yet assumed the role of assistant secretary and, therefore, had no say in the recent changes to OCR.

“As a nominee, I do not have access to information with regard to the decisions that are being made at the department,” Richey responded. “I’m not in communication with OCR leadership or the secretary. One of the reasons why this role is so important to me is because I am always going to advocate for OCR to have the resources it needs to do its job. I think that what it means is I’m going to have to be really strategic, if I’m confirmed, stepping into this role, helping come up with a plan where we can address these challenges.”

Several others doubled down on Murray’s line of questioning, including Sen. Andy Kim, a New Jersey Democrat, who asked Richey if antisemitism was getting worse in America. When she said it was, he questioned how cutting OCR staff is conducive to fighting antisemitism on college campuses. She reiterated her answer to Murray’s question, saying, “I can’t explain or provide information on decisions I wasn’t involved in.”

Richey was one of four people who testified Thursday before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. She and the nominee for deputy secretary of education, Penny Schwinn, fielded the bulk of the committee’s questions as lawmakers pressed for answers about the OCR’s operations and priorities, proposed budget cuts, and the president’s plans to dismantle the Education Department. The senators didn’t vote on whether to advance the nominations to the Senate floor; that step will likely occur at a later meeting.

Richey is currently senior chancellor for the Florida Department of Education and has twice served in OCR before, including a brief stint as acting secretary of civil rights at the end of Trump’s first term and the beginning of Biden’s presidency. Her confirmation hearing comes months after the Trump administration slashed more than half of OCR’s staff, including shuttering seven of the 12 regional offices dedicated to investigating complaints. The office has also reportedly begun prioritizing opening cases regarding trans women athletes and antisemitism since Trump’s second term began, letting other cases pile up and go unaddressed, according to multiple news reports.

In the confirmation hearing, Richey expressed strong support for those causes, stressing that she led OCR when it investigated one of the federal government’s earliest cases against a school for allowing a trans woman to play on a women’s sports team.

“I’m certainly committed to vigorously enforcing it and continuing to pursue these cases,” she said.

In response to a different question, though, she did say that OCR would investigate certain complaints of discrimination related to gender identity and sexual orientation—an answer that appeared to incense Republican senator Josh Hawley of Missouri.

“I want to be crystal clear on this—I think it’s a very dangerous thing to start allowing this into Title IX, which, as you know, it is a landmark statute, it is vitally important, and it has been under attack for four long years,” he said, asking her to confirm that OCR will “go after” colleges and universities that allow trans women to play women’s sports.

He also warned Richey that she should “rethink” her position that OCR can investigate discrimination based on gender identity.

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat from Maryland, pressed Richey on whether she would continue OCR’s new system of prioritizing cases regarding antisemitism and trans athletes, asking if all forms of discrimination should be treated with equal importance.

Richey told Alsobrooks she does believe “it’s important to vigorously enforce all of the federal laws that OCR is responsible for enforcing.” Later in the hearing, she noted that Education Secretary Linda McMahon is “prioritizing” removing trans women from women’s athletics, and she plans to do the same if confirmed.

Schwinn, who was formerly Tennessee’s commissioner of education, received most of the panel’s questions about the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the education department. In response a question from Sen. Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican, about what steps would be required to dismantle the department, she stated that she “would certainly work, if confirmed, with the secretary and with Congress on any actions related to the role of the department” and that she believes in equipping states with legislation and funding that will help them improve their own educational systems.

“A department or an agency in the federal government is not going to change the outcomes of students—the teacher in the classroom is going to teach the standards that are approved by that state. The parent is the parent of that child. What we need to do is ensure we’ve created a system that is going to drive outcomes,” she said. “That is not going to happen from the federal government, whether there is a Department of Education or not.”

Source link

June 6, 2025
Higher education postcard: University of Cambridge, the Senate House

Greetings from Cambridge!

Today’s card shows the Senate House at the University of Cambridge. Building started in 1722, the Senate House opened in 1730, and it was completed in 1768 (yes, that is the right order of events). It was designed by the Jameses Gibbs and Burroughs (the latter being master of Gonville and Caius); woodwork by James Essex the Elder; and ceiling plaster by Artari and Bagutti.

As the name suggests, it was built as a meeting place for the university’s senate. And until 1926, the senate was a very big deal at Cambridge, being the governing body, in charge of everything. And since its members comprised everybody who held a Cambridge MA, it was a quite a thing to get a decision made. (I’ve blogged previously on the Microcosmographia academica, which is concerned with the politics of getting things agreed within the University of Cambridge senate).

In 1926 things took a turn for the senate – its governance functions were given to the Regent House. Senate is now mostly responsible for electing the university’s chancellor and for electing the High Steward, who oversees senate procedure.

There’s currently an election on for the University of Cambridge chancellor, which is all very exciting. For certain values of exciting. There’s ten candidates, including a big ticket HE name (Lord John Browne, he of the Browne review); big political names (former MP and cabinet minister Lord Chris Smith; Brexit campaigner Gina Miller); and the ubiquitous Sandi Toksvig. Voting takes place in person at the Senate House for two days in July; or online for about a week in July.

When it’s not being used for cancellarial (it’s a real word, honest) elections – which is most of the time, in fact – Senate House is also used for graduation ceremonies at Cambridge. I’ve written before about one aspect of these; safe to say that there’s lots of other local peculiarities. At Cambridge, for example, each graduation is a separate decision of the governing body, so a special meeting of the Regent House (and before then, of the senate) is held for each ceremony. I suspect this may be where be get the notion of the degree congregation, which language I’ve heard used at other universities.

There’s also an order of precedence for the colleges at graduation, established in the Statues and Ordinances. It is: King’s College, Trinity College, St John’s College, Peterhouse, Clare College, Pembroke College, Gonville and Caius College, Trinity Hall, Corpus Christi College, Queens’ College, St Catharine’s College, Jesus College, Christ’s College, Magdalene College, Emmanuel College, Sidney Sussex College, Downing College, Girton College, Newnham College, Selwyn College, Fitzwilliam College, Churchill College, Murray Edwards College, Darwin College, Wolfson College, Clare Hall, Robinson College, Lucy Cavendish College, St Edmund’s College, Hughes Hall, and Homerton College. And this isn’t strictly the order in which the colleges were established or admitted as colleges. If anyone knows why, please let me know!

Senate House has seen its share of high jinks. Most notable, perhaps, is the 1958 incident where students contrived to place an Austin Seven on its roof. Here’s the Liverpool Daily Post, reporting with an admirable straight face on plans for its retrieval.

Eagle eyed readers may remember that this stunt was followed by a similar, suspending an Austin from the Bridge of Sighs.

Here, as always, is a jigsaw of the card – hope you enjoy it.

Source link

June 5, 2025
What to Expect as the Senate Tackles Reconciliation

The clock is ticking for Senate Republicans as they rush to approve a sweeping bill that cuts spending and taxes and pays for some of President Donald Trump’s top agenda items by the Fourth of July.

If passed, the complex piece of legislation—known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—could entirely reshape the student loan system, increase endowment taxes, force colleges to repay their students’ unpaid loans and significantly cut Medicaid, among other changes.

The House passed the measure late last month, putting the ball in the Senate’s proverbial court. But key senators have since said little about the higher ed provisions in the bill, so it’s unclear what lawmakers in the upper chamber will prioritize. Higher ed experts predict risk-sharing, or the plan to require colleges to pay a penalty for unpaid loans, likely won’t survive. Other issues, like whether to change the eligibility criteria for the Pell Grant, are more uncertain. But any changes to the House bill will come at a cost, as saving one program likely will mean deeper cuts to another.

Over all, lawmakers will face a difficult balancing act to get the legislation through the Senate without endangering a second passage in the House, where bill advanced by the skin of its teeth. And Trump has called the bill the single most important piece of legislation in his second term, suggesting that failure is not an option.

“The One, Big, Beautiful Bill will implement President Trump’s Make America Great Again agenda by delivering the largest tax cut in American history, the largest border security investment in history, and the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement last month. “The Senate should pass this critical legislation as soon as possible to usher in America’s Golden Age.”

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over a decade.

What’s Next

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hasn’t yet released its version of a reconciliation bill, though a draft is expected soon since congressional leaders are hoping to get a vote on the legislation by June 16, sources familiar with the Hill say. Lawmakers are using the reconciliation process, so they only need 51 votes in the Senate to pass the bill. But if the Senate version is at all different from the House’s, the House will have to vote again before the legislation can reach the president’s desk.

When a bill does drop, it will likely skip the traditional committee markup, so the legislation can reach the Senate floor for a vote faster. But that fast tracking will limit the time for college leaders and others to review and weigh in on the bill.

Policy analysts say Senate and House Republicans will likely have to make some compromises in order to move the bill forward. Some Senate Republicans may stand firm and advocate for changes on certain provisions, but the question is which ones will earn priority and which ones will fall by the wayside. For instance, can moderate Republicans save both the Pell Grant and Medicare? Or will they have to choose between the two?

In many cases, what spending cuts and program changes survive is going to depend on “how the tug-of-war between the House and Senate plays out,” said Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.

All of this, however, could be thrown for a loop if former Trump adviser Elon Musk holds any influence. The billionaire tech mogul who previously led Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency has launched an all-out feud with the president over social media, calling the bill a “disgusting abomination” and saying, “shame on those who voted for it.”

At Odds Over Accountability

If the reconciliation bill does move forward, policy experts expect the Senate to propose a very different version than the House. And Michelle Dimino, director of education at Third Way, a left-leaning think tank, said she’s looking to the Lowering Education Costs and Debt Act, a bill introduced by Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy in 2023, for an outline of what it may include. (Cassidy is the chair of the Senate education committee.)

“Senate and House Republicans have not always been aligned in their approach to higher ed reform,” she said. And “unsurprisingly, each chamber tends to favor legislation that originated internally.”

One of the most notable differences Dimino and others anticipate between the House and Senate is how each tries to hold colleges accountable for students’ financial outcomes.

House Republicans want to use risk-sharing, a strategy that would require colleges and universities to pay a fee each year based on the amount of loans their graduates (or those who left without a degree) have failed to repay. But the formula for calculating that fee is complicated, and colleges have a lot of questions about how it works and whether it’s fair. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that these risk-sharing payments would total $1.3 billion by 2034 and then continue to increase annually.

Meanwhile, the Lowering Education Costs Act calls for a plan similar to the gainful-employment rule—a metric that ties colleges’ financial aid eligibility to their students’ earnings and debt levels. The idea was first introduced by President Obama, scrapped by President Trump in his first term and then expanded by President Biden.

Under gainful employment, colleges would have to show their graduates make more than someone with a high school diploma and that their loan payments will be affordable. If a college ever falls below those thresholds, it could lose access to all federal student aid. The Senate plan would likely apply to all colleges, whereas the current gainful-employment rule only applies to for-profit colleges and nondegree programs.

Higher education lobbyists are generally more supportive of the Senate’s anticipated proposal. But they note that while it’s a much lesser evil than risk-sharing, concerns remain, especially about how it would affect institutions.

“When the data is not available … we are operating off concepts and ideas,” said Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education. “So it begs the question: What is the intended outcome and is this proposal the solution?”

Other Key Issues to Watch

What is less certain, policy experts noted, is whether the Senate will sign off on the House’s plans to consolidate student loan repayment plans, cap loans, increase endowment taxes and change who is eligible for the Pell Grant. For example, while the House proposed waiving borrowers’ interest if their monthly income-based payment isn’t enough to cover what’s owed and forgiving remaining debt after 30 years of payments, Cassidy’s legislation would create a more traditional plan where students accrue interest but all is forgiven after 20 or 25 years of payments.

And though the House plan would eliminate subsidized loans, end the Grad PLUS loan program and limit Parent PLUS, experts predict that the Senate will likely end both Grad and Parent PLUS and put more aggressive limits on how much students can borrow over all.

But other aspects like Pell Grant eligibility were not discussed in Cassidy’s 2023 bill at all. So while the House would expand the Pell Grant to short-term workforce programs and limit access for the full-time Pell program, it’s unclear what, if anything, the Senate would propose. At a recent hearing, some senators appeared reticent to make deep cuts to the Pell program, though lawmakers have generally supported the concept of workforce Pell.

Over all, it’s hard to know exactly where the Senate will fall on most issues, Guillory said, especially because unlike during most sessions, it seems the House has the upper hand.

“I think the Senate would like to propose a very different bill that would require a lot of back-and-forth compromise, but they are feeling more and more pressure from the House to make fewer changes in order to get the bill passed quicker and to meet that July 4 deadline,” he said.

Source link

June 5, 2025