HOUSTON — When Jefferson Early Learning Center first opened on the corner of a busy intersection in the city’s west side in 2022, school officials started receiving calls from irritated residents.
Residents wanted to know, “‘Why aren’t you cutting the lawn?’ ‘Why aren’t you keeping the grounds?’” recalled Hilda Rodriguez, the assistant superintendent of support services for the Alief Independent School District, home to Jefferson and nearly 50 other schools west of Houston.
Although Jefferson’s neighbors didn’t know it, the tall grass surrounding the early learning center was part of a larger strategy to mitigate climate-related issues in a county where a major flood occurs nearly every two years and the number of days at or above 95 degrees has increased significantly over the past 25 years.
In addition to choosing durable, impact-resistant materials to help the school building withstand natural disasters, Jefferson’s designers focused on the surrounding land. They chose to restore much of the ground’s nearly 20 acres to native prairie lands and wetlands, creating a habitat for more than 200 plant and animal species.
A sign at the front of Jefferson Early Learning Center teaches children about the surrounding land, which was designed to withstand floods and heat. Credit: Jackie Mader/The Hechinger Report
That sort of habitat is especially beneficial in an area vulnerable to climate change events such as the torrential rains that regularly hit the city, said Melissa Turnbaugh, senior principal at PBK Architects, which designed Jefferson. “By putting in native prairies and grasses, we can now actually absorb three to four times as much water as if we had manicured grass,” she said.
Experts who study early learning and climate science say there is growing demand for solutions like these to address challenges related to climate change, such as floods, fires and hotter temperatures. Angie Garling, a senior vice president at the Low Income Investment Fund, which runs initiatives to help build and improve early learning facilities, said that when her organization solicited applications from child care programs needing facilities improvements, the vast majority had to do with climate.
“They were asking for things like HVAC systems, misting systems, air filtration systems, shade structures, turf … because they couldn’t maintain their lawn anymore because the cost of water was too high,” said Garling. Due to the extreme level of climate-related need, LIIF recently partnered with other organizations to launch a program to help fund renovations for child care providers in Harris County, where Houston is located.
Alief officials have already noticed benefits from the unconventional use of the school land. During the school year, students can walk on trails that weave through the prairie, learning about insects, plants and flowers. The native plants can withstand Houston’s infamous summers, when the average temperature sits above 90 degrees. That saves work, time and money for Alief’s maintenance team, which rarely needs to mow or water the land at Jefferson.
Over the next few years, Turnbaugh, the architect, hopes the presence of the prairies and grassland — rather than concrete or other surfaces that are known to reflect heat — will pay long-term dividends in “an overall heat-challenged area.”
“I think we’re going to see that we’re actually cooling the neighborhood,” she said. “I think there’s not only good carbon capture, but we’re actually being good neighbors.”
Over time, Jefferson’s neighbors have seemed to realize that, said Alief’s Rodriguez. The calls, for the most part, have stopped. “Once they understood, it became very clear to them that this was purposeful.”
This story about climate change solutions 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.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Colleges could lose access to federal financial aid or face penalties if their external service providers mislead their students, the U.S. Department of Education said Tuesday.
That includes companies that help colleges launch and run online programs.Employees of online program managers, or OPMs, cannot represent themselves as working directly for colleges, including by having email addresses or signatures implying they’re employed by those institutions, according to the guidance.
OPM employees are also not allowed to represent a virtual program as equivalent to a college’s campus-based version if they have dissimilar admissions criteria, completion rates, faculty qualifications or other substantive differences.And workers in recruiting or sales roles can’t call themselves an “academic counselor” or use a similar title if it doesn’t accurately describe their position.
The guidance — issued in the waning days of the Biden administration — aims to add more oversight to colleges’ relationships with OPMs.Student advocacy groups have long called for stricter rules for these companies, which often help colleges launch online programs in exchange for a significant cut of their tuition revenue.
Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, praised the letter Wednesday.
“Today’s move by the Department of Education is a step in the right direction, affirming what we already know: OPMs commonly mislead students about the quality of their online programs and that is illegal,” Fast said in a statement. “This action will deter misconduct by OPMs and their college partners and will help protect online college students from the risks posed by predatory OPMs.”
What led to the guidance?
The guidance comes after the Biden administration’s other plans to add oversight to the OPM industry faltered.
In early 2023, the administration said it would review guidance that allows colleges to enter tuition-sharing deals with OPMs that provide recruiting help — so long as it is part of a larger bundle of services.Despite asking for public comment on the matter, the Education Department has not updated or rescinded the 2011 guidance.
At the same time it announced the review, the administration issued separate guidance that would designate OPMs and other organizations as third-party servicers.The change would have subjected them to regulations that would give the department insight into their contracts with colleges.
However, the Education Department quickly delayed the guidance — and eventually rescinded it altogether — amid widespread criticism that it would create burdensome requirements for the higher education sector.
“We finally have clarity, in the last days of the administration, what they’re actually going to do with the guidance around [third-party servicers]” and OPMs, said Phil Hill, an ed tech consultant. “It’s just been this soap opera for 2 1/2 years now.”
However, Hill described Tuesday’s guidance as “petulant rulemaking” from the Biden administration.
“This Dear Colleague letter is attempting to go down to the level of telling colleges and universities and vendors what words are allowable and what aren’t,” Hill said. “And this went through zero process, zero attempt to get input from schools.”
That includes whether the guidance will hamstring colleges from running online programs or whether the policies address the issues they’re trying to solve, Hill said.
Stephanie Hall, senior director for higher education policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, took a different stance.
The Education Departmentreceived a “treasure trove of comments” when it sought public input in 2023 on policies that would have impacted the OPM sector, Hall argued.
“A lot was given over the past couple of years, and I see this guidance letter as just an extension or a conclusion of that process and not something new that didn’t take any input,” Hall said.
Whether the Trump administration will enforce the new guidance is another matter. But Hall said the guidance is likely to create changes either way.
“Schools are put on notice,” Hall said. “It’s something they take very seriously.”
The incoming Trump administration could also rescind the guidance altogether, though it’s unclear if OPM oversight is a priority issue to incoming officials.
“Are they aware of the impact this could have on online education, and is this going to be on their radars to take action and just immediately get rid of it?” Hill said.
The guidance could also draw legal challenges. The Biden administration’s now-rescinded 2023 guidance sparked a lawsuit from 2U, a prominent OPM.
“This is just waiting for a rescission or a lawsuit,” he said.
What’s in the guidance?
In Tuesday’s guidance, the Education Department listed several examples of statements that OPM employees could make that would likely qualify as misrepresentations. That includes OPM employees using email addresses or signatures that suggest they are directly employed by their college clients.
At least one prominent OPM has caught flak for using college email addresses — 2U. In 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that the company used the “.edu” email addresses of its college clients in order to recruit prospective students into their online programs.
Hall noted that this is a widespread practice in the OPM industry.
“It’s wonderful that they’re addressing that and making it clear that that could be a substantial misrepresentation, and that schools would be held responsible for that,” she said.
A 2U spokesperson said that the company’s marketing and recruitment teams use university email addresses to reach out to prospective students and include transparent disclosures about their affiliation with the company.
2U is reviewing the Education Department’s letter to ensure the company remains aligned “with evolving regulatory guidance and best practices,” it said in a Thursday statement.
“Transparency has always been at the heart of our mission, and we remain steadfast in upholding this principle as we partner with universities to deliver transformative outcomes through high-quality online education,” 2U said.
Under the department’s new guidance, it could also be misleading for OPM recruiters or sales representatives to present themselves to students as academic counselors or other similar positions.
“Such practices create a high risk of misrepresentation since rewarding an individual based on sales indicates that individual’s role is not focused on impartially counseling prospective or enrolled students, but rather on securing a financial transaction,” the Education Department said.
The overall guidance focuses on disclosures to students, Hall said.
“The biggest change is really just disclosures, disclosures that are going to be coming from the contractor and overseen by the institution,” she said. “I don’t see this mocking the core of the actual online program itself, or its operations or its business model.”
The agency also warned against OPMs casting online programs as equivalent to their campus-based counterparts if they provide “distinct and substantively different” resources to students, including instructors, curricula and advisers.
In a footnote, the guidance cites a class-action lawsuit against the University of Southern California, which alleged that the institution presented its online master’s degree in social work as the same as a campus-based one, even though it outsourced “substantial aspects” of the virtual version to 2U.
2U was not named as a defendant in the case.
The company’s college partners retain full control over core functions of their degree programs, including tuition rates, faculty hiring, and admissions standards and decisions, a 2U spokesperson said. 2U’s clients also review and approve marketing materials for their programs, the spokesperson said.
However, USC and 2U announced in late 2023 plans to wind down their partnership on most of their online programs, including the social work master’s degree.2U continues to support a USC physical therapy program.
Project on Predatory Student Lending is helping represent the students in the lawsuit against the University of Southern California. In a statement Thursday, PPSL President and Executive Director Eileen Connor said she hoped the Trump administration would take the letter’s concerns seriously.
“This letter calls out just how dangerous the OPM industry is to our higher education system,” Connor said.
If you believe you can extract strategy from prior activities, I have something for you to try to make sense of here. This is a long compilation of tuition and fees at America’s Flagship and Land Grant institutions. If you are not quite sure about the distinction between those two types of institutions, you might want to read this first. TLDR: Land Grants were created by an act of congress, and for this purpose, flagships are whoever I say they are. There doesn’t seem to be a clear definition.
Further, for this visualization, I’ve only selected the first group of Land Grants, funded by the Morrill Act of 1862. They tend to be the arch rival of the Flagship, unless, of course, they’re the same institution.
Anyway, today I’m looking at tuition, something you’d think would be pretty simple. But there are at least four ways to measure this: Tuition, of course, but also tuition and required fees, and both are different for residents and nonresidents. Additionally, you can use those variables to create all sorts of interesting variables, like the gap between residents and nonresidents, the ratio of that gap to resident tuition, or even several ways to look at the role “required fees” change the tuition equation. All would be–in a perfect world–driven by strategy. I’m not sure I’d agree that such is the case.
Take a look and see if you agree.
There are five views here, each getting a little more complex. I know people are afraid to interact with these visualizations, but I promise you can’t break anything. So click away.
The first view (using the tabs across the top) compares state resident full-time, first-time, undergraduate tuition and required fees (yellow) to those for nonresidents (red bar). The black line shows the gap ratio. For instance, if resident tuition is $10,000 and nonresident tuition is $30,000, the gap is $20,000, and that is 2x the resident rate. The view defaults to the University of Michigan, but don’t cheat yourself: Us the filter at top left to pick any other school. If you’ve read this blog before, you know why Penn State is showing strange data. It’s not you, it’s IPEDS, so don’t ask.)
The second tab shows four data points explicitly, and more implicitly. This view starts with the University of Montana, but the control lets you change that. On top is resident tuition (purple) and resident tuition and fees (yellow). Notice how the gap between the two varies, suggesting the role of fees in the total cost of attendance. The bottom shows those figures for nonresidents.
The third view looks a little crazy. Choose a value to display at top left, and the visualization will rank all 77 institutions from highest to lowest. Use the control at top right to highlight an institution to put it in a national context. Hover over the dots for details in a popup box. If you want to look at a smaller set of institutions, you can do that, too, using the filters right above the chart. The fourth view is the exact same, but shows the actual values, rather than the rank. As always, hover for details.
Finally, the fifth view is a custom scatter plot: Choose the variable you want on the x-axis and the variable to plot it against on the y-axis. Then use the filters to limit the included institutions. As always, let me know what you find that’s interesting.
