Tag: overhaul

  • Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    In some countries, higher education policy just seems to sit still for decades. In others, hyperactivity is a more normal state. Today we’re looking at the 2020s poster child for higher education hyperactivity. It’s not the usual suspects, the UK or Australia, it’s little New Zealand where we’re making our fourth stop on this podcast in just over two and a half years.

    When last we were in Wellington, we talked to Chris Whelan from Universities New Zealand about university underfunding the consequences of losing international students, and something called the University Advisory Group, which was supposed to set the national system on a new course along with a research advisory group who weirdly was made up of exactly the same people only following a different mandate.

    Since then, while these groups were noodling on how best to steer the system, the government made two big table flipping moves. One musing about creating a new type of institution, which was neither a university nor a college, and nobody knew what they were talking about, and the other simply deciding it wasn’t going to fund any more research in the social sciences and humanities through its research granting system. Fun times.

    Anyways, with all this excitement, we figured it was worth going back to the Tasman Sea to check in with one of our regular correspondents, Roger Smyth. He’s a former senior New Zealand public servant and now a consultant based in Canterbury. He’s got all the skinny for us. And so, over to Roger.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.32 | Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Roger, the last time we did a show about New Zealand, we had Chris Whelan from Universities New Zealand on, and we talked a lot about the University Advisory Group process. How far along is that work, and what are people in the sector saying about it? What’s the view at this stage? Is there still interest and momentum behind the process, or has it stalled out a little?

    Roger Smyth (RS): Okay, so the advisory group submitted an interim report late last year, and it’s scheduled to submit its final report this month. I understand that the report has now been submitted, but nothing has been published yet. Neither the interim report nor the final report, nor any of the dozens of submissions made in response to the UAG’s questions, have been released publicly.

    In these sorts of cases, the report usually isn’t published until the government has had a chance to make its initial decisions on some of the high-level questions—and that could still be a little way off.

    Of course, as you implied, Alex, there are rumors. And in some of the face-to-face consultations, the UAG has given a bit of a steer as to where it was heading. For instance, it’s pretty clear that in their interim report, they were proposing a machinery of government change—a reorganization of some of the government agencies in higher education, such as the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry of Education, and the policy unit responsible for research and innovation. But we won’t know that for sure until the report comes out.

    One of the big challenges the advisory group would have faced is that the government is committed to returning to a financial surplus in the 2027–28 fiscal year. That’s a significant challenge, with major demands on the budget. So the advisory group would have been instructed to make their proposals fiscally neutral, and that’s a big constraint on what they could recommend.

    My main view on this whole process is that it was never really clear what problem the University Advisory Group was set up to solve—apart from a general instruction to look for improvement and to make the system work better. One of the most distinctive features of the New Zealand system is its homogeneity. That has a lot of positives—it means that wherever you go, you’re guaranteed a reasonable level of quality. But it also has the downside that there isn’t really any outstanding, world-leading university.

    AU: Let me stop you there, because alongside the University Advisory Group, there’s also been a commission on research—on research and science—a review going on at the same time. Why did that happen in parallel rather than together?

    RS: Yeah, I think that’s an important point. The first thing is that the two advisory groups were actually chaired by the same person—Peter Gluckman, a distinguished medical scientist and academic—and they began operating at roughly the same time.

    You can see there was a desire to think about knowledge transfer opportunities within universities and how they contribute to the broader economy and the wider science system.

    The Science Advisory Group has now completed its report. It’s been submitted, and the government has published its initial decisions. This is an area where the review proposed a very substantial overhaul of the machinery of government. They proposed creating a super ministry for higher education, science, technology, and innovation.

    The government, however, did not accept that proposal. Most governments are a bit wary of major machinery-of-government reshuffles unless there’s a very strong rationale. These kinds of changes often involve a settling-in period where the system can lose its way, as people jockey for position and the focus shifts away from the core goals the system is meant to achieve.

    Instead, the review also proposed merging the seven non-university research institutes into a single public research organization. The government opted for a partial reorganization, establishing three public research organizations—focused on the bioeconomy, earth sciences, and health and forensic science. They’re also creating a new organization to cover advanced technology fields like AI, synthetic biology, aerospace, and quantum tech. So that’s probably a reasonable foundation for advancing the science system.

    AU: But of course, before they even got to that point—before the advisory group had reported—the government unilaterally made a change to what’s called the Marsden Fund. That’s sort of like our combination of the social sciences, humanities, and natural science councils. And it effectively nuked the humanities and social sciences, as I understand it. They basically said, “We’re not going to fund those anymore.” Why did the government do that? Why undercut your own report before it even comes out?

    RS: Yeah, this was definitely a decision that caused a lot of pushback and consternation—real ill feeling in universities and across the broader community.

    Most of the government’s research funding is directed toward major national strategic priorities, so it tends to go to areas like health, the hard sciences, engineering, agriculture—things like that. The Marsden Fund was one of the few avenues where humanities researchers could secure external funding, outside of what universities provide internally.

    I think part of this decision reflects the government’s desire to place greater focus on the hard sciences. If you look at the Marsden Fund trends, the social sciences and humanities panel had been gaining a slightly larger share of the funding in recent years, which naturally came at the expense of the hard sciences. So in some sense, this was a declaration that the government wants to reorient support toward areas seen as having greater economic impact.

    That said, the main driver was probably to send a message. But in doing so, it sent a very negative signal to the humanities community. Even researchers in the now-favored areas were concerned about the loss of this funding stream—particularly given that social science research can produce huge social value.

    AU: This tension between favored STEM subjects and less-favored fields like the social sciences, humanities, and business is also playing out in discussions around the government’s funding model. My understanding is that in New Zealand, the funding model essentially funds places. So, the government allocates a certain number of places to each institution. Now we’re projecting that there will be more enrollments than there are funded places, and the government would like to provide a bit of additional funding for STEM subjects, but not for others. We’re very familiar with this in Canada—it’s exactly what’s happening in Ontario right now. I’m curious how you think that will play out in New Zealand?

    RS: Okay, well, just to give a bit of context on the financial situation of the universities: like most Anglophone countries with a heavy reliance on the international student market, COVID hit New Zealand universities hard. In 2021, the impact was cushioned by a surge in domestic enrollments. The labor market was weak due to the pandemic, so more people turned to study, and universities did okay financially.

    But in 2022, following government stimulus measures, the labor market recovered and became more robust. Domestic enrollments fell sharply, and the international student market still hadn’t bounced back. That made 2022 the worst financial year ever for the universities. Six of the eight were in deficit, and one was just breaking even.

    In 2023, when finances were still tight, there was a lot of concern about university viability. The government stepped in with a short-term funding rate boost—not an increase in the number of places, but an increase in the dollars per place.

    Then there was a small increase in funding again last year. But the broader funding review never happened. The government changed, and that process was superseded by the UAG process we discussed earlier.

    And that process, as we said, is likely to avoid anything that would seriously impact the government’s bottom line. So, the universities have been in a tough situation.

    But now, the international market is starting to recover. It’s been slower than in the other countries we compete with, but in EFTS terms—equivalent full-time students—2024 saw an 11% increase in international enrollments. It’s still below pre-pandemic levels, but the trend is positive. And that matters because each international student generates about 60% more revenue than a domestic student.

    Right now, we’re in the middle of the financial reporting season. Five of the universities have reported for 2024. One reported a small deficit on its core business, but it was much lower than expected and offset by a surplus on its wider trading operations.

    So, it’s still tough—marginal—but not as gloomy as it was a couple of years ago.

    Even though there’s still pressure, and enrollments may be shifting toward more expensive fields, financially speaking, the worst appears to be over. The system is beginning to grow again.

    And on the point about STEM versus other fields—it’s worth remembering this is a system driven by student choice. The government doesn’t have much influence over where students choose to go. So, no matter how the government might want to steer things, it can’t really control those choices under the current policy environment. So, I’d say that the universities are managing through this.

    AU: Roger, I want to get into something I read recently—there was a fascinating article where the government, or at least the minister, was musing about the idea of creating a new type of tertiary institution. Something that’s not quite a university and not quite a polytechnic.But before I ask you about that, I think we need to give our listeners a bit of background on polytechnics in New Zealand.

    Your system merged all the polytechnics into one big national institution just before COVID, right? That was Te Pūkenga. Why do that? What was the point of one national institution? It’s a big country—two islands, 15 campuses. That’s a lot to bring together. What was the thinking behind that?

    RS: These reforms had two separate sources.

    First, we talked earlier about the financial challenges in the university sector, but the polytechnics were facing a real financial crisis. They’d been growing for years and carried high fixed costs, with relatively small student numbers spread across multiple campuses.

    Between 2012 and 2019, domestic enrollments dropped by about 25%. By 2019, nearly all the polytechnics were running deficits, and the sector’s collective deficit was quite substantial. So something clearly had to be done.

    Second, the government looked at what had been done in Australia. In New South Wales, for example, they merged all the TAFE institutions into a single statewide TAFE. It worked reasonably well there, and in Queensland as well.

    So they decided to follow a similar path and merge all 16 institutions—along with all work-based training—into a single national organization. That was the rationale behind the creation of Te Pūkenga.

    AU: What about the un-merger? So, a few years later you get a new government—the National government—and they’re going to undo the whole thing. Was that because it was, as you said, a machinery-of-government issue? Or was it more about a shift in how the government views vocational education?

    RS: I think it was both.

    Let’s look at both sides. First, the merger didn’t go well. There were some good aspects to the reforms. For instance, they set up six Workforce Development Councils to set standards for training and take a forward-looking view of labor market needs in specific fields. That was a positive.

    The idea of reintegrating polytechnic and work-based training into one coherent trades training system was also a good one. But the merger was very poorly executed.

    Costs blew out, and after three years they still hadn’t settled on a functioning operating model. There was almost no progress on the actual integration of work-based and polytechnic-based training. The initial chief executive didn’t work out and had to go.

    So that was one rationale for reconsidering—or unpicking—the merger.

    But the second reason was political. The incoming minister in 2023 had previously been a very successful chief executive of one of the polytechnics that was merged into the national institution.

    She was deeply committed to undoing the merger and restoring control to regions and local communities. So, the government came in with a clear policy to do this, and she got the ministry, and things got moving quickly.

    But, of course, life’s not that simple. No one wanted to go back to a system everyone agreed had serious problems. So how do you reconcile those two positions?

    After two years of back and forth, we’re now getting close to the new model. Those six Workforce Development Councils—the best part of the previous reform—are being disbanded and replaced with smaller organizations focused mainly on setting standards.

    The polytechnics, which remained as divisions within the larger organization, have all gone through what are called ruthless efficiency reviews to determine what could be dropped or changed to make them financially viable.

    We haven’t seen the full results of those yet, but some institutions will likely be deemed viable and split off as standalone, autonomous polytechnics. These will focus partly on trade training, but also on foundation education and some degree-level programs. Those will become autonomous institutions.

    But for those polytechnics that aren’t viable in the long term, they’ll be required to join a federation anchored by the Open Polytechnic, which delivers programs online. The idea is that those institutions can draw on the federation’s expertise and infrastructure to complement their face-to-face delivery with online components.

    AU: So I don’t want to ask you what’s going to happen, but I do want to ask when it’s going to happen—because there are a whole bunch of moving parts here, and you’ve got an election coming up. Is there enough time for the government to unwind all of this before the next election? Because I know, for example, with the Universities Accord process in Australia, the report came out well before the election, and even then, they couldn’t get everything done before voting day. So, what’s the pace of decision-making here?

    RS: The first thing is that if we look at the University Advisory Group, we should see the results of that fairly soon. I’d expect it within a couple of months—possibly even sooner. It might come out all at once, or it could follow the science review model, where there were high-level interim decisions released first.

    My sense of the brief given to the UAG is that we’re not going to see truly transformational change—nothing on the scale of the three big reviews we’ve had in the past: 1961, 1989–90, and 2002–03.

    So I’d expect incremental change rather than sweeping reform. And because of that, I think the university review will largely settle before the election.

    In contrast, the un-merging of Te Pūkenga and the broader vocational education reforms will take longer.

    Under the new arrangements, there will be greater integration between workplace and institutional training. Polytechnics and private providers will be allowed to act as arrangers and supervisors of work-based training.

    But implementing that integration will take time. There’s a two-year transition period, starting in 2026—which is the election year. So the un-merging process will only be partly complete when voters go to the polls.

    That said, I think this process will continue to play out slowly over time. Hopefully, it results in something positive.

    Despite everything—despite what will have been six years of turbulence and ongoing uncertainty—I do believe the sector will move forward with reasonable operating models.

    AU: May you live in interesting times. Roger, thanks so much for joining us today.

    RS: Thank you very much, Alex.

    AU: And that just leaves me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek—and you, our listeners, viewers, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us next week when our guest will be David Lloyd. He’s the remarkable individual who serves as both the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia and the co–Vice Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. How does he manage it? Those two institutions are on the brink of what’s likely the biggest institutional shakeup in Australian higher education since the Dawkins reforms of 1988. He’ll be here to talk about the merger, how it came about, and what the future looks like. Until then—bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • AAERI seeks visa overhaul for Australia’s student system

    AAERI seeks visa overhaul for Australia’s student system

    The Association of Australian Education Representatives in India (AAERI), in a submission to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Education, has urged the Labor government to link student visas to the institution of initial enrolment.

    The association, established in October 1996 to uphold the credibility of education agents recruiting students for Australian institutions, proposed that any change in course or institution should require a new visa application, with the existing visa automatically cancelled upon such a change.

    “This proposed reform means that a student’s visa would be directly linked to the education provider (institution) listed in their initial Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) at the time of visa approval. The student would be required to remain enrolled at that institution,” read a statement by AAERI.  

    The association expalined that if a student wishes to change their course or education provider, they must obtain a new CoE from the new institution, apply for a fresh student visa, and once again demonstrate that they meet all Genuine Student requirements.

    “Such a measure will strengthen the integrity of Australia’s student visa program, reduce exploitation in the education sector, improve compliance with Genuine Student (GS) criteria, and safeguard Australia’s reputation as a provider of high-quality international education,” it added. 

    “Additionally, this reform will support ethical education agents and reputable institutions by discouraging course-hopping and misuse of the student visa system, thereby enhancing student retention and sector stability.”

    Such a measure will strengthen the integrity of Australia’s student visa program, reduce exploitation in the education sector, improve compliance with Genuine Student (GS) criteria, and safeguard Australia’s reputation as a provider of high-quality international education.
    AAERI

    Based on AAERI’s submission, such a policy would align with Condition 8516, which requires students to remain enrolled in a registered course at the same level or higher than the one for which their visa was originally granted.

    As per reports, education loan applications from India, one of Australia’s biggest student markets, have quadrupled since the Covid pandemic, with the number of loan-seeking students expected to rise further.

    With many students relying on Indian public and private banks for education loans, changes in their courses in Australia have often led to their original loans being considered void, placing many at significant financial risk.

    “Based on our communication with several Indian banks, if a student changes their course or education provider after arriving in Australia, their loan arrangements may need to be reassessed, taking into account new course fees, institution credibility, and repayment ability,” stated AAERI. 

    “The original loan is void and stands suspended. This poses significant financial risks for students and impacts their compliance with visa conditions.”

    According to AAERI, the problem is also prevalent among Nepali students, with nearly 60,000 currently studying in Australia. 

    The association also highlighted examples from other study destinations that Australia can learn from in implementing the proposed framework. 

    While New Zealand allows course or provider changes but may require a variation of conditions or a new visa, especially for pathway visa holders or when moving to lower-level courses, in the UK, the student visa system is closely tied to licensed sponsors through the Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies, so changing institutions generally requires a new CAS and immigration permission.

    In Canada, stricter rules have been implemented requiring international students to be enrolled at the Designated Learning Institution named on their study permit, and to change institutions, students must apply for and obtain a new study permit, emphasising the importance of linking visas to specific institutions.

    “Australia’s recent reforms, such as closing the concurrent CoE loophole and requiring CoEs for onshore visa applications, are steps in a similar direction but do not go far enough to address the core issue of unethical student poaching, misuse of student visa and provider switching,” stated AAERI. 

    AAERI’s call for action comes at a time when the return of the Labour government is viewed as “offering little comfort to an international education sector already under-siege”, as highlighted in a recent article by Ian Pratt, managing director of Lexis English, for The PIE News.

    In Anthony Albanese’s second term, the Prime Minister established a new role – assistant minister for international education – and appointed Victorian MP Julian Hill.

    “It’s important that students who come here get a quality education… This sector is complex and Julian Hill is someone who’s been involved as a local member as well, and I think he’ll be a very good appointment,” Albanese stated at a press conference this week. 

    Source link

  • Student Loan Overhaul Clears House Committee

    Student Loan Overhaul Clears House Committee

    Over strong objections from Democrats, House Republicans on the Education and the Workforce Committee advanced legislation Tuesday that would make dramatic changes to the federal student aid system.

    For a full Inside Higher Ed analysis of what provisions are included in the reconciliation bill, read here.

    The sweeping 103-page bill, known as the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, passed on a party-line vote after more than five hours of debate. The legislation would cap the amount of federal loans a student can take out, cut off the Pell Grant for students who attend less than half time, consolidate income-driven repayment plans and introduce a risk-sharing program where colleges are partially responsible for unpaid student loans. The bill, which would also reverse multiple Biden-era student borrower protection regulations, could save more than $330 billion in federal funding over 10 years, committee Republicans say.

    It’s just one section of a larger budget bill that lawmakers are planning to use to fund some of President Donald Trump’s top priorities, like lofty tax cuts for the wealthy and a major crackdown on immigration. But House Republicans said the changes were more than just a means to fund his MAGA agenda.

    “If there is any consensus when it comes to student loans, it’s that the current system is effectively broken and littered with incentives that push tuition prices upward,” Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and committee chair, said in his opening statement. Higher education is “on a fiscally unsustainable path, so we must deliver on the promise of economic mobility to our students and families. Taken together, the provisions in this package will do just that.”

    Democrats on the committee argued the legislation is nothing more than a means to fund tax cuts for the wealthy that will force low-income and racial minority students to take on more debt and penalize the community colleges, regional universities and minority-serving institutions that educate those students. All in all, the bill will put the cost of a college degree out of reach for many, they said.

    “I appreciate that my colleagues acknowledge that the cost of college is too high, and that Congress should reform the system. But the committee print before us today … seriously misses the mark of making college more affordable,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member on the committee. “Put bluntly, this Republican proposal will limit how much money middle- and low-income students can borrow from the federal government.”

    Scott and other Democrats proposed 33 amendments—all of which Republicans voted down. They ranged from requests to prove the bill wouldn’t disproportionately affect certain institutions and increase costs for students to defending the Pell eligibility of part-time students and some consumer-protection regulations. Democrats also proposed replacing the income-driven repayment plan in the legislation with a more generous Biden-era alternative and striking the bill entirely. Other amendments touched on other issues unrelated to this section of the legislation, such as proposed cuts to Medicaid and the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to sensitive data.

    Republicans countered that Democrats’ allegations that the bill would make college less affordable were, as Rep. Burgess Owens of Utah said, “nothing further from the truth.” The proposed changes to the federal aid system will lead to better loan terms and repayment options that are also fair to taxpayers and avoid wasteful spending, they argued.

    The bill will now head to the House Budget Committee, where it will be folded into a complex omnibus bill before it is sent to the floor for a full House vote.

    But even if it clears the House, the legislation still has a long way to go. The House and the Senate have differing ideas about how much federal spending they wish to cut and what programs they are willing to slash. The Senate is aiming to make at least $1 billion in education cuts, which is less than 1 percent of the House committee’s $330 billion reduction.

    This reconciliation bill only needs a simple majority vote, or 51 yeas, to pass the upper chamber, but that will require almost all Republicans in the Senate to agree, which experts don’t think is a foregone conclusion.

    Risk Sharing

    One of the more contentious proposals in the bill is the risk-sharing provision, which would require colleges to repay the government a portion of students’ unpaid loans.

    Republicans on the committee described the risk-sharing proposal as critical, adding that it would penalize colleges for forcing their students into unmanageable debt and would incentivize them to lower their cost of attendance.

    “The best way for us to do that is not to loan [students] more money, but to reduce the cost so that they don’t need the loans,” said Rep. Randy Fine of Florida, who has been active in higher ed in the Sunshine State. “That’s what this bill does over and over and over again.”

    But Democrats said it is misleading to say the bill and provisions like risk-sharing would reduce costs and increase graduation rates, arguing it would actually incentivize colleges to accept fewer low-income students and increase tuition or cut critical student-support programs in order to foot the bill of new penalties.

    Rep. Alma Adams, a Democrat of North Carolina, called risk-sharing “a dire threat” especially to historically Black colleges and universities, which would have to pay an average of $1.7 million per year to account for the debt of their graduates.

    The students at these institutions “started behind but are determined to get ahead,” Adams said, adding that they don’t default because they are failing; they default because they are “carrying the burden of generations of inequity.”

    “This bill will tell colleges to take only the best students and leave the rest behind,” she added.

    Multiple student advocacy and higher education groups opposed risk-sharing and other proposals in letters to the committee and fact sheets.

    Third Way, a left-of-center think tank, noted in a memo Monday that the concept of risk-sharing “has a lot of intuitive appeal,” but the proposal “misses the mark for meaningful accountability.” Other provisions like loan limits and changes to the Pell Grant program will also “drive students into the private loan market,” the memo added.

    And the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities told the committee that, if passed, risk-sharing would amount to a “staggering level of federal overreach” that penalizes colleges and universities for “decisions beyond their control.”

    “The gravity of these changes would have a far reaching impact to current and future students,” APLU wrote. “There is a better way.”

    If Republicans “truly believed” the bill would not raise the cost of college and the burden of debt for students, then they would have no problem passing proposed amendments that certify its impact on students and institutions, said Adams, the North Carolina Democrat.

    “Let’s be clear about what this really means: This bill punishes students for being poor. It punishes students for needing to work. It punishes students for living in the real world,” she said. It transforms financial aid “from a bridge into a barricade.”

    Source link

  • Florida board approves extensive gen ed overhaul

    Florida board approves extensive gen ed overhaul

    Students at Florida State University can cheer on the Seminoles across multiple sports, but they can no longer learn about the namesake tribe of Indigenous Americans as part of FSU’s general education offerings after the Florida Board of Governors approved sweeping curriculum changes Thursday.

    Florida colleges have spent months rethinking their general education requirements following a change in state law. Thursday’s vote marked the final step in a contentious and controversial process that brought significant changes to all 12 state universities. Critics accuse the board and system officials of taking a heavy-handed approach and targeting specific topics or courses, while state officials have argued revisions were necessary both to simplify the curriculum and to strip it of “indoctrination.”

    Now, American History 583: The Seminoles and the Southeastern Indians is one of hundreds of courses across Florida’s public universities that will no longer count toward general education credit as part of the extensive overhaul. Neither will Black Women in America or LGBTQ History, both of which were previously included as general education offerings at FSU. Those are just three of numerous courses touching in some way on race, gender or sexuality that institutional boards voted in recent months to drop from general education. All 12 Boards of Trustees then submitted a pared-down list of classes to FLBOG for approval. Three Bible courses remain eligible for general education credit at FSU.

    (An FSU spokesperson noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed that American History 583, which currently has about 150 students enrolled this semester, will now be offered as an elective. Pressed on the rationale for why the course was dropped from gen eds, FSU did not respond.)

    Florida State University’s Board of Trustees dropped a course on Seminole history from the list of general education offerings, but fans can still cheer on the Seminoles.

    Chris Leduc/Icon Sportswire/Getty Image

    State lawmakers required colleges in 2023 to review general education classes in an effort to cut “courses with curriculum based on unproven, speculative or exploratory content,” according to materials shared with the Board of Governors in a presentation for Thursday’s vote.

    The Florida Board of Governors unanimously approved the new suite of gen ed classes Thursday, though some members tried to downplay the notion that the state was trying to limit knowledge.

    “We are not prohibiting universities from offering courses,” Timothy Cerio, chair of the Academic and Student Affairs committee, said at the meeting. Instead, he emphasized that those courses are just being removed from general education curriculum and will remain available as electives.

    State University System of Florida chancellor Ray Rodrigues depicted the vote on general education as stripping indoctrination from curricular offerings. Rodrigues argued that the American public has lost faith in higher education, citing a recent Gallup poll that noted shrinking public confidence in the sector. Among the reasons for that diminished confidence, particularly among Republican respondents, is the belief that colleges push liberal agendas.

    “The general education curriculum that was approved today makes Florida the only state in the nation to address the No. 1 reason why the American people have lost confidence in higher education,” Rodrigues said during the meeting. “We can confidently say that our general education courses that students have to take in order to graduate will not contain indoctrinating concepts.”

    ‘Political Overreach’

    But critics allege administrators have overstepped, as curriculum has traditionally been the faculty’s purview. They also worry that removing courses from general education will cause enrollment in such classes to plummet, limiting the number of students who will be introduced to certain majors like sociology—a discipline state officials have taken aim at for an allegedly liberal tilt—which will subsequently weaken academic departments and potentially decrease staffing levels.

    United Faculty of Florida, a union representing 25,000-plus professors, denounced the move toward scaled-back general education offerings.

    “Florida is at the forefront of an assault against public education, restricting the subjects students can study from K-12 to the colleges and universities,” UFF declared in a news release ahead of Thursday’s vote, casting FLBOG’s actions as “bureaucratic and political overreach.”

    “General education courses are the foundation of critical thinking and informed citizenship, and censoring them limits not only what students can learn but also what they can become. These proposed cuts are an insult to our students and to the world-class faculty that instruct and guide them,” UFF president Teresa M. Hodge said in a Monday webinar ahead of the meeting.

    Hodge argued that the courses being targeted were just “words and numbers on a spreadsheet” to the Florida Board of Governors, but “for the rest of us, they are the future of our students, our jobs, and our democracy” and the “foundation of critical thinking” and “informed citizenship.” She also accused Republican governor Ron DeSantis, who pushed for the legislation that led to the changes, of prioritizing “his personal political ambition” over students.

    Robert Cassanello, a history professor at the University of Central Florida, argued on the call that it was lawmakers—not professors—who were attempting to indoctrinate students.

    “They tell us that classes have to be removed from the curriculum that focus on race, gender and sexuality, but at the same time, they want courses and lessons on the centrality of Western civilization, free-market libertarianism and patriotic histories of this country infused into the general curriculum and life on our campuses,” Cassanello said.

    Students on the call also noted that general education courses set them on career pathways.

    Tessa Barber, a graduate student at the University of South Florida, began college as a biology major but is now working toward a doctorate in politics and international relations. She attributed that change to general education courses in anthropology and political science that pushed her in a different direction. She expressed concern about “political interference” in the education of undergraduates.

    Some speakers at Thursday’s meeting also pushed back on the gen ed overhaul.

    Jono Miller, president of NCF Freedom, a group that has been critical of the state’s conservative takeover of New College of Florida, alleged that the overhaul of its core curriculum was “rushed and chaotic” with “minimal faculty input” and a “lack of transparency.” Miller argued that “telling faculty what to teach translates directly to telling students what to think.”

    Thursday’s vote followed prior action on general education courses from the State Board of Education, which oversees the 28 institutions in the Florida College System. Earlier this month that board removed 57 percent of FCS general education courses, according to state officials.

    Source link

  • Now in office, how Trump could overhaul higher ed

    Now in office, how Trump could overhaul higher ed

    President Trump’s second inauguration took place in the Capitol rotunda Monday.

    Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s inauguration today kicks off what is likely to be a disruptive four years for higher education.

    He enters office at a time when college and university enrollment numbers are floundering, public disillusionment with the cost of a degree is growing and culture wars are raging on. Combined, these circumstances give the president—and his Republican counterparts on Capitol Hill—an opportunity to ramp up scrutiny and accountability measures for the nation’s top institutions while also decreasing the federal footprint in education.

    During the campaign, Trump said he plans to abolish the Education Department, ban the participation of trans athletes in women’s sports, “fire” accreditors and cut funding for scientific research. He has also discussed expanding short-term financial aid offerings, making student unionization more difficult, protecting conservatives’ speech on campuses, disallowing college vaccine mandates and creating a free online national college funded by new taxes on wealthy private universities.

    Since winning the election, Trump has yet to offer more details on how he will fulfill the policy promises he’s made.

    Colleges, meanwhile, have mostly adopted a wait-and-see approach to the incoming Trump administration. Over all, reactions to Trump’s election on college campuses were more muted this time around compared to the protests and outcry in 2016.

    But Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric and calls for mass deportations worry some college leaders. Several institutions advised international students to get back to campus before Monday, warning them that executive orders from the new president could complicate their return. Others pledged not to participate in mass deportations and said they would defend DEI programs and policies.

    Trump’s impact on higher education will likely vary according to the type of institution. For instance, for-profits and other colleges are expecting less red tape and oversight from the administration, while historically Black colleges and universities are preparing to educate the administration and Congress about their institutions and their value.

    Trump’s Team So Far

    He tapped Linda McMahon—former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, co-chair of his transition team and founder of a pro-Trump think tank—to carry out his anti–diversity, equity and inclusion education agenda and shrink the department.

    McMahon has yet to receive a confirmation hearing in the Senate, but she’s expected to get the green light. Who else will serve with McMahon in key roles related to higher ed such as the under secretary, assistant secretary of civil rights and chief operating officer for Federal Student Aid is not yet clear.

    Trump did nominate former Tennessee commissioner of education Penny Schwinn as deputy secretary Friday. Schwinn, who will likely focus primarily on K-12 policy, was part of former University of Florida president Ben Sasse’s cabinet as vice president for PK-12 and pre-bachelor’s programs.

    McMahon’s appointment surprised some education policy observers given her lack of education experience. But others see her as a loyal lieutenant with a strong track record in business who can get things done at the department.

    Day One Plans

    Trump doesn’t need McMahon and her team in place to get started. While day one of the administration will be filled with much of the traditional pomp and circumstance, the president’s transition team has also said it will include the signing of 200 executive orders, Fox News reported Sunday, which would be a record.

    It’s not clear how many of those orders will affect colleges and universities, but higher education, which received little attention from Trump in his first term, is expected to rank higher on the administration’s priority list this time around. Actions related to diversity, equity and inclusion programs; transgender students; campus antisemitism; and immigration could be among the first on the docket.

    During his first administration, Trump toned down oversight of for-profit colleges, issued new Title IX rules that bolstered due process protections for those accused of assault and appointed a conservative majority to the U.S. Supreme Court, paving the way for justices to later strike down affirmative action in June 2023, among other changes.

    Now, just as he did in the first term with Obama’s policies, Trump will likely roll back many of the regulations President Biden put in place. Those include added steps to the process of merging or acquiring colleges, protections for borrowers who were misled by their higher ed institution and an income-driven repayment program that lowered monthly payments for millions of borrowers. Others, however, including gainful employment, might remain in place, as the GOP considers increasing federal oversight of colleges and universities.

    Biden’s Team Wraps Up

    Trump’s list of potential repeals grew shorter when a federal judge vacated the Biden administration’s Title IX rules. Other lawsuits challenging rules made by the Biden administration are still pending.

    The outgoing president and his team have been scrambling to wrap up loose ends. In just a few weeks, they finalized new rules for online education and college prep programs, announced settlements in multiple civil rights and antisemitism investigations, and issued several rounds of debt relief. That’s along with new guidance related to online program managers and the Title IX requirements for financial payments to college athletes.

    Before the holidays, Biden withdrew two debt-relief proposals, half-baked rules on accreditation and state authorization, and a controversial rule regarding the participation of transgender student athletes in women’s sports. The decision forces Trump to start at square one rather than leaving the existing policies open to amendment.

    But the president may not even need to act himself on some of these issues as Republicans take the lead in Congress. House Republicans have passed legislation to ban trans women from women’s sports teams nationwide and to crack down on the detention of undocumented immigrants. The immigration bill could also potentially make it more difficult for international students from China and India to study in the U.S. The Senate voted Friday to advance that bill for a final vote, which could come as soon as Monday.

    Source link

  • Federal judge throws out Biden’s Title IX overhaul

    Federal judge throws out Biden’s Title IX overhaul

    Updated at 6:30 p.m. Jan. 9

    A years-long effort to change how colleges respond to reports of sexual harassment and discrimination and to expand protections for transgender students is dead after a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Biden administration’s overhaul of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was unlawful.

    The court order vacates the rule nationwide and could create more confusion for colleges as they seek to move forward without running afoul of the federal gender equity law. The Title IX changes were already on hold in 26 states and at hundreds of colleges, thanks to a series of lawsuits from 26 Republican attorneys general. Thursday’s order is the first final ruling in those cases and was part of a lawsuit brought by Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

    Republican lawmakers and state officials celebrated the ruling as a victory for women and girls while advocates for LGBTQ+ students criticized the decision as an attack on transgender students. The Biden rule allowed students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity.

    Chief Judge Danny Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, who previously criticized the rule, wrote in a 15-page opinion that the regulations suffer “significant constitutional infirmities.” For instance, using the wrong pronouns for a student could be considered harassment under the rule. That provision “offends the First Amendment,” wrote Reeves, a George W. Bush appointee.

    “As expected, courts have continued to find it impossible to justify the Biden administration’s changes to Title IX rules eviscerating students’ speech and due process rights,” said Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech and civil liberties advocacy organization.

    The ruling is the latest legal setback for Biden’s higher ed agenda, which hasn’t fared well in federal court.

    ‘Back in Time’

    Colleges and universities will now revert to the previous Title IX rule, which took effect in summer 2020 during the first Trump administration. Those regulations required colleges to hold live hearings with an opportunity for cross-examination to allow those accused of sexual misconduct to confront their accusers—a provision the Biden rules nixed. Additionally, the 2020 regulations defined sexual harassment more narrowly than the Biden Title IX rule.

    “Fitting, I guess—everything’s going back in time four years,” said Brigid Harrington, a higher education attorney at Bowditch & Dewey who focuses on compliance with civil rights laws. “Schools that had been enjoined were already there, so it doesn’t change things for many.”

    Colleges don’t have to throw out all their new policies related to harassment and discrimination; they can keep the parts that don’t conflict with the 2020 rule. For example, under the 2024 regulations, colleges must give pregnant students notice of their rights, and the 2020 rule doesn’t prevent a college from doing so. (Reeves didn’t take issue with the pregnancy provisions but said, “It simply is not proper for the court to rewrite the regulations by excising the offending material.”)

    Thursday’s ruling wasn’t a complete surprise for colleges and universities, considering the injunction and upcoming change in administrations. Andrea Stagg, director of consulting services at Grand River Solutions, a company that works with colleges on Title IX and other issues, said that colleges already have started talking about what to change in their policies and what to keep.

    Still, reimplementing the 2020 regulations will mean retraining and re-educating students, staff and faculty about the changes.

    “It’s very complicated, expensive and exhausting … and folks don’t have the resources,” she said. “For a field that already experiences a ton of burnout … it’s demoralizing to work so hard and then have the rules change on you.”

    Several other lawsuits challenging the rule are still pending, and the Biden administration could appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, so Thursday’s decision may not be the end of the legal battle over Title IX. The Education Department could not be reached for comment Thursday because the offices were closed in commemoration of former president Jimmy Carter’s passing.

    “I don’t think this is the last that we’re going to hear of this,” said Harrington. “I think that civil rights are going to be a big topic for the next four years.”

    A Repudiation or an Attack?

    Republican attorneys general who sued the Biden administration and conservative advocates who criticized the rule celebrated the judge’s decision “as a massive win” and a sign that “common sense is slowly returning.”

    “The court’s ruling is yet another repudiation of the Biden administration’s relentless push to impose a radical gender ideology through unconstitutional and illegal rulemaking,” Tennessee attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “Because the Biden rule is vacated altogether, President Trump will be free to take a fresh look at our Title IX regulations when he returns to office [Jan. 20].”

    President-elect Donald Trump has criticized Biden’s Title IX changes, and many experts expect him to issue new regulations that are more conservative than his 2020 rule, especially concerning LGBTQ+ students.

    Congressional Republicans, who sought to overturn the Title IX rule, also praised the ruling and pledged to protect educational opportunities for women and girls. Passing legislation that would prevent transgender students from participating on the sports team consistent with their gender identity is a top priority for the House.

    “It is clear the Biden-Harris administration completely lost its way on Title IX,” said Louisiana senator Dr. Bill Cassidy, the chair of the HELP committee, in a news release. “They betrayed the original intent of Title IX by removing longstanding protections that ensured fairness for women and girls.”

    Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that Biden’s proposed rewrite “would have undermined safety, freedom and fairness for women.”

    Meanwhile, advocates for LGBTQ+ students and those who experience harassment or sexual violence described the ruling as an attack on trans students and others that would impact their educations.

    “With these protections already removed in some states, students who experience sexual assault have had their complaints dismissed, or worse, been punished by their schools after reporting; pregnant students have been unfairly penalized for taking time off to give birth to a child; and LGBTQI+ students have faced vicious bullying and harassment just for being who they are,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center.

    Tracey Vitchers, executive director of It’s On Us, a national organization working to combat campus sexual assault, took issue with claims that overturning the Biden rule would protect women and girls.

    “The 2020 regulations did well-documented harm to the safety of women and girls by making it more difficult to report and obtain justice if they experience sexual violence in school,” she said. “If preserving the rights and safety of women and girls was the actual litmus test for today’s decision, the judge would have chosen to uphold Biden’s rule. Instead, the safety of women and girls is being weaponized to discriminate” against trans people.

    Vitchers added that while Title IX is important, colleges are required under state and federal laws to respond to reports of harassment and address student safety.

    “Institutions are going to have to find ways to be creative to uphold the rights and safety of students on their campus under this new environment,” she said. “If Title IX is going to continue to be this horrible political football it has turned into, we need to see schools invest in evidence-based approaches to sexual violence prevention, because the ultimate goal is to ensure students have an education free of sexual violence.”

    Jessica Blake contributed to this report.

    Source link