Tag: panel

  • Grad v. Professional Programs a Key Issue for ED Panel

    Grad v. Professional Programs a Key Issue for ED Panel

    Despite the possibility of a government shutdown next week, the Education Department is slated to begin the complicated endeavor of determining how to carry out the sweeping higher ed changes in Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    The agenda for the weeklong meeting, which kicks off Monday, includes hammering out details about loan repayment plans and how to help struggling borrowers return to good standing. The key issue on the table, though, will likely be determining how best to differentiate between graduate and professional degree programs for future borrowers.

    The terms “graduate” and “professional” were once nothing more than a trivial self-prescribed classification. But under the Republicans’ new law, they have become critical labels that could alter which college programs get more federal aid. For example, under the new plan, student borrowers in a graduate program will be limited to $20,500 per year or $100,000 total, whereas those enrolled in a professional program will be able to borrow more than double that.

    And while lawmakers on Capitol Hill gave the department a foundational definition of what qualifies as professional in the bill, it’s up to Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent and the negotiated rule-making advisory committee to write rules that detail how that definition will work in practice. (The committee is scheduled to meet for another weeklong session in November, and only after that can the department finalize its proposal and open the floor for public comment.)

    Some university lobbyists and career associations want the department to include more programs in the professional bucket and make a comprehensive list of those that qualify. Others recommend using a broad definition and then letting institutions sort the programs. Consumer protection advocates, however, are urging the department to stick to the original, more narrow definition in an effort to prevent greater levels of student debt.

    The department’s initial proposal, released this week, stuck largely to the 10 programs cited in the existing definition but added a catch-all clause to add “any other degrees designated by the Secretary through rulemaking.”

    To Clare McCann, a former Education Department official and now managing director of policy for the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University, the initial proposal shows that the department doesn’t quite know how it wants to define a professional program.

    “This is a really complicated issue,” she said. “So it seems clear to me that the department is planning to use this first session to gather ideas and feedback but is not planning to come to the table with a real proposal of its own.”

    Further complicating the issue, McCann and others say, it’s going to be difficult for the department to finalize its rule fast enough to give students and institutions enough time to prepare. (Currently, the new loan caps are slated to kick in as of July 1, 2026.)

    As McCann explained, the earliest colleges and universities could expect to see a proposed rule—let alone a finalized one—would be later this fall. And at that point, many prospective students have already started receiving acceptance letters.

    “There will be many people making decisions about whether and where they’re going to graduate school, and they’ll be doing that in a vacuum, without final rules about what they’ll be able to borrow and how they’re going to be able to repay it,” she said. “So this whole regulatory process is going to be an incredible time crunch.”

    Current Definitions

    The current definition of “professional,” which is laid out in the Higher Education Act of 1965, states that in order to qualify as professional a degree must signify that a student has the skills necessary beyond a bachelor’s degree in order to practice a specific profession.

    Later it adds that “professional licensure is also generally required,” and provides a short but nonexhaustive list of programs that could fit the bill, including: pharmacy, dentistry, medicine, osteopathy, law, optometry, podiatry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic medicine and theology. (That list served as the foundation for the department’s proposal.)

    Some groups, like the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, made clear in their public comments that they interpret this definition to be an intentionally “flexible” and “inclusive approach.” And based on that, they encouraged the department to maintain a broad definition and allow institutions to self-certify their programs with periodic review from the department.

    Jordan Wicker, the senior vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs at Career Education Colleges and Universities, a lobbying group for for-profit institutions, added that the economy and higher education landscape are constantly evolving—pointing to the need for a broader definition.

    “I don’t know that you want to re-regulate a comprehensive list any time curriculums or programs change,” he told Inside Higher Ed.

    Others, including the American Council on Education, agree that the interpretation should be broad but say the best way to ensure that is the case is by creating a more complete list of eligible programs. “At the very least,” ACE said in its comment letter, the list should include dozens of clinical and health science programs highlighted under an existing regulation known as financial value transparency. On top of that, it also urges the department to include about 15 additional programs, including architecture, accounting, social work, education and word languages.

    Halaevalu Vakalahi, president of the Council on Social Work Education, agreed, arguing that many programs like hers meet the current definition.

    “We’ve always identified ourselves as a profession,” she said. “There’s licensure, there’s accreditation—all of the things that we have as part of the social [work] profession are also in the list that currently exists on what is a profession.”

    But Third Way, a left-of-center think tank, drew the exact opposite conclusion, arguing that Congress intended for the definition to be stringent and address “unnecessary student debt.” (Graduate student debt accounts for nearly half of the student loan portfolio, raising concerns for lawmakers and advocates.)

    “While this list is not exclusive, Congress did not indicate that it intended to include any other fields in crafting the OBBBA loan limits,” senior policy adviser Ben Cecil wrote in a recent blog post about the distinction. “By codifying this list as written, the Department can best enforce the legislative intent of ensuring that students aren’t overborrowing for graduate school and have manageable debt compared to their program’s earnings.”

    High-Stakes Talks

    With the different proposals on the table, those interviewed agreed that it will be rather difficult for the committee to reach consensus. If the committee doesn’t reach an agreement, the department is free to interpret the definition cited in OBBBA however it wants.

    McCann from PEER, who worked at the department during the Obama and Biden administrations, said that until she starts to see the debate play out, it’s hard to know which approach will win. But no matter what, she added it will likely be an uphill climb.

    “It’s a challenging issue for negotiators, and there are a lot of competing interests with pretty high stakes attached,” she said. So “this is going to be a difficult committee on which to get that kind of agreement.”

    Todd Jones, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio and a former Republican staffer in the department, said that he expects the Trump administration will lean toward a more narrow definition if the committee doesn’t reach consensus. At that point, he added, it will be up to the individual types of programs to lobby for why they should be added to the list.

    “The question is, what has the administration already decided that they are going to give on?” Jones said. “And the things I’ve heard while I was in D.C. over the past few months indicate that there may not be support for some of these social science higher degrees being considered professions and instead simply being considered master’s.”

    Source link

  • GOP-led House panel proposes 15% cut to Education Department

    GOP-led House panel proposes 15% cut to Education Department

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • House Republicans on Monday proposed a 15% cut to the U.S. Department of Education’s budget for the 2026 fiscal year, in line with President Donald Trump’s own plan to deeply reduce funding to the agency. 

    • The plan would advance several of Trump’s key budget proposals, including deep cuts to the Education Department and certain federal student aid programs. However, the plan would reject some of the Trump administration’s proposals, including by preserving the maximum Pell Grant at $7,395. 

    • House lawmakers will need to eventually square their proposals with the Senate, which is considering a different proposal that would largely maintain the Education Department’s current level of discretionary funding. Lawmakers face a government shutdown if they don’t fund the government or pass a stopgap budget measure by Oct. 1. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The House Appropriations Committee’s education subcommittee will mark up the proposal Tuesday evening. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican who chairs the subcommittee, framed the proposal as being in line with the priorities of the Trump administration. Trump has pitched deep spending cuts at the Education Department with the ultimate goal of closing the agency.

    “Even last year, we were dedicated to getting government spending under control,” Aderholt said in a Monday statement. “But now, it’s particularly encouraging to have a partner in the White House that shares this commitment.”

    The House panel’s plan would reduce funding for the Education Department to $67 billion. That’s in line with Trump’s own budget proposal, which critics argued would reduce access to college. 

    Like Trump’s proposal, the House plan would eliminate all funding for the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, according to committee Democrats, who have slammed the proposal. FSEOG, which provides need-based financial aid to undergraduate students, was allocated $910 million in fiscal 2025. 

    It would similarly make deep cuts to the Federal Work-Study program, which provides part-time jobs to college students who demonstrate sufficient financial need. The federal government currently pays up to 75% of students’ wages, while employers pay the remainder. 

    The plan would reduce funding to the program to $779 million, $451 million less than 2025 levels, according to committee Democrats. The Trump administration has proposed even deeper cuts, calling for the program to receive only $250 million in the 2026 fiscal year. 

    The House Appropriations Committee’s plan would also embrace Trump’s proposal to cut funding to the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates discrimination, harassment and sexual violence complaints on college campuses. Under the proposal, OCR would receive $91 million, a decrease of $49 million. 

    And it would zero out funding for several grant and fellowship programs administered by the Education Department, including those that support teacher preparation, campus-based childcare for students and foreign language instruction. 

    However, House Republicans rejected some of the Trump administration’s proposals. For instance, the plan would preserve the maximum Pell Grant, in contrast with the White House’s plan to reduce it by roughly 23% to $5,710. 

    The plan would also keep funding level for TRIO and Gear Up, two programs that help low-income and other disadvantaged students prepare for and complete college. Trump has proposed eliminating the nearly $1.6 billion in funding allocated for TRIO and Gear Up in fiscal 2025, raising concerns from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. 

    The House Appropriations Committee would also cut funding to the National Institutes of Health. It would allocate $47.8 billion to the agency, a $456 million drop from 2025 levels, according to committee Democrats. Trump’s plan, in contrast, called for a nearly $18 billion funding reduction to the agency. 

    Additionally, the plan seeks to rename Workforce Pell Grants, which will provide funding for programs as short as eight weeks, following Republicans’ recent passage of a massive domestic policy bill. Under the proposal, the awards would be renamed Trump Grants “to reflect the President’s commitment to growing the American workforce and expanding opportunities for American workers,” according to a bill summary.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee advanced its own budget proposal in July. It would keep funding largely level for the Education Department at $79 billion for fiscal 2026. 

    That would include maintaining funding levels for TRIO, Gear Up, Federal Work-Study and FSEOG. It would also maintain OCR’s current funding level and provide support for teacher preparation grants.

    Source link

  • House panel pushes colleges to cut ties with Chinese scholarship program

    House panel pushes colleges to cut ties with Chinese scholarship program

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

    Dive Brief:

    • A Republican-led House committee is pushing seven research universities to cut ties with a scholarship program sponsored by the Chinese government.
    • In four-page letters Tuesday, Republican Rep. John Moolenaar, chair of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, decried the China Scholarship Council as “one of the nefarious mechanisms” the Chinese government uses to advance its technologies and urged each college involved with the council to “reconsider its participation.”
    • Moolenaar further set a July 22 deadline for college leaders to provide his committee with extensive documentation on their institutions’ work with the council from May 2020 to May 2025.

    Dive Insight:

    The China Scholarship Council, a program funded by the Chinese Communist Party, partners with colleges in other countries and sponsors both Chinese students studying abroad and international students studying at Chinese universities.

    Participating Chinese students must return to China after graduating and work for at least two years.

    In Moolenaar’s letters to college officials Tuesday, he announced that the House committee on the Chinese government is conducting a “systematic review” of “the China Scholarship Council’s infiltration of U.S. colleges.” 

    “CSC purports to be a joint scholarship program between U.S. and Chinese institutions,” he said. “However, in reality it is a CCP-managed technology transfer effort that exploits U.S. institutions and directly supports China’s military and scientific growth.”

    About 7% of Chinese citizens studying abroad — some 65,000 students — are sponsored by the China Scholarship Council, according to a 2020 analysis by Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.

    A relatively small minority of them end up in the U.S. In 2024, the council announced plans to sponsor up to 240 students to study at seven U.S. colleges this year, the South China Morning Post reported.

    The seven participating institutions, all of which received a letter from Moolenaar on Tuesday, are Dartmouth College, Temple University, the University of Tennessee, the University of Notre Dame and three campuses in the University of California system — Davis, Irvine and Riverside.

    The number of sponsored students and the length of their studies in the U.S. vary by college. For example, the University of California, Davis co-sponsors up to 10 Ph.D. candidates, while Temple co-sponsors up to 60 graduate students, according to Moolenaar’s letters. 

    However, a Dartmouth spokesperson said the college cut ties with China Scholarship Council well before receiving Moolenaar’s letter, making the decision last academic year, per the college’s student newspaper. The spokesperson told the publication that the college’s partnership with the council led to the enrollment of fewer than 10 participants over the last decade.

    Likewise, the University of Notre Dame this week told The Associated Press that it began to cut ties with the council earlier this year.

    Moolenaar noted that all the institutions rely on “significant federal funding” for their research, citing research funding levels from years before Trump retook office. And China has “a history of exploiting the openness of the American higher education and research system to enhance its technological competitiveness and military capabilities,” he said.

    A 2020 proclamation from President Donald Trump, made during his first term, restricted certain Chinese researchers and graduate students from gaining visas to study in the U.S. The goal, Trump wrote at the time, was to prevent Chinese nationals from attempting to “acquire and divert foreign technologies.”

    Several months after Trump issued the proclamation, the University of North Texas cut off ties with the China Scholarship Council, abruptly forcing more than a dozen Chinese researchers participating in the program to leave the country.

    Former President Joe Biden continued to enforce the proclamation during his term.

    “It is imperative to assess how the UCD-CSC joint scholarship program — explicitly designed to develop [Chinese] talent in cutting edge technology at graduate levels — serves U.S. interests,” Moolenaar said in his letter to the chancellor of the University of California, Davis. He echoed the line in his letters to the heads of the other six colleges.

    Among his document requests, Moolenaar called for colleges to list if any Chinese students participating in the program switched to a STEM major after initially declaring a non-STEM major and if any participating students worked on federally funded research. Officials should also justify how supporting the development of participating students advances U.S. interests, he said.

    Source link

  • Senate education panel postpones vote on polarizing antisemitism definition

    Senate education panel postpones vote on polarizing antisemitism definition

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

    The Senate’s education committee on Wednesday postponed a vote on a bill that would require the U.S. Department of Education to use a definition of antisemitism that critics say would undermine free speech and preclude criticism against Israel. 

    After two hours of contentious debate, Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Republican chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said the panel would defer the vote on the bill for another day. 

    The bill, called the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would require the Education Department to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism when investigating Title VI discrimination and harassment on college campuses. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin at federally funded institutions.

    Sens. Jacky Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada, and Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, introduced the bill in February, contending it would help the Education Department determine when antisemitism crosses the line from protected speech into harassment. A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a companion bill in the House that same month. 

    During President Donald Trump’s first term, he signed an executive order directing the Education Department and other federal agencies to consider IHRA’s definition in Title VI investigations. The bill would codify that element of the executive order into law for the Education Department. 

    The Anti-Defamation League, a strong supporter of the IHRA’s definition on antisemitism, has advocated for its adoption at the executive level.

    However, the definition includes several examples that opponents of the bill worry could chill free speech. They include comparing “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” 

    ‘You can’t regulate speech’

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, the committee’s ranking member, condemned antisemitism and other forms of discrimination but said lawmakers must defend the First Amendment and the right to peacefully protest. 

    “I worry very much that the Antisemitism Awareness Act that we are considering today is unconstitutional and will move us far along in the authoritarian direction that the Trump administration is taking us,” said Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is Jewish.

    Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, voiced similar concerns. He argued that the examples included in the definition would undermine free speech rights and told Scott he would support the bill if they were removed. 

    During the hearing, supporters of the bill pointed to language that says nothing in the Antisemitism Awareness Act should be used “to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment.” 

    Scott also contended that the bill would instead be used to assess whether conduct — not speech — was antisemitic. 

    “It’s the conduct that follows the speech that creates the harassment, not the speech itself,” Scott said.

    However, Paul rejected that argument, contending that the examples in IHRA’s definition of antisemitism describe speech rather than conduct. 

    “You can’t regulate speech,” Paul said. “Every one of the 11 examples is about speech.”

    The committee narrowly approved several amendments to the bill, including one from Sanders that says “no person shall be considered antisemitic for using their rights of free speech or protest” to oppose Israel’s wartime actions in Gaza. Another one of Sanders’ amendments that passed would protect students rights’ to carry out demonstrations that adhere to campus protest policies.

    The panel also passed an amendment from Sen. Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, stating that the federal government undermines First Amendment rights of immigrant college students and employees when it revokes their visas, detains them or deports them due to their free speech. 

    Source link

  • University of Wisconsin academic freedom panel back on after effort to disinvite speaker

    University of Wisconsin academic freedom panel back on after effort to disinvite speaker

    Disinviting a professor from a panel on academic freedom for exercising her academic freedom is, to put it mildly, a bad look. That’s why FIRE is glad to report the Universities of Wisconsin system backed off such an ill-advised course of action. 

    The Wisconsin Institute for Citizenship and Civil Dialogue will host a discussion on academic freedom at a faculty retreat next month with UW-Milwaukee professor Rachel Buff, the former head of the UW-Milwaukee chapter of the American Association of University Professors, and FIRE’s Director of Campus Rights Advocacy Lindsie Rank. 

    But last week, UW officials privately demanded that Buff be disinvited. Their reason? Buff’s criticisms of Israel and advocacy for the Palestinian cause, as well as her involvement in the encampment protest on campus last May. 

    On Friday, FIRE wrote UW system President Jay O. Rothman to demand that the UW system reverse its decision. As we told the university: 

    While the University of Wisconsin system does exercise some authority over WICCD’s activities, it should wield that authority in ways that maximize the atmosphere for academic freedom for its faculty and may not do so in ways that compromise that freedom. By demanding Buff’s disinvitation because of her political speech, UW sends a deeply chilling message to WICCD’s leadership and to UW faculty as a whole.

    On Monday, UW responded by affirming its commitment to academic freedom and confirming that the retreat will proceed as originally planned, clearing the way for Buff to speak at the panel. 

    “It is appropriate to review an individual’s adherence to both the First Amendment and time, place and manner restrictions when determining who to contract and pay to speak at a private professional development conference,” wrote UW Vice President for University Relations Chris Patton. “It was this type of review that I requested be performed.”

    WICCD is a subunit of the Universities of Wisconsin system intended to promote viewpoint diversity, free inquiry, and academic freedom, both within UW schools and society at large. In its public releases, UW has crowed that WICCD “seeks to enhance democracy through civil dialogue in a robust marketplace of ideas.”

    We give the system credit for backing off and getting its priorities straight, allowing WICCD to fulfill its commendable mission. 

    Source link

  • Senate panel approves McMahon for education secretary

    Senate panel approves McMahon for education secretary

    Dr. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and chair of the Senate HELP Committee, led the hearing and voted to advance McMahon’s nomination to the Senate floor.

    Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Linda McMahon’s bid to become the next education secretary moved forward Thursday after a Senate committee voted 12–11 along party lines to advance her nomination.

    At the preceding committee hearing on Feb. 13, Republicans of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee largely praised McMahon, saying they couldn’t think of a better person to lead the nation’s education system.

    They used their questions to ensure the nominee recognized that only Congress has the statutory power to carry out Trump’s plan to abolish the Education Department—to which she said, “Well, certainly President Trump understands that we will be working with Congress.” In addition to shutting down or reducing the size of the department, McMahon made clear at the hearing that she supports combating campus antisemitism, prohibiting trans women from participating in sports and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

    Since the hearing, the Education Department released a sweeping Dear Colleague letter that directs colleges to end any race-based policies or programming in K-12 schools and colleges by Feb. 28. The letter, which targeted “every facet of academia,” has received significant pushback from the public but likely won’t affect McMahon’s confirmation.

    The committee’s vote advances McMahon’s confirmation to the Senate. The full Senate will now vote on McMahon’s nomination, likely in the next two weeks.

    Once formally recognized as secretary, McMahon will be an important arrow in Trump’s quiver, as she’s seen as dedicated to carrying out the president’s agenda, from abolishing the agency to stripping certain institutions of access to federal student aid when they do not align with his ideals.

    This story will be updated.

    Source link

  • $50K threshold for college foreign gift reporting passes House panel

    $50K threshold for college foreign gift reporting passes House panel

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • The House Committee on Education and Workforce voted Wednesday to advance a bill that would require colleges to report gifts and contracts valued at $50,000 or more from most foreign countries. 
    • That would lower the requirement from the current threshold of $250,000. Republicans argued that the bill, called the Deterrent Act, is needed to prevent foreign influence in higher education. 
    • The bill would also lower the reporting threshold to $0 for the “countries of concern” as determined by the U.S. Code or the secretary of education, which include China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The proposal would bar colleges from entering into contracts with those countries unless the secretary of education issues them a waiver and renews it each year. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The Deterrent Act would amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, which oversees foreign gift and contract reporting requirements for colleges. Republicans on the education committee argued the measure is needed to provide more transparency. 

    A fact sheet on the bill included concerns about foreign adversaries stealing secrets from American universities and influencing student behavior. 

    The fact sheet also referenced a 2024 congressional report that accused two high-profile research institutions — University of California, Berkeley and Georgia Institute of Technology — of failing to meet the current reporting requirements through their partnerships with Chinese universities. 

    “Higher education is one of the jewels of American society,” said Rep. Michael Baumgartner, a Washington Republican who co-sponsored the bill, on Wednesday. “Unfortunately, it’s also an area that is often under attack and used by malign influences to subvert American interests.”

    Under the bill, colleges would face fines and the loss of their Title IV federal student aid funding if they didn’t comply with the reporting requirements. 

    Democrats largely voiced opposition to the measure. 

    However, they focused many of their complaints Wednesday on the Trump administration’s recent moves that have sparked outcry in the higher education sector, including cuts to the National Institutes of Health’s funding for indirect research costs. A judge temporarily blocked the cuts earlier this week. 

    “I understand and I do appreciate the intent behind the Deterrent Act, but if House Republicans and the president truly want to lead in America, and they want America to lead, they must permanently reverse the cuts to the National Institutes of Health,” said Rep. Lucy McBath, a Democrat from Georgia. “It’s not enough for us just to wait outside for the lawsuits to protect folks back home from damaging and possibly illegal orders like these.”

    Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top-ranking Democrat on the committee, struck a similar tone, referencing the Trump administration’s goal of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education. 

    He noted that the authors of Project 2025 — a wide-ranging conservative policy blueprint for the Republican administration — aim to dismantle the Education Department with the stated goal of having the federal government be less involved in schools. 

    “The argument rests on the perception that the federal government is too involved in our schools, and here we are marking up bills that would give the Department of Education more responsibility to impose unfunded mandates and interfere with local schools,” Scott said. 

    The House committee advanced several other bills Wednesday, including those that would allow schools to serve whole milk and aim to end Chinese influence in K-12 education. 

    House lawmakers previously passed the Deterrent Act in 2023, though it was never put to a vote in the Senate. At the time, the American Council on Education and other higher ed groups opposed the bill, objecting in part to the large fines colleges could face for noncompliance. 

    The Republican-backed bill may face better odds in this congressional session, now that the GOP also controls the Senate and the White House.

    Source link