Tag: Mixed

  • School closures are accelerating in rural America. But research on whether they help students is mixed

    School closures are accelerating in rural America. But research on whether they help students is mixed

    by Chris Berdik, The Hechinger Report
    January 5, 2026

    PEACHAM, Vt. — Early on a chilly fall morning in this small Vermont town, Principal Lydia Cochrane watched a gaggle of kids chase one another and a soccer ball around their school recess yard. Between drop-off and first bell, they were free, loud and constantly moving. 

    With only about 60 students in prekindergarten through sixth grade, Peacham Elementary is the sort of school where all the kids know one another and locals regularly respond to calls for supplies and volunteers for field trips and other school activities. Cochrane gestured at the freshly raked wood chips around the swings and climbing structures, one of many tasks Peacham families completed at a recent community workday.

    “With a small school, the families know how crucial it is to support it and ensure it succeeds, and so they show up for it,” said Cochrane. 

    Peacham is also a type of school that’s disappearing nationwide, as education systems grapple with plunging enrollments and rising costs. Amid declining birth rates and growing competition from private-school voucher programs, the number of students in U.S. public schools dropped about 2.5 percent between 2019 and 2023, according to the most recent federal data. Fewer students leads to higher per-pupil spending, because district staffing and other expenses largely remain in place despite enrollment drops, and states are increasingly trying to escape the education budget crunch via school consolidation: In the past three years alone, at least 10 states have considered measures to mandate or incentivize district mergers. 

    These pressures are especially keen in rural areas where the smallest schools predominate and play an outsized role in community life. Vermont, the nation’s most rural state, has lost about 20 percent of its K-12 public school student population in the past two decades. That’s helped push per-pupil costs and property taxes to the breaking point. Early in 2025, the state’s governor and education secretary released a plan to overhaul Vermont education, proposing massive district consolidation as the foundation for sweeping changes in school funding, curricula and academic standards. 

    The Legislature responded with its own comprehensive plan, which passed last summer as Act 73, calling for a minimum of 4,000 students per district, a threshold now met by only 1 of the state’s 119 districts. 

    District mergers are not the same as school closures, but one invariably leads to the other, as they have in Vermont’s other recent waves of district consolidations. The scope of Act 73’s proposals have ignited intense pushback from people fearing the loss of local control over education, even from a majority of the task force created to map options for bigger districts. 

    This month, the state Legislature will consider whether to push forward or completely rethink the process, a debate that will be closely watched by rural education advocates nationwide. Backers of school consolidation maintain that the crises of declining enrollment, falling test scores and tight education budgets demand a bold response and that consolidating schools is necessary to control costs and more equitably distribute resources and opportunities. 

    Opponents say the evidence that widespread school consolidation saves money — or helps students — is mixed at best, and that success depends highly on local context. They want any mergers and closings to be voluntary and done with a clear-eyed accounting of what’s to be gained and lost. 

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

    Vermont’s student-teacher ratio of 11 to 1 is the lowest in the nation, and the state now spends nearly $27,000 per student, second only to New York State. That has triggered spikes in local taxes: In 2024, Vermonters facing double-digit property tax increases subsequently rejected nearly one-third of school budgets when they next went to the polls.

    The school budget revolts led Republican Gov. Phil Scott and his recently appointed education secretary, Zoie Saunders, to propose an education overhaul in January 2025 that would have divided the state into five regional districts serving at least 10,000 kids each. That plan was then superseded by Act 73, which created a redistricting task force of lawmakers and education leaders to map options for the Legislature to consider when it returns to work this month. 

    Saunders argues that school consolidation is key to the broader education transformation that Vermont needs in order to tackle several interconnected challenges, including rising student mental health issues, falling test scores and stubborn achievement gaps. “Many of these issues are hard to solve unless we address our issues around scale and funding,” she said in an interview. “We had to think about reform in a way that was going to focus on funding, quality and governance, because they’re all connected.”

    The state has consolidated schools several times before. Most notably, in 2015, Act 46 triggered several years of mergers — first voluntary, then required — that eliminated dozens of districts and led many small schools to close. 

    Jessica Philippe, a Peacham parent who was on the school board at the time, recalled the worry that the district and its elementary school would be swallowed up. Many of Vermont’s smallest districts, including Peacham, operate only an elementary school and cover the higher grades by paying tuition for students to attend public or certain private schools outside the district. 

    “It seems like this is a cycle we have to go through,” she said. “Every five or 10 years, we have to fight to keep this place, because people from away think, oh, that’s just a few kids we have to disperse.”

    The Peacham school board fended off that threat by showing the state board of education ample data that Peacham Elementary was viable and that there wasn’t much money to be saved from a merger. In fact, the state has never done a full financial analysis of Act 46. At the very least, the mergers failed to stem the spending and tax hikes that triggered Act 73.  

    The only comprehensive accounting of Act 46 was done by a Vermont native, Grace Miller, for her 2024 undergraduate thesis at Yale University where she studied economics and education. In her analysis of 109 districts between 2017 and 2020, she found that mergers did yield some savings, but it was soaked up by new spending such as higher salaries in newly combined districts and higher costs to bus students to and from schools farther away.

    Meanwhile, some of the fastest-growing educational costs in Vermont are arguably outside school and district control, such as skyrocketing health care premiums, which account for about 15 percent of district spending. According to data from KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation), Vermonters pay the highest “benchmark” health care premiums of any state, nearly $1,300 a month, almost double what they paid just five years ago. The state has also shifted other financial burdens onto districts, such as capital construction costs for schools, which the state hasn’t funded in nearly two decades.

    “We need to be focused on those core cost drivers,” said Rebecca Holcombe, a Vermont state representative and member of the redistricting task force, “not because there aren’t small schools that are inefficient and might not make it, but because even if we addressed them, we’d barely touch the real problem.” 

    Holcombe, who was the state’s education secretary when Act 46 passed, believes some school consolidation makes sense for Vermont, but not mandated mergers, especially at the scale proposed by Act 73. She was among the eight of 11 task force members who voted not to include maps of new, bigger district options in their final report in early December.  

    Instead they proposed a 10-year plan to create five regional “cooperative education service areas” where districts would pool resources to coordinate services — such as transportation, special education and professional development — and generate savings through scale. It also proposed that the state offer financial incentives to districts that voluntarily merge, centered on creating or strengthening high schools to serve students from combined districts and beyond. 

    Speaking to reporters, Gov. Scott admonished the task force a few days after its members voted to forward only the shared services plan to the state Legislature without mapping options for consolidating districts. “They didn’t redraw the lines,” he said. “They failed.” 

    When lawmakers reconvene on Jan. 6, it’s unclear how they’ll handle recommendations from a task force that arguably rebuked its founding legislation. They could ignore the task force and create their own maps of 4,000-student districts. They might amend Act 73 to fit the task force’s proposal. 

    Or they might start fresh. 

    Related: A school closure cliff is coming. Black and Hispanic students are likely to bear the brunt

    Seated in her office at Doty Memorial School in Worcester, a small Vermont town north of Montpelier, Principal Gillian Fuqua choked up when explaining her change of heart — from opposing to supporting a plan to close the school she’s overseen since 2019. Doty has about 60 K-6 students this year, and Fuqua slides a paper across her desk showing projections based on town birth records that enrollment could drop to 40 by the fall of 2028. 

    “It’s absolutely heartbreaking to me,” she said. “But we have to think about what we want for our kids, and we’re not in a good place right now.”

    Worcester is one of five towns merged into a single district by Act 46 in 2019. For two years in a row, the district has considered closing Doty, which would require voter approval. Last year, the plan was shelved without a vote after residents protested. But now a vote has been scheduled for February 10. 

    This past fall, when the district restarted consolidation discussions, Fuqua joined the “configuration committee” and dropped her previous opposition to closing the school. It already must combine two grades in classrooms to meet state minimums for class size. Fuqua worried that if classes shrink further, teachers might struggle to foster soft skills such as teamwork, collaborative problem solving and navigating a diversity of opinions. A larger school, she continued, could also support a full-time instrumental music teacher instead of the one-day-a-week instructor that Doty kids get, as well as a full-time librarian. 

    Indeed, there is ample evidence from Vermont and other states that merged schools can expose students to more and varied learning opportunities. A report released in 2024 by the Vermont Agency of Education, based on surveys and superintendent interviews from seven districts that merged early in the Act 46 era, highlighted merged districts saving, adding or restarting school offerings such as literacy intervention services, world languages and after-school extracurricular activities. 

    Nevertheless, education researchers stress that sending students to a bigger school with more resources doesn’t necessarily mean improved academic achievement or well-being. “These students are often experiencing an enormous transition, and there are a whole bunch of factors that can affect that,” said Mara Tieken, an education professor at Bates College who studies school consolidation. 

    School closings tend to be in more disadvantaged areas, for instance, and students there now take longer bus rides that cut into time for studying, sleep and after-school programs. Another variable is whether students from a closed school all transfer to the same new school, or are “starburst” out because no single school can accommodate them all. Tieken said it takes serious planning “to smooth that transition for new students, to create a culture that’s welcoming.”

    Research on student outcomes following school mergers reflects this tangle of factors. Some studies indicate that consolidation improves test scores, especially when students move to higher-performing schools. Others find little academic impact or lower performance in the first years after merging, more missed school days and behavioral issues and longer-term disadvantages in college graduation, employment and earnings as young adults. 

    “The answer to virtually every question about school consolidation is: It depends,” said Jerry Johnson, director of the Rural Education Institute and professor of educational leadership at East Carolina University, who has researched school consolidation for decades. 

    Related: Merger madness? When schools close — forever 

    Whatever might be gained from a merger, many Doty parents (and students) remain opposed. In interviews, several said their tiny school provides something incredibly valuable and increasingly rare: human connection and community. In places like Worcester, a local school is one of the few spaces that regularly brings folks together and serves as a magnet for the young families that sustain small-town life.

    Rosie Close, a fifth grader at Doty, described a tradition of students making and serving  soup at the town’s free “community lunch” held every Wednesday at the town hall. “If they closed Doty,” she said, “that would kind of take away part of the town, too.”

    While some Doty families had deep roots in the area, others moved to town more recently, including Caitlin Howansky, mother of a third grader. Howansky grew up in New York City, where she went to an elementary school with more than 30 kids per class.

    “Nobody outside of that classroom necessarily knew my name or knew me as a whole person. I was just one of the crowd,” she said. 

    By contrast, Howansky said, the teachers at Doty “know every kid’s strengths and weaknesses across the whole building.”

    That doesn’t mean that she and her neighbors are blind to demographic or economic realities, especially when housing, health care and so much else is getting more expensive. Early in December, for instance, Vermonters learned that property taxes would likely be spiking again next year, by nearly 12 percent on average.

    “A lot of people are saying, if we fight this again, are they just going to come back and try again next year?” Howansky said. “And is it fair to the children to live under this constant threat and this constant stress of not knowing?”

    She still thinks the fight against a merger is worth it, but said, “Everyone has to figure out where to draw their individual line.”

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected].

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

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/schools-are-closing-across-rural-america-heres-how-a-battle-over-small-districts-is-playing-out-in-one-state/”>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=114097&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/schools-are-closing-across-rural-america-heres-how-a-battle-over-small-districts-is-playing-out-in-one-state/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Mixed Findings on Community Colleges’ Shared Governance

    Mixed Findings on Community Colleges’ Shared Governance

    A new report, released by the American Association of University Professors Tuesday, found mixed results when it comes to community colleges’ shared governance practices.

    The report used data from the AAUP’s inaugural survey of community colleges, conducted in partnership with the Center for the Study of Community Colleges. In the first survey of its kind, faculty leaders at 507 community colleges were asked to assess their institutions’ shared governance practices in 26 different decision-making areas; faculty senate chairs and governance officials responded at 59 colleges.

    The institutions excelled in some areas and proved lackluster in others. For example, at most institutions surveyed, especially those with tenure systems, faculty had an AAUP-recommended level of authority over decisions about curricula, salary policies, teaching assignments, faculty searches and evaluations, and tenure and promotion standards. But when it came to other decision-making areas—like budgets, provost selection, buildings and strategic planning—faculty were given little say, according to the report.

    Community college professors also participated less than faculty at four-year institutions in most academic and personnel-related decisions, though they played more of a role in decisions about salary policies. The report speculated that the prevalence of community college faculty unions may account for the difference. At higher ed institutions where faculty engage in collective bargaining, faculty tend to have more authority in salary policies and teaching loads. At community colleges, unionized faculty are also more engaged in decisions about full-time, non-tenure-track faculty promotion.

    “Community college–based faculty members and administrators can use the tools described in this report to assess governance practices at their institu­tions and compare those practices with national trends to identify areas where levels of faculty authority might be strengthened,” the report says. “Given the current political climate, economic uncertainty, demographic changes, and chronic underfunding of US higher education, now is the time for community colleges to identify and correct weaknesses in their own shared governance practices.”

    Source link

  • Trump Sends Mixed Signals on Apprenticeship and Job Training

    Trump Sends Mixed Signals on Apprenticeship and Job Training

    President Trump issued an executive order last month instructing federal officials to “reach and surpass” a million new active apprenticeships. It was an ambitious target that apprenticeship advocates celebrated, anticipating new federal investments in more paid on-the-job training programs, in new industries and via a more efficient system.

    “After years of shuffling Americans through an economically unproductive postsecondary system, President Trump will refocus young Americans on career preparation,” federal officials wrote in a fact sheet on the order. They also emphasized that the federal government spends billions on the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, or WIOA, and Career and Technical Education, but “neither of these programs are structured to promote apprenticeships or have incentives to meet workforce training needs.”

    Ryan Craig, author of the book Apprenticeship Nation, managing director of Achieve Partners, co-founder of Apprenticeships for America and an occasional contributor to Inside Higher Ed, said it was the first time a president set a goal for the number of apprentices in the U.S., as far as he’s aware.

    Apprenticeships are “one of the few, perhaps the only area of education, of workforce development, where this administration has said, ‘We want more of this,’” he said shortly after the executive order dropped.

    But the excitement for an expanded apprenticeship model in the U.S. might be short-lived. Craig and other apprenticeship advocates worry that Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 doesn’t reflect the executive order’s vision. The proposal doesn’t promise any significant new investments in apprenticeship and slashes workforce development spending over all.

    “The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing here,” Craig said. “It’s not the sea change that the executive order promised.”

    Mixed Signals

    Among many highlights for advocates, the order also calls for a workforce development strategy with a focus on scrutinizing workforce programs’ outcomes, which currently aren’t carefully tracked.

    Federal officials were given 90 days to review all federal workforce development programs and come out with a report on strategies to improve participants’ experiences, measure performance outcomes, identify valuable alternative credentials and reform or nix ineffective programs. The executive order also generally called for more transparent performance outcomes data, including earning and employment data, for such programs.

    Trump’s skinny budget makes good on his promise to consolidate workforce development spending and cut programs the administration deems ineffective, but it also offers apprenticeships a small slice of that shrinking pie.

    The proposal includes a $1.64 billion cut to workforce development funding under the Department of Labor and eliminates Job Corps, a free career training program for youth, and the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which offers job training and subsidized employment for low-income seniors. The administration also proposed a new program called Make America Skilled Again, or MASA. States would be required to spend 10 percent of their MASA grants on apprenticeships. Almost $3 billion, including WIOA funding, remains to fund the program, down from $4.6 billion, Work Shift reported.

    The budget promises to “give states and localities the flexibility to spend workforce dollars to best support their workers and economies, instead of funneling taxpayer dollars to progressive non-profits finding work for illegal immigrants or focusing on DEI.”

    Craig supports offering states more flexibility and cutting “train-and-pray programs that have little to no connection to employers or employment outcomes”—but he hoped money saved from those cuts would go toward apprenticeships, which are “by definition good jobs with career trajectories and built-in training.”

    He said a mere 10 percent of block grant funding directed to apprenticeships feels “inconsistent” with the bold goals laid out in the executive order. He had high hopes Trump would consider radically changing how apprenticeships are funded, moving away from time-limited, individual grants to a more robust federal funding structure. At the very least, he believes apprenticeships should get the “lion’s share” of workforce development funding.

    “My hope is it’s just the budget proposal and that things get worked out [to be] more consistent with the executive order,” he said, “but it was disappointing to see that.”

    Vinz Koller, vice president of the Center for Apprenticeship and Work-Based Learning at Jobs for the Future, said he similarly felt hopeful about the executive order’s messaging, in particular its commitment to “further protect and strengthen” registered apprenticeships.

    The wording represented a shift in approach.

    During Trump’s previous term, the president sought to create industry-recognized apprenticeships, an entirely separate apprenticeship system to sidestep what he viewed as inefficiencies in the current system and excessive federal regulation. Koller was glad to see Trump interested in reforming and investing in the current system this time rather than making plans to “throw out the rule book.”

    But the proposed budget isn’t “backing it up,” he said.

    His organization recently put out a policy blueprint for expanding and improving apprenticeship—including calling for stronger incentives for employers and more investment in intermediary organizations that offer programs’ support—but those strategies aren’t possible without more federal funding, Koller said. The policy blueprint points out that in fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent at least $184.35 billion on higher education, while the Department of Labor’s apprenticeship budget was just $285 million.

    But Koller also doesn’t believe slashing higher ed spending is the answer, and he’s worried about the proposed cuts to workforce training and to higher ed in the administration’s proposal. He said the goal is to give learners “choice-filled pathways,” including apprenticeships and other forms of work-based learning, not to “rob Peter to pay Paul.”

    Grant consolidation and streamlining can be “positive,” he said, but “we just want to make sure that the support is there to actually do what is needed on the ground,” across program types. “We don’t want to dismantle the other aspects of a healthy educational workforce infrastructure as we build the new parts.”

    Kerry McKittrick, co-director of the Project on Workforce at Harvard University, said the budget poses a double threat to workforce development funding. Not only would the proposal cut more than a billion dollars, but the budget would also dole out the remaining funds in block grants to states, a funding structure that has been shown to lack oversight and generally decrease funding over time.

    The project’s research found “governors do want more flexibility,” she said. “At the same time, we continue to hear from them that the lack of resources is really the biggest problem with the workforce system and meeting workforce needs … There’s no way we’ll see an expansion in apprenticeship with such a massive cut.”

    Lingering Hopes

    Some apprenticeship proponents remain optimistic.

    John Colborn, executive director of Apprenticeships for America, agreed the skinny budget doesn’t seem like “a recipe for substantial growth of apprenticeship,” but he isn’t giving up on the possibility of bold changes just yet.

    He noted that the budget makes no mention of other possible funding sources for apprenticeship mentioned in the executive order fact sheet, such as career and technical education funds, so there may be plans for other funding streams in the works.

    The proposed budget also alludes to a “reallocation” of adult education funding struck from the Education Department to “better support the innovative, workforce-aligned, apprenticeship-focused activities the Department seeks to promote,” though it doesn’t go into further detail.

    He said, based on the executive order, federal officials still have time to draft a plan, and he’s going to wait until they do before arriving at any final conclusions about how apprenticeships will fare under a second Trump term.

    “It’s probably a mistake to look at the skinny budget as a blueprint for the funding of an apprenticeship growth initiative,” he said. He plans “to take it seriously, because it’s a statement of intent from the president, but to not look to it as a constraining document for how we might be thinking about growing apprenticeships going forward.”

    Shalin Jyotishi, managing director of the Future of Work and Innovation Economy Initiative at the left-wing think tank New America, emphasized that “any administration’s policy direction on apprenticeships should be judged on actions, not only words.”

    He pointed out that multiple executive orders, including a recent one on artificial intelligence education, have called for expanding apprenticeships, but some such programs have also undergone cuts under Trump. He wants to instead see renewed investments, like those Trump made in degree-connected apprenticeships during his first term, and argued the field is “ripe” for such efforts.

    “It’s heartening to see the administration emphasize the importance of registered apprenticeships,” Jyotishi wrote to Inside Higher Ed, “and education and workforce leaders will be looking for follow-through through actions, implementation, and resources.”

    Source link

  • Analysis: Early flurry of executive orders a mixed bag for free speech

    Analysis: Early flurry of executive orders a mixed bag for free speech

    Since taking office for his second term on Jan. 20, President Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders, including several implicating the First Amendment and freedom of expression. Below, we highlight some of these orders and evaluate the potential ramifications for free speech.

    Executive order on protecting freedom of speech is a good start — but more must be done

    One of the first executive orders the president signed was titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” This order aims to “secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech” and “ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” Specifically, the order notes the government has “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”

    FIRE welcomes this order’s call to end federal government censorship, including that which is hidden from public view. Leaks, court documents, and other disclosures have revealed instances of federal officials pressuring social media companies to limit controversial but constitutionally protected speech on vigorously disputed topics like the origins of Covid-19, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and election integrity.

    We have written repeatedly about the dangers of such government coercion, commonly referred to as “jawboning,” highlighting how this sneaky form of government censorship threatens freedom of expression.

    A pledge by the executive branch to respect the free speech of all Americans is a good first step. But any executive order can be modified or reversed on the say-so of one person — the president. It will take actual legislation — such as FIRE’s model transparency bill — to create mechanisms that statutorily require disclosure and bring to light governmental efforts to strong-arm private social media companies into censoring protected speech. 

    In the meantime, FIRE will monitor the administration’s actions, just as we did during the Biden administration, and hold federal agencies to the standards set forth in the executive order.

    Executive orders targeting DEI programs appear to avoid First Amendment pitfalls — but FIRE will be watching their implementation

    President Trump also signed two executive orders with the aim of dismantling diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs. The first, signed on Jan. 20 and titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” calls for “termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”

    DEI/DEIA programs and initiatives take many forms. FIRE has no position on the values DEI programs may seek to advance. But our experience defending student and faculty rights on campus demonstrates that DEI administrators and offices have regularly been involved in threats to academic freedom and speech policing, functioning as a way to enforce preferred orthodoxy or ideology. And some DEI initiatives — such as mandatory DEI statements in faculty hiring or student admissions — flatly threaten free expression and academic freedom and should be prohibited. We have previously introduced model legislation designed to eliminate such use of political litmus tests in faculty hiring and student admission decisions.

    FIRE has also seen legislation in which overbroad attempts to curtail DEI mandates threaten the very same speech rights of faculty and students they aim to protect. Overbroad restrictions can improperly limit classroom discussions — as we saw in West Virginia’s recent executive order prohibiting faculty from sharing any material that promotes or encourages certain DEI-related views, while at the same time permitting criticism of those views. This allows institutions to continue ideological litmus tests as long as such tests oppose DEI — which just recreates the same problem.

    Overzealous enforcement could threaten free speech by, for example, indirectly chilling a professor from sharing their positive views of affirmative action policies or leading to investigation of a government grantee for a social media post expressing personal support for DEI initiatives.

    The president’s executive order appears to avoid these issues by targeting only the government’s own speech and initiatives, which it can constitutionally control. For instance, the Office of Management and Budget must provide a list of “Federal grantees who received Federal funding to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or ‘environmental justice’ programs, services, or activities since January 20, 2021.” This is different from prohibiting any federal grantees from promoting DEI, which would threaten speech. Instead, the order specifically targets federal grants made specifically for the purpose of advancing DEI, and the federal government is free to shut off that funding if it no longer wishes to advance those ideals or views.

    A second DEI-related order, signed on January 21, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” aims to eliminate “affirmative action” and “illegal discrimination and illegal preferences” in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which held race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violated the Fourteenth Amendment. (FIRE takes no position on affirmative action.)

    FIRE releases statement on the use of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ criteria in faculty hiring and evaluation

    News

    FIRE’s statement provides guidance to universities to ensure they respect faculty members’ expressive freedom when seeking to advance DEI.


    Read More

    The order helpfully includes two provisions that make clear it does not reach into the college classroom or infringe upon academic freedom:

    (b) This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.

    (c) This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.

    While these orders avoid constitutional pitfalls on their face, implementation should proceed carefully. Overzealous enforcement could threaten free speech by, for example, indirectly chilling a professor from sharing their positive views of affirmative action policies or leading to investigation of a government grantee for a social media post expressing personal support for DEI initiatives.

    Executive order on “gender ideology” invites possible abuse

    This executive order focuses on “[defending] women’s rights and [protecting] freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.” The order requires federal government agencies to:

    remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity. Agencies shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.

    This aspect of the order is limited to the federal government’s own speech. However, there is a risk, similar to that presented by imprecise anti-DEI legislation, that the breadth of such an order could lead to direct or indirect censorship of private actors. The government has the power to control its speech when it is the speaker, such as in a training given to its employees. But its power is much more limited when the speaker is a private citizen.

    Of particular concern is this clause: “Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology. Each agency shall assess grant conditions and grantee preferences and ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.”

    While the government can choose to change its own messaging on gender issues, it cannot deny funds to grantees for exercising their own First Amendment rights. Further, the imprecise language could encourage government actors to withhold otherwise available grants from those with opinions that do not align with the views expressed in this executive order — chilling constitutionally protected speech. Grantees who would otherwise espouse views agreeing with “gender ideology” may refrain for fear of losing their government grant, even if they do not use the grant itself to promote “gender ideology.”

    Executive order intended to “protect” Americans from noncitizens who “espouse hateful ideology” is at odds with our culture of free speech

    This executive order makes it federal policy to “protect [American] citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” In addition to requiring agencies to ensure their policies for screening aliens align with the executive order, it requires the secretary of state to:

    Recommend any actions necessary to protect the American people from the actions of foreign nationals who have undermined or seek to undermine the fundamental constitutional rights of the American people, including, but not limited to, our Citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, who preach or call for sectarian violence, the overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands, or who provide aid, advocacy, or support for foreign terrorists.

    The federal government has the authority to refuse entry to or deport people who genuinely present a national security threat. But the broad language of this order implies it may also be used to target people already in the U.S. for engaging in speech that is otherwise constitutionally protected. FIRE has previously expressed concern about denials of entry in cases where students and speakers were seemingly barred based on their speech. The ambiguous language of the order, including references to a “replacement of the culture,” suggests an intent to review and potentially punish foreign nationals for speech that would typically be protected.

    To be clear, speech that calls for violence is generally protected by the First Amendment. As we have previously written, calls for genocide or chanting “From the river to the sea,” though listeners may be offended or deeply upset, are generally constitutionally protected. Denying visas or deporting anyone who engages in such speech will create a chilling effect, deterring foreign nationals from participating in lawful protests and demonstrations.

    But just because the government may have the power to deport people for expressing their views, as it does in at least some circumstances, that does not make such deportations a good idea.

    While the driving force behind this executive order is the current Israel-Hamas conflict, there is no reason other than political whim that efforts to punish foreign nationals for their speech would stay confined to one side of that issue, or to the Israeli-Palestinian issue at all. If those targeted for “espousing hateful ideology” are today likely to be those supporting Hamas, a new government could aim such efforts at supporters of Israel’s military efforts in the coming years. Those from other nations experiencing ethnic or religious conflict, from Ukraine to Myanmar to Burkina Faso, could also face adverse immigration decisions for expressing their views.

    Why (most) calls for genocide are protected speech

    News

    Creating a “genocide” exception to free speech only opens the door to more speech restrictions and selective enforcement.


    Read More

    Because this executive order is directed at foreign nationals, the legal First Amendment issues (as distinct from the cultural free speech questions) are complicated. The Supreme Court noted in Bridges v. Wixon that the freedom of speech is accorded to resident aliens, but other precedent upholds immigration consequences based on viewpoint, and immigration officials have targeted foreign nationals for deportation for otherwise-protected speech.

    In the 1904 case United States Ex. Rel. John Turner v. Williams, the Court upheld a law that allowed the deportation of “anarchists.” In the 1954 case Galvan v. Press, the Court upheld a law that allowed the deportation of non-citizens for belonging to the Communist Party. (Interestingly, statutory prohibitions on the naturalization of anarchists and members of the Communist Party still exist.)

    But just because the government may have the power to deport people for expressing their views, as it does in at least some circumstances, that does not make such deportations a good idea. Establishing a system that allows for the routine deportation of foreign nationals based solely on their otherwise protected speech would erode our national commitment to freedom of expression as a uniquely American cultural value.

    FIRE’s Senior Scholar, Global Expression Sarah McLaughlin published a piece at MSNBC exploring President Trump’s Executive Order on anti-Semistism.

    Source link

  • Mixed reactions after Biden nixed TRIO for undocumented students

    Mixed reactions after Biden nixed TRIO for undocumented students

    Advocates for undocumented students have their hands full as they prepare for President-elect Donald Trump to take office later this month.

    They’re fielding questions from nervous students fearful of Trump’s promises of mass deportations and advising college staff members seeking to support these students within legal bounds. But then, the Biden administration dropped a fresh disappointment on top of their heaping pile of concerns when it pulled back on a proposal to make undocumented students eligible for some TRIO programs.

    The decision—tucked into a set of finalized rules released at the end of the year—was met with mixed emotions from advocates who have long pushed to give undocumented students access to the federal college prep programs designed to help disadvantaged students enroll and persist in college. Some mourned the chance to secure a win for undocumented students before Trump took office. Others saw the decision as a painful but pragmatic response to the incoming administration, which may have barred undocumented students from these programs anyway or penalized TRIO programs for serving them. Proponents of the dead proposal expect it’ll be years before the opportunity to open up these programs presents itself again.

    Magin Sanchez, higher education policy analyst at UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization, said undocumented students would have a lot to gain from TRIO programs, given that they already face major hurdles to enrolling in college, like a lack of access to federal financial aid. He believes the extra academic support and college counseling these programs offer could put these students on a more level playing field with their peers.

    “Higher education is one of the surest pathways to economic mobility and prosperity,” Sanchez said. “There are significant barriers for this population, students that just want to have access to a better life, like any college student.”

    A former board member at the Council for Opportunity in Education told Inside Higher Ed that they didn’t know how to feel about the Biden administration’s decision. The organization, which supports low-income and first-generation students and students with disabilities, was among those that pushed for the change.

    “With the new administration coming in, we want to do everything to protect our students, so in that sense, I kind of understood why,” said the former board member, who asked to remain anonymous in order to avoid speaking for their current employer. “My other reaction was, man, we’re doing this again? We’re bringing up students’ hopes again? We bring up their hopes only to shoot them down again and again.”

    What Happened

    The Education Department initially proposed that noncitizen students be eligible for three TRIO programs—Upward Bound, Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers—if students enrolled in or planned to enroll in high schools in the United States, its territories or Freely Associated States and met other eligibility criteria. Those programs were selected because they serve students in public K-12 schools, which are open to all students, regardless of immigration status.

    But in finalized rules released Dec. 30, the department decided against it.

    Department officials wrote that, after reviewing public comment, they believed the proposal was “too narrow,” because it didn’t include the Student Support Services program, which offers academic support to college students, or the McNair Scholars program, which prepares students for graduate education. Officials also concluded that opening only some programs to undocumented students would “cause confusion” and “increase administrative burden.”

    Department officials also argued that the Higher Education Act, the federal law that governs how federal higher ed programs are administered, doesn’t explicitly bar noncitizens from participating in TRIO programs.

    So, the department scrapped the proposal altogether “to reconsider how best to ensure that the TRIO programs are able to reach all populations of disadvantaged students, irrespective of immigration status,” officials wrote.

    Pushback, Parsing and Planning

    Some advocates don’t buy the department’s explanations.

    The former COE board member said TRIO directors already have to parse regulatory differences between different programs, so the idea that opening up only some programs to undocumented students would prove too confusing “didn’t fly too well with me.”

    “I get it, it’s a political explanation, but at the same time, it doesn’t help the community with that messaging,” they said.

    Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education, said as far as he’s concerned, “This really seems like a classic case of elections have consequences. Had we been talking about an incoming Harris administration, I don’t know that the department would have pulled back the regulation.”

    At the same time, the Biden administration seems to have left the door open a crack. The language of the finalized rules implies TRIO directors could interpret the Higher Education Act as not explicitly forbidding undocumented students from participating in TRIO programs.

    “I think you can certainly read that as offering up an interpretation of existing statute that might provide some flexibility—certainly the idea that if it’s not delineated, that doesn’t necessarily preclude it,” Fansmith said. So, the Biden administration may be “indicating where schools could go, but frankly, stopping short of something they know would be quickly reversed by the incoming administration.” Still, that’s “certainly not as clear as formally regulating on it.”

    Now in a gray area, it remains to be seen whether TRIO directors will use that latitude to serve students regardless of citizenship or if they’ll continue to bar undocumented students, given the Trump administration is unlikely to interpret the law in this way. Their choices could prove risky. A year ago, some school and college administrators were already worried that, if undocumented students were granted access to these programs, TRIO programs could face Republican backlash and funding cuts. This summer, six Republicans in Congress, including former chair of the House education committee Virginia Foxx, opposed the proposal in a letter to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

    Education department officials wrote in the finalized rules that the department “may reconsider TRIO student eligibility through future rulemaking efforts.” But the proposal’s proponents believe there’s a slim to none chance of that during Trump’s term, given his rhetoric against undocumented immigrants.

    “We’re going to have to wait at least four years again,” Fansmith said.

    Nonetheless, some remain hopeful that undocumented students will benefit from TRIO programs in the future. Sanchez said he still thinks it’s going to happen, even if this “window of opportunity” has passed.

    “We’ll keep fighting,” Sanchez said. “We’ll keep advocating, because we may not have gotten it right now, but we’ll get it eventually.”

    Source link

  • APS progressing monitoring shows mixed results from 2024 assessments

    APS progressing monitoring shows mixed results from 2024 assessments

    Last year’s Albuquerque Public Schools third-graders identified in the Yazzie-Martinez decision plus African American students fell short of the reading proficiency goal set by the district in its first year of concerted progress monitoring under a new strategic plan, according to a report released earlier this month.

    APS administrators pointed out during an October 2 school board meeting that these third-graders, identified in the Yazzie-Martinez decision plus African Americans, were kindergarteners during the Covid-19 pandemic, and spent much of that formative year learning online, which served them poorly.

    The review is part of the district’s plan to monitor progress towards the four goals adopted by the APS Board of Education in 2023, aligned with the district’s new Emerging Stronger Strategic Plan. Each of the four goals have interim goals that serve as indicators of progress.

    Goal One of the district’s four overarching goals calls for a 10 percentage-point increase in reading proficiency among that group of third-graders between 2023 and 2028. The interim goal for spring of 2024 was to raise the rate from 2023’s 27.3 to 28.3.

    Instead, last year’s third-graders actually slipped to a proficiency rate of 25.3.

    The district is still devising individualized strategies to catch kids up, officials told board members.

    “Strategic measures moving forward can be summarized by the word specificity,” Antonio Gonzales, deputy superintendent of leadership and learning told the board. This means getting detailed in determining what different subgroups need, for example special education and English language learners students need, and how to provide for those needs.

    “We know that we have a strategy in place, and that’s great. And I believe in the strategy that we have in place. But what this strategy calls us to action on is being specific and specific by student,” Gonzales said.

    APS has not modified its five-year goal, but now predicts that the current year’s proficiency rate for identified third-graders will be 26.6 percent, rather than the 29.3 percent that would keep the district on track to meet the ultimate goal.

    The board also heard reports on two sub-goals, where the news was decidedly better.

    Interim Goal 1.1 focuses on the reading proficiency rates of first graders as measured by Istation formative assessments given at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year. “This interim assessment gives teachers real-time insights into each student’s reading abilities to help inform instruction and provide intervention,” said a slide presentation produced by the district.

    The three-year target for Interim Goal 1.1 is to increase the proficiency rate of first graders in the targeted groups by six percentage points—from 17 percent in 2023 to 23 percent in 2026. Students significantly exceeded that goal last school year, ending the year with a 24.1 percent proficiency rate.

    Interim Goal 1.2 has a three-year target of increasing the percentage of second-grade students identified in the Yazzie-Martinez decision plus African American students who demonstrate grade level proficiency or above as predicted by Istation from 18.3% in May 2023 to 24.3% in May 2026.

    By the end of last school year, 26.3 percent of those students were proficient.

    If these trends hold, it will suggest that the performance of last year’s third-graders was a Covid-related aberration, and that students on the grades that follow are performing significantly better.

    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Data Highlights Trends in Representation and Pay Equity in the Higher Education Workforce, and the News Is Mixed – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Data Highlights Trends in Representation and Pay Equity in the Higher Education Workforce, and the News Is Mixed – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 1, 2023

    When it comes to representation and pay equity for women and people of color in the higher education workforce, colleges and universities have frequently struggled to make meaningful progress. Through several new interactive graphics representing years of research, CUPA-HR shines a light on the progress that has been made and the disparities that persist. These graphics represent data from CUPA-HR’s four signature higher ed workforce surveys — Administrators, Faculty, Professionals, and Staff — through 2022.

    Administrators

    While the proportion of people of color in higher ed administrator positions has grown steadily over the last 10 years, these increases have not kept pace with the rate at which minorities are obtaining graduate degrees. In 2022, people of color made up 18.2 percent of administrators, up from 12.9 percent in 2012.

    The data also show that pay gaps for women administrators of all races/ethnicities are consistent across the past 10 years and notably wide. Pay inequity is particularly egregious for women administrators of color (with the exception of Asian women). Men of color, on the other hand, have been paid salaries equitable to or greater than those of White men in recent years.

    The Administrators in Higher Education Survey collects data on administrator positions that manage a higher ed institution or a division within it.

    See the Administrators Composition and Pay Equity by Gender and Race/Ethnicity interactive graphics, as well as data broken out by CEO, provost and chief HR officer.

    Faculty

    There are two notable findings in faculty composition. First, more women are represented in non-tenure-track than in tenure-track faculty. Second, for each tenure status and with each increase in rank, the proportions of women and faculty of color decrease. This means that women are over-represented in the lowest-paying and lowest-ranking positions. This remains the case despite the fact that the proportion of women and faculty of color have increased slightly at each rank over the past five years.

    Pay gaps for women faculty, regardless of tenure status or rank, continue to persist, particularly at the rank of professor. These gaps are most notable for women of color. Pay gaps at other ranks have narrowed over time, particularly for tenure-track faculty. Importantly, the factor that most impacts faculty pay is promotion to a higher rank. Often, the only significant increases in salary happen with these promotions. These data show that the only group that has greater representation with each increase in rank is that of White male faculty, and this pattern has persisted over time.

    The Faculty in Higher Education Survey collects data on tenure-track faculty positions and non-tenure-track teaching faculty positions.

    See the Faculty Composition and Pay Equity by Gender and Race/Ethnicity interactive graphics.

    Professionals

    Women’s representation has increased across all professionals’ positions since 2017, and in 2022, women represented more than 60 percent of higher ed professionals. This change is due to slight increases in representation of women of color since 2017. In 2022, representation of people of color was 24 percent overall, with the highest percentage among human resources professionals (34 percent) and diversity and equal opportunity professionals (33 percent).

    In 2022, women were consistently paid less than White men, a pattern that has worsened since 2017. However, men of color were paid more equitably in 2022 compared to previous years.

    The Professionals in Higher Education Survey collects data on positions in specific functional areas in higher ed institutions, such as academic or student services, that usually require a baccalaureate degree.

    See the Professionals Composition and Pay Equity by Gender and Race/Ethnicity interactive graphics.

    Staff

    Staff employees have a higher representation of people of color than any other higher ed employee group. This is notable in that these are the lowest-paying positions in higher ed. In 2022, women of color represented about 19 percent of all higher ed staff, and men of color represented about 13 percent of all higher ed staff. These numbers have increased since 2017, though modestly. Skilled craft employees were the least racially diverse group, as 80 percent were White men, a finding that has persisted across the past six years. Notably, skilled craft staff are among the highest-paid staff positions.

    Since 2017, women in staff positions have been paid consistently and considerably less than White men in staff positions, a pattern that has worsened over time, particularly for women in office and clerical positions. Men of color were paid more equitably in 2022 when compared to 2017.

    The Staff in Higher Education Survey collects data on positions that are generally non-exempt and do not require a college degree.

    See the Staff Composition and Pay Equity by Gender and Race/Ethnicity interactive graphics.

    CUPA-HR Research

    CUPA-HR is the recognized authority on compensation surveys for higher education, with its workforce surveys designed by higher ed HR professionals for higher ed HR professionals and other campus leaders. CUPA-HR has been collecting data on the higher ed workforce for more than 50 years, and we maintain one of the largest workforce databases in existence. CUPA-HR also publishes numerous research publications and interactive graphics highlighting trends and issues around higher ed workforce planning, pay equity, representation of women and racial/ethnic minorities and more. Learn more about CUPA-HR research.



    Source link