Tag: multiple

  • How Trump is deploying multiple agencies to set education policy

    How Trump is deploying multiple agencies to set education policy

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

    The Trump administration is tapping agencies other than the U.S. Department of Education to implement its agenda in schools, sometimes circumventing typical rulemaking procedures that would allow districts months to give feedback on and prepare for policy changes before they roll out. 

    The use of other agencies to set or enforce education policy marks a significant shift from typical K-12 policymaking, some education policy experts say. 

    “This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University. “So I think going forward, we might be seeing broader use of this wider range of policy tools in the area of education policy changes.” 

    This month, for example, a policy change from the U.S. Department of Energy could take effect that would undo some students’ protections related to sex discrimination under Title IX, disability discrimination under Section 504 and racial discrimination under Title VI. 

    The changes would only apply to schools receiving Energy Department funds, as opposed to public schools nationwide — which would have been the case had the rules come from the Education Department. The Energy Department distributed just over $160 million to 28 schools in fiscal year 2025, according to department spokesperson Ben Dietderich. The agency also provides over $2.5 billion annually to more than 300 colleges and universities to fund research.

    As a result of the quietly proposed policy changes schools receiving Energy Department grants would no longer, among other things:

    • Be required to facilitate noncontact sports team tryouts for girls if there is no equivalent girls’ team. For example, if a school had a boys’ baseball team but no girls’ softball team, girls would no longer be guaranteed the opportunity to try out for a spot on the boys’ baseball team. 
    • Be permitted to proactively “overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex.” This would remove protections that allow schools to have gender-conscious after-school or college programs to provide women and girls opportunities they have historically been denied, such as in STEM fields and technical training, according to Shiwali Patel, senior director of Safe and Inclusive Schools at National Women’s Law Center and a Title IX attorney.  
    • Be required to prevent systemic racial discrimination that may result from seemingly neutral policies, as a result of the department rescinding guardrails protecting against policies that cause a “disparate impact” on underserved students. Disparate impact investigations have previously addressed issues such as Black students being disciplined at higher rates than students of other races.  

    The policy changes were issued through a process called direct final rulemaking, which allows an agency to issue a rule without going through the rulemaking process twice to incorporate changes based on public feedback and publish a final version. The expedited process is usually used for noncontroversial changes and when an agency does not expect significant pushback.

    The rules are to take effect July 15 as long as no “significant adverse comments” were received by June 16. Dietderich did not respond as to whether the agency received significant adverse comments.

    However, a review of some publicly available comments show that the direct final rules — posted May 16 — have been controversial, with multiple civil rights organizations explicitly telling the Energy Department they are submitting “significant, adverse” comments for its review.

    Other agencies launch civil rights investigations and enforcement

    The Energy Department situation isn’t the first time the Trump administration has deployed agencies beyond the Education Department to set or enforce education policy. In fact, the administration has used the departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services over the past few months to investigate sex and race discrimination at schools and enforce compliance. 

    The administration notably used these agencies in an unprecedented investigation into the Maine Department of Education, spurred by a public disagreement between President Donald Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, over the state’s athletic policy allowing transgender athletes on girls’ and women’s sports teams. 

    That dispute kicked off a string of Title IX investigations by several federal agencies that provide funds to Maine. 

    They included a four-day probe launched by HHS. And because HHS rather than the Education Department conducted the probe, it didn’t have to follow the standards spelled out in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights case processing manual. That manual ensures the Education Department conducts investigations according to certain timelines, for example, allowing up to 90 calendar days for negotiations to take place and 10 days for schools or states to sign onto a resolution agreement. 

    In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture froze funds to some of the state’s schools over the Maine Department of Education’s alleged Title IX violations. 

    USDA, alongside other federal agencies, will continue to pause and, where appropriate, terminate categories of education programming in Maine if these Title IX violations are not resolved to the satisfaction of the Federal Government,” said an April 2 letter from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to Mills. 

    A court order eventually overturned the USDA funding freeze as part of an agreement struck in May between Maine and the USDA. 

    Source link

  • In the USA, universities are under attack on multiple fronts

    In the USA, universities are under attack on multiple fronts

    Last week I was in the US, as part of the CASE Global Leaders Programme, visiting five leading universities – Harvard, Boston, Princeton, Johns Hopkins and Georgetown. I also visited the United Nations, the Washington Post, the British Embassy and US university associations. I met and spoke with over 100 senior staff – mostly under the Chatham House rule – about the severe current challenges facing US universities.

    US universities are under “an unprecedented political attack,” I was told – it is “a very dangerous moment.” The Trump administration has unleashed a “flood the zone” strategy. University leaders are shocked at the rapid speed and breath of the policy and political assault. Universities are reeling from the ferocity of the attacks. The Trump administration “has declared war on colleges.”

    The Trump administration tactics are clear – they are attempting to weaken and undermine major institutions that they see as liberal ballast, a barrier to the MAGA agenda. The playbook should not be a total surprise. It was largely outlined in Project 2025, with a raft of policies to deconstruct the US administrative state. For universities, it is time for a reckoning.

    Shocks and tremors

    The elite research institutions are the primary target. Amongst these, the President’s Office have deliberated targeted a number of specific institutions – pulling $400m (£310m) of federal funding from Columbia University, saying that it failed to fight antisemitism on campus, and suspending $175m (£135m) in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania over the school’s policy regarding transgender athletes. Making an example of these universities – through public humiliation and bullying – is an attempt to strike fear in to other institutions and scare others from speaking out. There has been a notable lack of public figures speaking out in defence of these institutions. The tactics were described to me as “if you cross them, they will come after you.”

    Worryingly, the MAGA attacks have some grounding in public opinion, coming at a time when US public confidence in higher education has been falling for a decade. Public opinion research by the Association of American Universities (AAU) shows that only 29 per cent of the US public agree with the statement that Ivy League universities “make us better off” – whereas 57 per cent believe that they “make us worse off.” Although Republicans are even more critical than Democrats, a large majority of both parties’ supporters think Ivy League universities make people worse off.

    Across US universities there is a sense of crisis, with leaders struggling to cope with the tidal wave of political attacks. Shocks and tremors are being felt across the sector – but there is no agreement on which are the primary challenges. The hierarchy of these concerns varies and the impact is certainly not uniform. I heard about over a dozen current threats:

    • removal of federal funding due to accusations of “woke ideology”
    • major research funding cuts due to cuts to USAID
    • detaining and deporting faculty and students accused of holding views and speaking on controversial topics
    • tightening of visas for international students
    • threats to increase tax on university endowments
    • federal government instruction to withdraw specific research funding
    • increasing levels of disinformation
    • hostile environment leading to loss of faculty to universities overseas
    • falling philanthropic donations, due to reputational damage and economic weather
    • falling investment income from an economic downturn
    • a chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom
    • flight of international students as families overseas view the US as not a welcoming place to send their children
    • the growing possibility of a new cold war with China
    • splits and tensions amongst the alumni and donor communities.

    Despite the huge wealth, resources, influence and global reputation, I witnessed a university sector unprepared for the tsunami of political challenges and unsure about how to respond. It is a “a very destabilising moment, we’re trying to work things out… how do we navigate the challenges, the politics…”

    After the crisis response

    US universities face choices: to fight back, to “lean in” towards the Trump agenda, to hunker down, to uphold their values, to adapt or evolve – though these options are not mutually exclusive.

    For some, it is clear that they will speak out powerfully and fight back to defend universities,

    This brave article by the president of Princeton explains how American universities have given the country prosperity and security, and strikes back against the The Trump administration’s attack on academic freedom.

    For others, there is a recognition that this is “not just about telling a better story, we also need to do things better.” Maybe universities haven’t really listened enough to the dissatisfied and acted on concerns. Perhaps there is some truth in the accusations that some parts of higher education have exasperated or created inequality, protecting the “haves” and ignoring the “have nots”. This Atlantic article How the Ivy League broke America is essential reading in this genre. For some, the answer is a much stronger focus on reaching out across divides, and renewed efforts to increase civic impact – and perhaps the curtailment of some activities.

    For all, there is a sense that this is not simply a crisis response moment, rather that universities need to think long-term, to protect the values of higher education and redouble efforts to demonstrate their impact. There is a need to think about the longer term stewardship of the institutions and “play the long game” rather than simply respond to the immediate shocks.

    The search for something to hold onto

    I also heard many comments that gave me reasons for hope. Public opinion research by the Association of American Universities (AAU) shows that 42 per cent most trust American research universities to find a cure for diseases like cancer whereas only five per cent most trust the government, and only three per cent most trust large US corporations.

    At some universities, alumni donors are coming forward to offer support to help plug the financial gap being created by research funding cuts. Many universities are refusing to back-track on commitments made on DEI issues – citing very strong support from faculty and students – and arguing clearly and consistently that diversity of people (minds, experiences, backgrounds and thought) and plurality of views is vital to support excellence.

    On the day on my visit, Harvard became the latest elite school to announce that families with incomes under $200,000 will not pay tuition as a way to bolster diversity. There is also a view that the combination of the stock market falls, public opinion and the Supreme Court may soon have the impact of curtailing some of the President’s most aggressive actions.

    Overall, my visit to the US has left me with mixed emotions: deep concerns for US universities, the loss of vital research programmes, the negative impact on access to universities, the weakening of international collaboration and the personal threats to faculty and students. I also recognise that many of the political and public views which have contributed to this onslaught do not feel alien to the situation in the UK.

    However, the trip has also given me hope. These are deeply resilient institutions, led by exceptional people, with brilliant faculty, supportive alumni and donors. There is continuing strong demand from students for a higher education – and these students want to experience a plurality of views. By upholding their values, by redoubling efforts to build public support by doing things even better, by demonstrating impact, and by taking the longer-term view I am confident that US universities can ride through this storm.

    Source link