Tag: Programs

  • Texas v. Texas: State AG sues higher ed board over work-study programs

    Texas v. Texas: State AG sues higher ed board over work-study programs

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing his state’s higher education coordinating board to end three work-study programs, alleging they are “unconstitutional and discriminatory” against religious students. 
    • Under the rules established by the Texas Legislature, the programs require participating employers to provide students with nonsectarian work. Two of the programs also make students attending seminary or receiving religious instruction ineligible to participate.
    • The lawsuit filed Wednesday alleges that those provisions amount to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board “prohibiting participants from engaging in sectarian activities, including sectarian courses of study, to be eligible to receive state benefit.” He asked a state judge to bar the board from administering the programs.

    Dive Insight:

    Paxton argued in the lawsuit that the state work-study programs — all of which are need-based — exclude otherwise eligible students “based solely on the religious character of their course of study,” violating the First Amendment. 

    Texas is home to at least 14 seminary schools, according to The Association of Theological Schools.

    The work-study programs also “effectively eliminate religious organizations with only sectarian employment opportunities from participating,” Paxton said.

    The state board did not immediately respond to questions Monday.

    The three programs being contested are:

    • The Texas College Work-Study Program.
    • The Texas Working Off-Campus: Reinforcing Knowledge and Skills Internship Program, better known as the TXWORKS internship.
    • The Texas Innovative Adult Career Education, or ACE, Grant Program.

    The work-study program and TXWORKS internship partially fund jobs for eligible students to help them pay for college. The ACE program provides grants to nonprofits “for use in job training, vocational education, and related workforce development” for eligible students, according to the lawsuit.

    All the programs are geared toward low-income students, though some also target other demographic groups as well, such as ACE’s focus on veterans.

    In a Friday statement, Paxton called the laws governing the programs “anti-Christian” and said they should “be completely wiped off the books.”

    This is not the first time Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, has sought to overturn Texas state law through the courts. In June, he worked with the Trump administration to have a federal judge strike down Texas’ decades-old law offering in-state tuition rates to undocumented students.

    Paxton’s lawsuit comes after a federal judge earlier this year struck down a Minnesota law that excluded some religious colleges from participating in a publicly funded dual enrollment program.

    Minnesota’s dual enrollment program previously barred colleges from participating if they required students to sign faith statements. In August, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel ruled that the law infringed on the colleges’ constitutional rights by making them choose between participating in the program and practicing their religion.

    Source link

  • Examining the Debt and Earnings of “Professional” Programs (Robert Kelchen)

    Examining the Debt and Earnings of “Professional” Programs (Robert Kelchen)

    Negotiated rulemaking, in which the federal government convenes representatives of affected parties before implementing major policy changes, is one of the wonkier topics in higher education. (I cannot recommend enough Rebecca Natow’s book on the topic.) Negotiated rulemaking has been in the news quite a bit lately as the Department of Education works to implement changes to federal student loan borrowing limits passed in this summer’s budget reconciliation law.

    Since 2006, students attending graduate and professional programs have been able to borrow up to the cost of attendance. But the reconciliation law limited graduate programs to $100,000 and professional programs to $200,000, setting off negotiations on which programs counted as “professional” (and thus received higher loan limits). The Department of Education started with ten programs and the list eventually went to eleven with the addition of clinical psychology.

    In this short post, I take a look at the debt and earnings of these programs that meet ED’s definition of “professional,” along with a few other programs that could be considered professional but were not.

    Data and Methods

    I used program-level College Scorecard data, focusing on debt data from 2019 and five-year earnings data from 2020. (These are the most recent data points available, as the Scorecard has not been meaningfully updated during the second Trump administration. Five-year earnings get students in health fields beyond medical residencies. I pulled all doctoral/first professional fields from the data by four-digit Classification of Instructional Programs codes, as well as master’s degrees in theology to meet the listed criteria.

    Nine of the eleven programs had enough graduates with debt and earnings to report data; osteopathic medicine and podiatry did not. There were five other fields of study with at least 14 programs reporting data: education, educational administration, rehabilitation, nursing, and business administration. All of these clearly prepare people for employment in a profession, but are not currently recognized as “professional.”

    Key takeaways

    Below is a summary table of debt and earnings for professional programs, including the number of programs above the $100,000 (graduate) and $200,000 (professional) thresholds. Dentistry, pharmacy, and medicine have a sizable share of programs above the $100,000 threshold, while law (the largest field) has only four of 195 programs over $200,000. Theology is the only one of the nine “professional” programs with sufficient data that has higher five-year earnings than debt, suggesting that students in other programs may have a hard time accessing the private market to fill the gap between $200,000 and the full cost of attendance.

    On the other hand, four of the five programs not included as “professional” have higher earnings than debt, with nursing and educational administration being the only programs with sufficient data that had debt levels below 60% of earnings. More than one-third of rehabilitation programs had debt over the new $100,000 cap, while few programs in other fields had that high of a debt level. (Education looks pretty good now, doesn’t it?)

    I expect the debate over what counts as “professional” to end up in courts and to possibly make its way into a future budget reconciliation bill (about the only way Congress passes legislation at this point). Until then, I will be hoping for newer and more granular data about affected programs.

    Source link

  • North Carolina Continues to Lose Licensed Child Care Programs – The 74

    North Carolina Continues to Lose Licensed Child Care Programs – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Members of Gov. Josh Stein’s bipartisan Task Force on Child Care and Early Education got an update on licensed child care closures during their most recent meeting.

    “Just in the month of August, we had more than twice as many programs close as open,” said Candace Witherspoon, director of the Division of Child Development and Early Education (DCDEE).

    Her statement is evidence that — despite a small uptick in the number of centers last quarter — the overall trend of licensed child care losses has continued since the end of pandemic-era stabilization grants earlier this year.

    Based on data provided by the N.C. Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) Council in partnership with DCDEE, EdNC previously found that North Carolina lost 5.8% of licensed child care programs during the five years when stabilization grants were used to supplement teacher wages.

    That net loss has increased to 6.1% since the end of stabilization grants. Family child care homes (FCCHs) make up 97% of that net loss.

    Trends among licensed centers and homes

    Since February 2020, the last month of data before the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of licensed FCCHs has decreased by 23%. The number of licensed child care centers has decreased by 0.3%.

    The trend for licensed FCCHs since EdNC began tracking the data in June 2023 has been one of consistent net loss, decreasing each quarter.

    Graphic by Katie Dukes/EdNC

    There were 1,363 FCCHs in February 2020. That number was down to 1,096 in March 2025, the last data before the end of stabilization grants. Now there are 1,052 FCCHs across the state.

    While licensed child care centers have also experienced a net loss since February 2020, the trend has been less linear.

    Graphic by Katie Dukes/EdNC

    There were 3,879 licensed centers in February 2020. When EdNC began tracking in June 2023, the number was slightly higher at 3,881. From then on it fluctuated, with net gains in some quarters and net losses in others. There are now 3,868 licensed centers statewide.

    While the net loss of centers remains small, the effect of a single center closing is huge — especially in rural communities.

    Families on Hatteras Island are learning this firsthand. The only licensed child care program on the island is scheduled to close at the end of the year. With no licensed FCCHs and no clear way to save the sole licensed center, families are trying to figure out how to keep their businesses open and remain in their communities without access to child care.

    Access to high-quality, affordable early care and learning is crucial to child and family freedom and well-being. It enables parents to participate in the workforce or continue their education without concern for the safety of their children. It also puts North Carolina’s youngest residents on a path to future success.

    Graphic by Lanie Sorrow

    Trends among subgroups

    In addition to monitoring overall licensed child care trends, EdNC zooms in on trends among three subgroups of counties each quarter.

    In the counties that make up the area covered by the Dogwood Health Trust (Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey), the number of licensed child care sites is 5% lower than before the pandemic. These counties had a net loss of eight programs from July through September 2025, the largest single-quarter decrease since EdNC began tracking.

    In the majority-Black counties (Bertie, Edgecombe, Halifax, Hertford, Northampton, Vance, Warren, and Washington), the number of licensed child care sites remained relatively stable during and after the pandemic. But in the most recent quarter, these counties had a net loss of nine programs, putting them 4% lower than before the pandemic, a sudden and dramatic shift in circumstance. As with the Dogwood counties, this represents the largest single-quarter decrease since EdNC began tracking.

    In Robeson and Swain, which both have large Indigenous populations, the number of licensed child care sites had also remained relatively stable during and after the pandemic. In the most recent quarter, for the first time since EdNC began tracking, the number of licensed child care programs in these counties has dipped just below pre-pandemic levels.


    Editor’s note: The Dogwood Health Trust supports the work of EdNC.


    This article first appeared on EdNC and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.



    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • St. Norbert College to add 5 new programs after March cuts

    St. Norbert College to add 5 new programs after March cuts

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

    Dive Brief:

    • St. Norbert College, in Wisconsin, unveiled a handful of new academic offerings on Thursday, just months after it cut almost two dozen programs and laid off 21 faculty members amid budget-balancing efforts.
    • The Catholic nonprofit will launch four undergraduate degrees and one bachelor’s-master’s combination program in fall 2026, pending approval from its accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission. 
    • The academic expansion comes after St. Norbert President Laurie Joyner reported at the end of July that the college anticipated a balanced fiscal 2026 budget. In March, she said St. Norbert would need to cut $7 million to achieve that goal.

    Dive Insight:

    Shortly after joining St. Norbert in July 2023, Joyner identified “a significant miscalculation” with the fiscal 2024 budget, resulting in a much bigger deficit than previously anticipated. 

    The shortfall had ripple effects on the college’s finances, and it has since made multiple rounds of reductions to its workforce and suite of academic offerings. Eliminated programs covered fields such as studio art, theology and applied mathematics. At least one cut program, engineering physics, had been introduced less than a year earlier.

    Thanks to the cut, St. Norbert closed fiscal 2025 “with positive operating results” and a stronger financial position, Joyner said in a July community message.

    “With significant cost-saving efforts, program streamlining, and an institution-wide focus on efficiencies, we anticipate breaking even this fiscal year (FY26) as well — despite predicted enrollment declines,” she wrote.

    St. Norbert’s has struggled with enrollment in recent years. In fall 2022, it had 1,882 students, down 17.7% from a decade prior, according to federal data. Like many other small liberal arts institutions, much of the college’s funds comes from tuition. In fiscal 2023, it received 50% of its core revenue from tuition and fees.

    But the college saw a reversal of the trend in fall 2023 — the most recent semester for which federal data is available — when it enrolled 2,165 students. 

    In August, Anindo Choudhury, the college’s interim vice president and chief academic officer, signaled the institution’s interest in reinvesting in its remaining programs.

    We have had to make some difficult decisions involving both programs and personnel,” he said in an August email. “While some majors no longer exist, we are redirecting existing and new resources to current and recently developed programs.”

    On Thursday, St. Norbert’s leaders touted the newly announced programs as a demonstration of the college’s ability to adapt to changing workforce demands and student needs.

    The forthcoming undergraduate programs include bachelor’s degrees in cybersecurity management, exercise science, digital marketing and sacred music.

    Pending accreditor approval, the college will also launch a 4+1 business administration program that will allow students to earn both bachelor’s and master’s degrees in five years.

    Students in its media studies and communications programs will be able to enroll in new concentrations in sports media, business and professional communication, journalism or public image and promotion.

    The additional academic offerings aren’t the only recent tactics the college has undertaken in the pursuit of financial longevity.

    St. Norbert struck a partnership with nearby Northeast Wisconsin Technical College to allow the public community college’s students to transfer into its data analytics bachelor’s degree program more easily.

    And earlier this month, the college announced a $15 million donation from the religious organization with which it is affiliated, the Norbertine Order.

    Source link

  • Planning with Purpose: Designing Certificate Programs That Align with Market and Mission

    Planning with Purpose: Designing Certificate Programs That Align with Market and Mission

    Higher education is seeing a surge of interest in non-degree credentials. Learners are seeking faster, more affordable pathways to workforce advancement. Employers are increasingly open to (and in some cases requesting) alternatives to traditional degrees. And with new federal policy expanding Pell Grant eligibility to non-degree programs, institutions are feeling the urgency to act.

    But not all certificate programs are created equal. And while the trend line is clear, the strategy behind how institutions respond is anything but. This moment presents an opportunity, but only for those willing to plan with purpose and set realistic expectations.

    What’s driving demand for short-term credentials?

    Recent data underscores a clear increase in interest:

    • Undergraduate certificate enrollment grew 33% and graduate certificate enrollment grew 21% from Fall 2020 to Fall 2024, according to National Student Clearinghouse data.
    • Google search volume for certificates has increased 19% from 2020 to 2025, according to Google Trends data.

    Today’s learners are drawn to programs that offer accelerated timelines, reduced costs, and clear pathways to meaningful career outcomes. Many working adults are looking to upskill or pivot careers, and a certificate can be a more practical option than a full degree.

    On the employer side, organizations want proof of skills and are increasingly willing to collaborate with institutions on curriculum design. In fact, according to a 2022 employer survey from Collegis and UPCEA, 68% of respondents said they would be interested in teaming up with an institution to develop non-degree credentials to benefit their workforce.

    Certificates are a piece of the puzzle — not the whole strategy

    Despite the interest, many institutions struggle to meet enrollment goals for certificate programs. Strong market trends do not automatically translate into high enrollment volume. The reality is that most certificates serve niche audiences and deliver modest numbers. When treated as stand-alone growth drivers, they often fall short.

    The institutions that see the most strategic value from certificates do so by positioning them within a larger enrollment and academic ecosystem. For example, we’ve helped our partner institutions find success in using certificate interest as a marketing funnel to drive engagement in related master’s programs. Once a prospective student engages, enrollment teams can advise them on the best fit for their career goals, which, for some students, is enrolling in the full degree program.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    What a strategic certificate model looks like

    A certificate program with purpose isn’t just a set of courses — it’s a product with clear value to both learners and the institution. Key elements of a strategic approach include:

    1. Workforce alignment: Programs must be rooted in real-time labor market data. What skills are employers seeking? Which certifications are valued? Aligning with reputable industry certifications is a proven way to ensure relevance and employer recognition.
    2. Accessibility: Pricing should reflect the certificate’s value relative to degree programs, and eligibility for financial aid must be prioritized. Lack of aid is a significant barrier to enrollment for many prospective learners.
    3. Laddering and stackability: Certificates should not be terminal unless intentionally designed that way. They should stack into larger degree pathways or offer alumni incentives for continuing their education.
    4. Delivery speed and flexibility: Busy adult learners expect quick starts, clear outcomes, and minimal red tape. Institutions need streamlined onboarding and agile curriculum design.
    5. Internal collaboration: Designing certificates in isolation often leads to friction. Academic, enrollment, and marketing teams must be aligned on purpose, target audience, and outcomes.
    6. Employer engagement: Employers want to be part of the development process and seek assurance that certificate programs teach the skills they need. Their involvement enhances the recognition and credibility of the credential.

    The role of institutions: Balance mission with market

    Certificate programs are not a shortcut to growth. But they can be a smart strategic lever when grounded in data and designed to complement an institution’s broader mission. They offer colleges and universities an opportunity to:

    • Expand access to underserved learners
    • Respond more nimbly to labor market shifts
    • Strengthen ties with regional employers
    • Drive awareness and enrollment for degree programs

    The key is alignment. When certificate offerings reflect both market demand and institutional mission, they can play a powerful role in expanding reach and impact.

    Plan with purpose, execute with intent

    Certificates are more than just a trending credential. They’re a tool to serve learners in new ways. But institutions must resist the urge to chase quick wins. Success requires thoughtful design, realistic expectations, and cross-functional collaboration.

    With the right foundation, certificate programs can do more than fill a gap. They can open doors for learners, employers, and institutions alike. Collegis supports this effort with integrated services in market research, instructional design, and portfolio development — empowering institutions to make informed, mission-aligned decisions that deliver impact.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Texas Study Reveals Power of Combined Accelerated Programs for College Success

    Texas Study Reveals Power of Combined Accelerated Programs for College Success

    High school students who combine dual enrollment courses with Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate programs are significantly more likely to graduate from college and earn higher salaries in their early twenties than peers who pursue only one type of accelerated coursework, according to a new report from the Community College Research Center.

    File photoThe study, which tracked Texas high school students expected to graduate in 2015-16 and 2016-17 for six years after high school, found that 71% of students who took both dual enrollment and AP/IB courses earned a postsecondary credential within six years—including 60% who completed a bachelor’s degree. By comparison, only 10% of students who took no accelerated coursework completed any postsecondary credential.

    “Most dual enrollment students in Texas also take other accelerated courses, and those who do tend to have stronger college and earnings trajectories,” said Dr.Tatiana Velasco, CCRC senior research associate. “It’s a pattern we hadn’t fully appreciated before, which offers clues for how to expand the benefits of dual enrollment to more students.”

    The financial benefits of combining accelerated programs extend well beyond graduation. Students who took both dual enrollment and AP/IB courses earned an average of $10,306 per quarter at age 24—more than $1,300 per quarter above students who took dual enrollment alone and nearly $1,400 per quarter more than those who took only AP/IB courses.

    These advantages persisted even after researchers controlled for student demographics, test scores, and school characteristics, suggesting the combination of programs provides genuine educational value rather than simply reflecting differences in student backgrounds.

    While the study revealed promising outcomes for students combining dual enrollment with career and technical education programs, participation in this pathway remains critically low. Fewer than 5% of students combine a CTE focus—defined as taking 10 or more CTE courses—with dual enrollment.

    Yet those who do show remarkable success. By age 24, dual enrollment students with a CTE focus earned an average of $9,746 per quarter, substantially more than CTE-focused students who didn’t take dual enrollment ($8,097) and second only to the dual enrollment/AP-IB combination group.

    The findings suggest a significant missed opportunity, particularly for students seeking technical career paths who could benefit from early college exposure while building specialized skills.

    The report highlights concerning equity gaps in accelerated coursework access. Students who combine dual enrollment with AP/IB courses are less diverse than those taking AP/IB alone, raising questions about which students have opportunities to maximize the benefits of accelerated learning.

    Early college high schools present a partial solution to this challenge. These specialized schools, where students can earn an associate degree while completing high school, serve more diverse student populations than other accelerated programs. Their graduates complete associate degrees at higher rates and earn more than Texas students overall by age 21. However, early college high schools serve only 5% of Texas students statewide.

    With less than 40% of Texas students without accelerated coursework enrolling in any postsecondary institution, and only one in five Texas students taking dual enrollment, researchers see substantial room for expansion.

    The report’s authors recommend that K-12 districts and colleges work to expand dual enrollment participation while ensuring these programs complement rather than compete with AP/IB offerings. They also call for increased access to dual enrollment for CTE students and additional support structures to promote student success in college-level coursework during high school.

     

    Source link

  • Trump Administration Fires Nearly All Staff Overseeing Special Education Programs

    Trump Administration Fires Nearly All Staff Overseeing Special Education Programs

    The U.S. Department of Education has terminated nearly every employee in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in a sweeping wave of layoffs that began Friday, according to the union representing agency staff—a move that advocates say will devastate services for millions of students with disabilities.

    While the agency has not provided official numbers, reports from staff and managers indicate that most employees below the leadership level in the division were eliminated, said Rachel Gittleman, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Employees in the college access program known as TRIO, housed in a different office, were also let go.

    The union has challenged the firings in court, arguing they “double down on the harm to K-12 students and schools across the country,” Gittleman told USA TODAY.

    Education Department spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment. However, Education Secretary Linda McMahon has previously stated that safeguarding students with disabilities and ensuring their access to legally mandated educational resources is a top priority. “I would like to see even more funding go to the states for that,” she told CNN in March.

    In a Friday court filing, the Justice Department confirmed that more than 460 Education Department employees had been laid off, cutting roughly one-fifth of the agency’s workforce. The terminations, which have affected more than half a dozen federal agencies, are part of a broader Trump administration effort to pressure congressional Democrats to end the ongoing government shutdown. Nearly 90% of the Education Department remains furloughed.

    The agency eliminated nearly every employee responsible for administering funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—the primary federal law supporting students with disabilities. The staffer expressed uncertainty about how these programs will continue to function.

    Secretary McMahon has suggested that oversight of IDEA funding might be better positioned within the Department of Health and Human Services rather than at the Education Department, though officially moving it would require congressional action.

    The mass firings have drawn sharp criticism from education equity advocates who warn of dire consequences for vulnerable students.

    “The Trump administration’s attack on public education continued this weekend as students with disabilities are at risk of losing the services, supports, and oversight that protect their civil rights,” said Denise Forte, president and CEO of The Education Trust. 

    “The administration’s unfathomable decision to fire all employees who administer the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) abandons the 7.5 million students with disabilities and their families,” Forte continued. “Roughly 15% of public school students have a disability, and federal enforcement of IDEA is crucial to ensuring that these students receive a free and appropriate public education.”

    Forte said that the layoffs will have particularly significant consequences for students of color with disabilities, who already face greater barriers to accessing services and are subjected to disproportionately harsher discipline.

    “This is a direct assault on all parents of and students with disabilities and all students and families who know that an excellent education system is a diverse and inclusive one,” Forte said. “I call on the Trump administration to reverse these cuts immediately.”

    The firings come amid widespread disruption across the Education Department, which has also experienced problems with financial aid administration following earlier rounds of layoffs.

    Source link

  • RIFs rip through federal Office of Special Education Programs

    RIFs rip through federal Office of Special Education Programs

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

    During this tumultuous year at the U.S. Department of Education that saw about half of the 4,133 employees leave due to layoffs, buyouts and early retirements, the staff at the Office of Special Education Programs stayed mostly stable.

    That changed on Friday, however, when the Trump administration issued reduction-in-force notices across the federal government, including at the Education Department. Court filings show that 466 employees at the Education Department were impacted and several special education association leaders say most of the OSEP staff was laid off. 

    On Friday, the department’s press office confirmed that the RIFs affected staff at the Education Department but did not provide more details. 

    The National Association of State Directors of Special Education, in a statement on Sunday, said informal reports that NASDSE believes to be true indicate that only the two most senior staff remain in OSEP and just one staff member remains in the Rehabilitation Services Administration. Both offices are part of the Education Department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

    NASDSE said it was “confused and concerned” by the staffing changes, adding that the Education Department under the Trump administration has repeatedly said it supports federal funding and implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and special education for children with disabilities.

    “These RIFs, if true, will make it impossible for the Department to fulfill those responsibilities,” the NASDSE statement said. “There is significant risk that not only will Federal funding lapse, but children with disabilities will be deprived” of a free, appropriate public education.

    Like NASDSE, several other organizations in the special education field wondered how the Education Department would support special education services across the country with such a limited staff.

    “The rumored near elimination of the Office for Special Education Programs is absolutely devastating to the education of people with disabilities,” said Chad Rummel, executive director of the Council for Exceptional Children, in an email on Saturday.

    Rummel said OSEP’s oversight, technical assistance and accountability efforts are critical to supporting the implementation of IDEA, which celebrates its 50th anniversary next month. About 8.4 million infants, toddlers, children and young adults received services under IDEA in 2023.

    “Eliminating federal capacity to support IDEA is harmful to people with disabilities, their families, and the professionals who serve them, and it runs counter to everything our members work toward every day,” he said.

    Myrna Mandlawitz, policy and legislative consultant for the Council of Administrators of Special Education, said on Sunday that the OSEP staff reductions will put an “extreme burden on states and locals that are already really stretched.”

    IDEA, Mandlawitz noted, is implemented collectively by local, state and federal agencies. The federal staff reductions take away “one very vital piece of the partnership. It’s just hard to understand how it can possibly function,” she said.

    Promises to protect special education

    The RIFs came two weeks into the federal government shutdown that began Oct. 1 as Congress remains at a funding impasse for fiscal year 2026. During the shutdown, the Education Department planned to furlough about 95% of its non-Federal Student Aid staff for the first week, according to a Sept. 28 memo from U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon.

    Federal staff are not paid during a government shutdown, but typically receive retroactive compensation. However, there are reports that the Trump administration may try to withhold back pay for this current shutdown, according to the American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing over 820,000 workers in nearly every agency of the federal government.

    McMahon said in the memo that school systems could still draw down federal grants awarded over the summer and processing would continue for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Title I and IDEA grants would be distributed as well.

    However, the agency is pausing Office for Civil Rights investigations, new grant-making activities and technical assistance support during the shutdown.

    Source link

  • Students, Alumni Rally to Keep Cut Affinity Programs Alive

    Students, Alumni Rally to Keep Cut Affinity Programs Alive

    For years, Black students gathered at the University of Cincinnati’s African American Cultural and Resource Center for its traditions, including the Tyehimba Black Graduation Celebration and Akwaaba, a welcome event for new students, among other programs. This year, the AACRC, at least as it once existed, is gone. It’s been rebranded “the Cultural Center” after an Ohio law banned diversity, equity and inclusion activities at public colleges and universities in March.

    But Black students and alumni wouldn’t let the center’s traditions and resources die. Black seniors celebrated their graduations at an event held off campus. Freshmen gathered for Akwaaba, organized by students and funded by alumni, who created a foundation to sustain the AACRC’s programming. The United Black Student Association and other student groups have committed to putting on programs throughout the year that were previously handled by AACRC staff.

    “Regardless of these changes, there is no policy that can be written that can outlaw OUR spirit, OUR ability to mobilize, OUR right to congregate,” the United Black Student Association wrote on Instagram. “They cannot outlaw our ability to gather, to build, to resist, and to love. Our legacy is not theirs to give or take.”

    Amid an escalating anti-DEI movement, students, alumni and off-campus advocates are hustling to fill the gaps left by shuttered and rebranded identity centers, DEI offices and programs across the country. Students and outside organizations, like the Native Forward Scholars Fund, hosted their own affinity group graduations this year as campuses started to cancel such events. Three student clubs broke off from the University of Utah to avoid the state’s limits on public university programs, forgoing university funding. Some students and alumni involved in these efforts say they feel a renewed pressure and responsibility to provide the services colleges are shedding as institutions are caught in the crosshairs of state DEI bans and the Trump administration’s sweeping anti-DEI campaign.

    How do we make lemonade out of a lemon?”

    —Harlan Jackson, president of the Cincy Cultural Resource Center Foundation

    The Cincy Cultural Resource Center Foundation, the nonprofit founded to continue Black student programming at University of Cincinnati, was born out of that sense of duty among alumni. Some graduates involved in the effort spent years pushing for the creation of the African American Cultural and Resource Center and took pride in watching its programs expand and flourish.

    “We can’t just stand idly by and just allow something this negative and something this backward to happen at the university,” said Harlan Jackson, president of the foundation and former president of the United Black Association in the late 1980s. “I’m really proud of the diverse community that’s showing up and acknowledging that we’re going to take this on.”

    The foundation now has weekly meetings with Black student leaders to determine how best to support their needs, and alumni leaders plan to put three students on the foundation’s board. Students emphasized to alumni that continuing the center’s events and traditions is their top priority, so the foundation is funding these programs, with hopes to also fund student scholarships in the future.

    So far, alumni have raised “well over” the roughly $5,000 needed to run Akwaaba and parents’ weekend, with plans to raise half a million dollars within the academic year, said Byron Stallworth, the foundation’s secretary.

    Stallworth, who was president of the United Black Association in 1991 when the AACRC opened, said the idea of alumni and students taking the reins is catching on beyond University of Cincinnati as well—three University of Cincinnati alumni, parents of students at other colleges and universities, have asked him questions about how they could start similar efforts to sustain Black student life on their children’s campuses.

    “This is a universal problem,” he said, and alumni elsewhere “are aware of what we’re doing.”

    Jackson noted that while the rebranding of the AACRC hits close to home, programs and centers dedicated to supports for women and LGBTQ+ students have also suffered cuts because of the Ohio anti-DEI legislation.

    He hopes other Ohioans “can look to this model, and we can determine … How do we connect? How do we share? How do we learn? How do we build bridges and partnerships to continue to support the young people developing themselves in the state of Ohio?” he said. “That’s what it’s all about.”

    Pressures New and Old

    Even with such support, students fighting to keep programs alive without university backing hasn’t necessarily been easy.

    Isaac Makanda, co-head of the juvenile justice and political action committee for University of Cincinnati’s NAACP chapter, said students and alumni can’t completely make up for the loss of the African American Cultural and Resource Center. He described running into a Black first-year on campus who didn’t know about Akwaaba or other events happening for Black students on campus. He believes that’s because the new students are without a hub.

    When Makanda was a freshman, the AACRC sent out emails telling incoming Black students about events and programs, he said. This student “had no idea about any of these things that were going on because those resources were taken away from him.”

    Some student groups have also had to hustle for funding to keep their events running. The Pacific Islander Student Association, which cut ties with the University of Utah alongside the Black Student Union, lost its student group funding in the separation. PISA used to receive at least $5,000 annually from the university, so that loss was a “major hit,” said Mayette Pahulu, vice president of the group.

    But she and other student leaders felt it was worth it to have full control over their programming after Utah’s anti-DEI bill became law last year. They didn’t want to be limited by the new strictures on public universities, “whether that be talking about certain subjects, encouraging our members to have their own rights … to host socials that are specific to our heritage, cultures and ethnicities,” Pahulu said. “We would rather lose the funding than our members lose a safe space.”

    Now the group raises its own money. PISA student leaders have an ongoing GoFundMe campaign and seek out sponsors for event costs, including the nominal fees required for outside groups to host programs on campuses.

    We would rather lose the funding than our members lose a safe space.”

    —Mayette Pahulu, vice president of the Pacific Islander Student Association at the University of Utah

    Pahulu said the students’ new responsibilities have pros and cons. On one hand, she and other student leaders find themselves pushing hard, with less support, to engage students who are feeling unwelcome on campus amid changes wrought by Utah’s anti-DEI legislation. On the other hand, she believes the new connections they’ve had to make with other student groups, community organizations and businesses to sustain their work could bode well for PISA’s future.

    “Even though we’ve taken kind of the short end of the stick, having to scramble around to find these organizations, we’ve honestly started to build a bigger community and network,” she said. “I think in the long run, it will benefit us … We’re working with representatives to get these supports put in place so that the longevity and the sustainability of our organizations can outlast—no matter how drastic the changes may be politically.”

    Jackson, the University of Cincinnati alum, said in a similar vein that he’s proud to see students and alumni making the best of the raw deal they’ve been given.

    As universities strip away programs at the behest of state lawmakers, “all they’ve done is put more burden on the students,” Harlan said. At the same time, “it gives them opportunity to network with the community, more opportunity to do planning and budgeting, more opportunity to lead in terms of putting together programs and executing programs.” The question is “How do we make lemonade out of a lemon?”

    Keisha Bross, director of race and justice at the NAACP, said student organizations—like Black student unions, NAACP chapters and the group of Black sororities and fraternities known as the Divine Nine—have always provided supports and programming for Black students in areas where universities have failed to do so. These groups “stepping in” to fill unmet needs is their “legacy,” she said. But she doesn’t believe the work students are doing, and have historically done, should allow universities to “get off easy” for cutting back programs dedicated to their success.

    “We cannot allow colleges to make these really traumatic decisions that are hurting student populations and their leadership, and then just say, ‘Oh well,’” Bross said. “We need to continue to hold universities accountable, because they have a responsibility to the students that they serve. Universities have and should be providing these resources to their students, 100 percent.”



    Source link

  • 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