Tag: proposed

  • Proposed Changes to Provider Pay Could Lead to Child Care Rate Hikes, Closures – The 74

    Proposed Changes to Provider Pay Could Lead to Child Care Rate Hikes, Closures – The 74


    Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.

    For months now, Shannon Hampson has had August 1 etched in her mind. 

    That day marks an important shift for her and other early care and education providers in Nebraska who serve low-income families. On that date, the state intended to begin paying providers a consistent rate for families who use government subsidies to pay for child care. 

    Instead of reimbursing providers based on children’s attendance — which can vary wildly, especially this time of year, based on factors like illness and family travel — Nebraska would pay providers the same amount each month based on enrollment. 

    Last year, because of the change expected to come in summer 2026, Hampson, who owns a home-based child care program in Lincoln, Nebraska, felt comfortable filling more of her program slots with children whose families pay with subsidies. Today, she does not have one private-paying family. She made the shift assuming the enrollment-based pay would insulate her from the instability that often accompanies subsidy slots. 

    “I was super excited to know more of these families were going to get that quality, consistent care,” Hampson said, adding that reaching more low-income families is important in the field. “It’s not that providers don’t want to.”

    Now, though, that could all be about to change. 

    Nebraska’s transition to enrollment-based pay was part of an effort to get in compliance with a rule established by the Biden administration in 2024. Enrollment-based payments, that administration believed, would create greater predictability for providers, allowing them to serve more low-income families who need child care and, eventually, could entice more providers to participate in the subsidy program. 

    The rule was one of a handful of changes made by the prior administration related to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), the primary federal program that states use to provide financial assistance to low-income families in need of child care. Other shifts include paying providers up front for child care, rather than reimbursing them the following month, and encouraging the use of grants and contracts with providers. State timelines for implementing these changes have varied. As of September 2025, 24 states were paying based on enrollment, according to an analysis by New America. For the others, the latest deadline granted was Aug. 1, 2026. 

    Just this week, however, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), announced that it would seek to rescind many of the 2024 rules, returning these issues to states. 

    The proposed changes cannot be enforced right away. Under federal law, the agency is required to take public comments, review them, and use that input to make final decisions, noted Alex Adams, who leads ACF. He declined to give a timeline for any changes to take effect.

    If approved, the changes would not “make any net new policy decisions,” he added. “It simply goes back to where we were prior to 2024 regulations.”

    The administration wants to rescind the 2024 rules, he said, because all 50 states had requested waivers related to some or all of these rules due to budget constraints and other implementation challenges. 

    “Any time 50 states are asking for a waiver from something,” Adams said, “it suggests to me that maybe the rule isn’t working as intended.”

    He also noted that “attendance-verified payment,” rather than enrollment-based, “is more of a deterrent to fraud.” Leaders in the Trump administration are concerned about programs with “phantom attendance” — suggesting they receive government payments but don’t actually serve the children they say they do — Adams said, but he declined to share specifics of ongoing investigations. 

    Many early care and education advocates and policy experts have expressed skepticism that rampant fraud and abuse is going unchecked. 

    Casey Peeks, senior director of early childhood policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, called the allegations “unfounded” and worried that they would undo real progress made in the field in recent years. 

    “It is very unhelpful and destabilizing to the sector, in the immediate- and long-term, to take some of these most foundational levers we have to stabilize the sector and claim that they result in fraud,” Peeks said.

    Upon hearing the news this week, Hampson said she’s had to remind herself to “just breathe.” She knew she was taking a risk by enrolling 100% of families on subsidies.

    Now, she said, she will have to rearrange her budget to continue to serve all of those families. Under an attendance-based pay structure, her income is just that much more volatile.

    In December, for example, between holidays, vacation time and children’s absences, Hampson was only able to bill the state for 18 child care days. If the children in her program were from private-paying families, she would have been paid for 23 days, she said. 

    But Hampson’s operational costs didn’t see a material decrease in December. 

    “Without a provider being at fault at all, they could be at 50% attendance one day just because the flu is going around. That shouldn’t harm their bottom line,” Peeks said. 

    “It’s really unpredictable and unfair for the provider,” she added. “Just because attendance is down doesn’t mean operation costs go down.”

    In West Virginia, where providers have been paid based on enrollment since 2020, Katelyn Vandal emphasized how critical the change has been to keeping her rural, center-based program open. 

    “Our mortgage payment doesn’t cost less because two kids in the classroom have the flu,” noted Vandal, director of A Place to Grow, a child care center in Oak Hill, West Virginia. Nor does her electricity bill and a host of other overhead costs. 

    If her state returns to attendance-based pay, she’s not sure A Place to Grow would be able to continue operating. The center serves about 100 kids, with 60% from families that pay with subsidies. 

    “We run such a fine budget line anyway that if, six months from now, we were going back to attendance, we would be looking at closing,” she said. “We would not survive transitioning back to that.”

    Sheryl Hutzenbiler, owner of Munchkin Land Daycare in Billings, Montana, said she suspects that, under attendance-based pay, providers will either raise tuition rates on families — many of whom are already paying the maximum they can afford without one parent leaving the workforce — or, like Vandal, be forced to close their doors. 

    But that is not a decision Hutzenbiler will have to face, should the Trump administration successfully restore attendance-based pay. Since she lives in Montana, where enrollment-based pay became law in 2023, she and other providers in the state are protected from policy fluctuations at the federal level. 

    That’s true for a handful of states, which have either passed laws protecting enrollment-based pay or have continued paying based on enrollment, on a temporary basis, since the pandemic. (West Virginia is in the latter category.)

    Enrollment-based pay has been pivotal for Hutzenbiler, whose home-based program consists of about 60% of families who pay with subsidies. Back when she was paid based on attendance, she said her first sacrifice during low-attendance months would be her own wages. She would pay her full-time teacher first and make sure program costs were covered, often leaving nothing for herself and relying on her husband’s income instead. With the consistent subsidy income each month, though, she’s not only been able to avoid missed paychecks for herself, she’s been able to add two part-time workers to the payroll. 

    Hampson, in Nebraska, said she was part of a group last year advocating for the state to pass legislation around enrollment-based pay. It was ultimately unsuccessful.

    “We wanted to know our state had already said yes, so we wouldn’t go backwards,” she said. “And here we are going backwards.”

    In an industry where profit margins are estimated at less than 1%, these changes will inevitably leave providers who participate in the subsidy program with less revenue to survive on. The shifts will likely also deter providers who participate in the subsidy program, or who might have considered participating, from doing so in the future, said Peeks. This will likely, in effect, leave low-income families with fewer choices about where to go for child care. 

    “When you’re stabilizing providers overall, you’re often creating more options for families overall,” said Peeks. “I think it could definitely have a chilling effect.”


    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

  • Support for student parents at risk due to proposed funding cuts

    Support for student parents at risk due to proposed funding cuts

    UCLA Bruin Parenting Scholars (BPS) board at their winter warmth basic needs drive for students with dependents.

    Credit: Photo courtesy of Trina Rodriguez

    As students across the country wrap up their final exams, academic pressure is front and center. For many, this season is stressful. For student parents, however, the stakes are even higher.

    Alongside exams and essay deadlines, student caregivers balance jobs, household responsibilities, and the constant demands of raising children and other family members — often with little institutional support. For them, success in college is not just about grades; it is about securing stability for their families and breaking cycles of economic insecurity.

    More than one in four undergraduate students in the United States are raising children, and 54% are doing so without a partner. Despite this widespread need for support, the programs that make higher education possible for student parents are threatened. Chief among them is the federal Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) initiative, the only national program that provides campus-based childcare subsidies for low-income student parents so they can stay enrolled and complete their degrees.

    Across the University of California (UC) system, survey data shows nearly 1,000 undergraduate students and 1,500 graduate students are caregivers. These students, often older, first-generation, and low-income, face challenges that traditional student support systems were never designed to meet. Parenting students also experience food and housing insecurity at disproportionately higher rates than their non-parenting peers. Add the cost of childcare, and the financial burden becomes nearly impossible to bear.

    Despite this clear need, support is shrinking. Although Congress allocated $75 million for CCAMPIS in fiscal year (FY) 2025, and there have been previous bipartisan proposals to increase funding to $200 million annually, President Trump’s budget request and the House education spending bill for FY 2026 proposed cutting the program entirely.

    Eliminating this funding would put thousands of families under severe financial strain, intensifying the challenges for caregivers already facing heightened food or housing insecurity and making it much harder to balance school and parenting responsibilities.

    “As a CCAMPIS recipient, I know that without federally supported childcare, I would never have been able to care for my late mother while returning to school, nor would I have completed undergrad with dual degrees,” Schinal Harrington, a masters of social work (MSW) candidate at UCLA, wrote in an email to us. “As a first-generation, system-impacted woman of color, mother, and graduate student, I have spent my academic journey navigating red tape, institutional neglect, and the loss of [fellow] peers whose struggles were shaped by the same barriers student parents face today.”

    Harrington chairs Bruin Parenting Scholars (BPS), a UCLA student advocacy organization that provides resources, mentorship, and community for students with dependents. Every day, she sees how childcare access, trauma-informed services, and flexible policies support not just parenting students, but their families.

    Trina Rodriguez, another UCLA MSW student and student parent advocate, describes this reality with raw clarity: “My lived experience carries many identities, but the first thing I am when I wake up, before anything else, is ‘Mommy.’ When universities do not acknowledge the existence of this marginalized community through institutional supports — like flexible scheduling, affordable childcare, and family-friendly policies — student parents face systemic barriers to completing their education. Universities are, therefore, perpetuating harm on this community.”

    Yet despite systemic gaps, student parents demonstrate extraordinary resilience. UC survey data show that parenting graduate students feel more upbeat about their career prospects and better prepared for the job search than their non-parenting peers. Their determination is evident — even when given modest support.

    “As a parenting scholar [myself], I’ve witnessed how student parents embody perseverance, compassion, and leadership, yet must navigate systems that were never built with their lives in mind,” said Sonya Brooks, the 2025-26 UC student regent. “Supporting student parents means recognizing that higher education is not one-size-fits-all: it must evolve to meet the realities of those raising families while pursuing their dreams. The success of student parents ripples across generations, shaping stronger families, communities, and universities.”

    Other resources for student parents

    BrightLife Kids is a free virtual behavioral health coaching program for families in California with children ages 0–12.

    Part of the CalHOPE initiative, BrightLife Kids offers 1:1 video coaching and secure chat services at no cost, with no insurance or referral required, providing caregivers with helpful tools.

    When Congress passed a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, longer-term funding questions — including CCAMPIS funding for 2026 — remained unresolved. House and Senate appropriators are now deciding whether to follow the president’s proposal or save the program when the continuing resolution expires in January.

    Congress must restore full funding for CCAMPIS and reject cuts that threaten the educational futures of thousands of student parents nationwide. Undermining these supports jeopardizes not only individual students but entire families.

    Colleges and universities must also do their part by expanding childcare access, adopting family-friendly policies, and offering flexible learning options with integrated advising. Higher education cannot credibly claim to value its students while ignoring the realities faced by the many on campus who are raising dependents.

    Parenting students have shown up for their families. Now it is time for our institutions to show up for them.

    •••

    Duke Dela Rosa is the director, and Amrit Dhillon, Arianna Li, and Sue Jung are associates, of the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) federal government relations department at UC Berkeley.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

    Source link

  • LAWSUIT: New Jersey school board member silenced for asking constituents about a proposed tax increase

    LAWSUIT: New Jersey school board member silenced for asking constituents about a proposed tax increase

    ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP, N.J., Nov. 20, 2025 — A local school board member’s Facebook post to community members about a tax hike should have started a conversation — instead, it led to censorship.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is suing the commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Education and members of the state’s School Ethics Commission to stop them from abusing a law to chill the speech of an elected school board member who used social media to seek her constituents’ input. 

    “I didn’t join the school board to be told to shut up,” said Gail Nazarene, an elected school board member, Navy veteran, and grandma in Alloway Township. “New Jersey officials claim the authority to punish me simply for asking folks questions about important issues, particularly when it affects their wallets. I should be free to communicate with constituents and get their views without being censored by state officials.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF GAIL NAZARENE

    In April, Gail used Facebook to discuss tax increases and other school issues with constituents. In one post, she asked, “As a resident of Alloway, I am wondering what other residents think about a 9-15% school tax increase?” She clarified in her later posts that she was asking in her personal capacity. But another school board member saw the posts and filed a complaint against her, claiming Gail had violated New Jersey’s School Ethics Act because she allegedly had spoken on the board’s behalf. The complaint is pending before the state’s School Ethics Commission. 

    “Americans deserve to know what their elected officials think about important issues,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Zahn. “New Jersey is muzzling elected officials and preventing them from talking with their community, the very people they were elected to represent.”

    The state broadly interprets the School Ethics Act to bar elected officials from discussing issues relating to schools on social media. And this isn’t the first time it’s done so. The School Ethics Commission has previously warned elected officials against engaging with constituents on social media and previously interpreted the act to prevent elected school board members from discussing matters of public concern on social media and in op-eds. 

    But the First Amendment protects Gail’s right to speak freely on such issues. 

    Gail has stopped soliciting constituent feedback online. She fears any posts about school board issues will lead to punishment, including reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal. But she also is concerned about the loss of First Amendment freedoms for her and her constituents. 

    “When the state silences school board members, parents and taxpayers are kept in the dark,” said FIRE attorney Greg Greubel. “The School Ethics Act can’t be turned into an unconstitutional gag rule.”

    Today’s federal lawsuit asks the court to declare New Jersey’s School Ethics Act unconstitutional as interpreted by the state and stop its use against elected officials speaking out about public issues. 

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT
    Katie Stalcup, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • MIT Rejects Proposed Federal Compact

    MIT Rejects Proposed Federal Compact

    Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology has rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to sign on to the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which would mandate sweeping changes across campus in exchange for preferential treatment on federal funding.

    MIT is the first of the nine universities invited to join the compact to publicly reject the proposal that has ignited fierce pushback from other higher ed leaders, faculty and experts who see the document as a way to strip institutions of their autonomy. The Trump administration also asked Brown University, Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University to sign. Most have provided vague statements saying that they are reviewing the compact, though Texas officials have expressed some enthusiasm about the offer.

    MIT President Sally Kornbluth announced the move in a Friday morning letter to the campus community, which included a copy of her response to Education Secretary Linda McMahon.

    Kornbluth highlighted in the response to McMahon a number of areas emphasized by the White House in the compact, such as focusing on merit, keeping costs low for students and protecting free expression. 

    “These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission—work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law,” Kornbluth wrote.

    She also noted that MIT disagreed with a number of the demands in the letter, arguing that it “would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution” and that “the premise of the document is inconsistent” with MIT’s belief that funding should be based on merit.

    “In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence,” Kornbluth wrote. “In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.”

    This is a breaking news article and will be updated.

    Source link

  • London Mayor slams proposed international tuition fee levy

    London Mayor slams proposed international tuition fee levy

    In a keynote address earlier this week at Imperial Global Ghana – Imperial College London’s overseas branch campus in Accra – Sadiq Khan warned that proposals for a new levy on international university fees would hit the UK’s finances hard, describing the policy as “an act of immense economic self-harm”.

    The UK government is currently considering a new levy on income that English universities generate from international students as part of its immigration whitepaper, which could not only put students off coming  from overseas but also create a substantial extra financial burden for already stretched universities.

    International students contribute about £12.5 billion to London, and another £55bn to the national economy every year, Khan pointed out. For this reason, the government should not make it difficult for these students to study in the UK, Khan said at the event – which formed part of his trade mission to Ghana.

    With 5% of students in London’s higher education institutions coming from Africa, Khan stressed the need to ensure that international students are not frustrated. 

    “Closing our economy to global talent would be an act of immense economic self-harm. One that would slow down growth and leave working people in Britain worse off than before. At a time when President Trump is attacking international students, we should be welcoming them,” he added.

    Khan said the international students also bring a longer-term labour market value, as many stay after their studies to work in key economic sectors from tech and AI to finance and creative industries. For this reason, he disagreed with the view that, “we should pull up the drawbridge to international students or punish universities that choose to welcome people from around the world”.

    On Imperial College opening up a hub in Ghana, he said London is ready to contribute to the development effort of Ghana, “not as a patron, but as a partner. In a genuinely reciprocal relationship that brings benefits to us both”.

    President Trump is attacking international students, we should be welcoming them
    Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London

    The vice-chancellor of the University of Ghana, Nana Aba Appiah Amfo, said the university is committed to providing to its  students with a transformative experience that goes beyond the classroom to nurture innovation, leadership and practical problem solving, adding that “this commitment is rooted in our strategic plan, which prioritises student success, impactful research and strategic partners”.

    “One such partnership, rich in promise and results, is with Imperial College London. What began as a collaboration between two researchers has evolved into a university-wide alliance, advancing work in climate change, diagnostics, and entrepreneurship. It is a powerful model of what mutual trust and shared purpose can achieve,” Amfo added.

    She said the Student Venture Support Programme has become the flagship agenda of the partnership which was launched in 2022 with the Imperial College and is  equipping students with skills, mentoring and funding to turn ideas into viable ventures. 

    To date, it has supported over 400 students and more than 115 startups, spanning four universities across Ghana.

    Despite Khan’s strong opposition to the levy, it looks likely to go ahead.

    At last week’s BUILA conference, skills minister Jacqui Smith doubled down on the need for the levy, saying it would reinforce public confidence in the UK’s international education sector.

    Source link

  • The proposed international student levy could be the tipping point for a fragile sector

    The proposed international student levy could be the tipping point for a fragile sector

    • Professor Duncan Ivison is President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester.

    Almost one year into the Labour government’s term, its vision for higher education is emerging. One exciting aspect of it is the role they see universities playing in helping to drive their agenda for inclusive growth. The recently announced R&D funding commitments, including regional ‘innovation clusters’, and the Industrial Strategy, all point to the role that higher education will play in driving innovation through world-class research and producing the highly skilled graduates our life sciences, technology, defence, and creative industry sectors – among others – will require. This is good news for the sector.

    Baroness Smith, Minister for Skills, and Lord Vallance, Minister for Science, have made clear that they see the core principles that will shape the UK’s higher education sector over the next five years. This includes contributing to economic growth, conducting the highest quality curiosity-driven research, helping build national capabilities in key sectors, contributing to the economic and social well-being of the regions in which we’re based, and being a global force for UK soft power through international collaborations.   

    This is a compelling vision and one that –  at least for the University of Manchester – we are keen to support,  including through our forthcoming Manchester 2035 strategy.   

    But in politics, vision quickly runs up against political reality, and we can also see now some of the challenges the sector will face, not least in relation to immigration and the difficult fiscal situation the government faces. The recent Immigration White Paper makes that clear.

    One of the more contentious aspects of the White Paper – in addition to reducing the graduate visa route from 24 months to 18 – is the proposal for a 6% levy on international student fees.

     Of course, for those of us familiar with Australian higher education policy, it is, as Yogi Bera once said, déjà vu all over again.  The Australian government proposed a 2% levy on international fee income in 2023, but it was never implemented. The main purpose of that levy was to redistribute fee income from the larger, research-intensive metropolitan universities to those (mainly in the regions) who struggled to attract international students. It stalled in the Australian parliament after fierce criticism from some parts of the sector, as well as the government deciding to pursue its aims through other means.

    In the UK, on the other hand, the levy seems designed to do two things. First, to generate additional revenue for the Department of Education in a very difficult fiscal environment. And second, to make manifest the contribution that international students make to the UK.

    There are several things wrong with this approach if indeed these are the main justifications for it. But I recognise it’s something currently being explored, rather than already decided, and so I offer my thoughts here as part of the consultations now underway.

    First, it’s striking that for a government seeking to position itself as a champion of global free trade and economic growth, they are proposing what is essentially a tax on one of the UK’s most successful export industries (worth ~£22 billion a year from higher education alone).

    Second, the fact that the government doesn’t feel the public understands the contribution that international students make to the UK is deeply concerning. The short answer is that they make a massive contribution: in fact, their financial contribution and talent has been crucial not only in helping the UK maintain its global standing as a higher education powerhouse, but also to the regional and local economies in which universities are based.  

    There are other more specific problems with the levy too, at least for a university like mine.

    For one thing, a levy assumes universities can simply pass on the additional cost to our students. But this neglects the fact that we are operating in a highly competitive international market, and a significant price increase will make us less attractive to some of the fastest-growing parts of it. Moreover, many international students might not appreciate that they are now being asked to cross-subsidise other parts of the UK’s education system, in addition to the significant contribution they are already making. One perverse consequence of a 6% increase in fees might be that we end up abandoning our efforts to diversify the countries from which we recruit and focus only on those who can afford higher fees.  This will only deepen the risk that successive governments have been keen for us to mitigate.

    Moreover, at Manchester at least, we have already factored in increases to our international fees to account for rising costs over the next five years. Adding 6% on top of that would be unworkable.  So, we would either have to absorb most, if not all, of the levy (plus inflation), or increase our fees substantially and lose market share. Assuming that we would see very little of the levy come back to us – the history of hypothecated funding is not encouraging in this regard – this would be a major financial blow.  It would also, as a result, likely generate much less income than the Department hopes.  For a sector already teetering on the edge of fiscal implosion, this could be the tipping point. To put it into context: for the University of Manchester, a 6% levy would mean a potential loss of ~£43M of revenue p.a by 2029/30, wiping out the slim margin we have for reinvesting in our teaching and research. The levy does nothing to address the structural challenges facing the higher education sector. In fact, it is likely to make things worse.

    But it would also undermine our ability to do the very things the government wants us to do more of. Already, international student fees help us bridge the financial gap between what we receive to teach all our students and what it actually costs, as well as the gap between the full costs of research and what funding councils and charities provide. This is under threat if we get our higher education policy settings wrong. And let’s be clear: it would hurt local students and local economies most. Almost half our students remain in Manchester after they graduate, contributing hugely to our city and region.

    We are keen to contribute to the government’s vision for higher education.  For example, we are spending ~£21M p.a. on helping disadvantaged students with their cost of living and studies. And from this year, we will be investing more than ever before in accelerating the commercialisation of our research and generating more student and staff start-ups, scale-ups and job creation for Greater Manchester and the country.

    I understand the challenges the government faces on immigration and funding higher education. There should be no tolerance of shonky providers serving as a front for migration workarounds. And universities need to prove they are operating as efficiently as possible and collaborating in new and transformative ways – as I’ve argued elsewhere and as we’re doing with Liverpool and Cambridge.

    An alternative approach to a levy would be to develop specific compacts with clusters of universities based on delivering against the government’s core priorities for HE in concrete ways – building on the new ‘innovation clusters’ in the recent R&D announcement. We’re already doing this in Greater Manchester, given the excellent collaborative culture that exists between the universities, further education colleges, and the Combined Authority. It’s a model we could scale nationally.  I look forward to the discussions to come in the weeks ahead.

    Source link

  • McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    During a hearing Wednesday, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s proposal to heavily cut funding for the U.S. Department of Education during the 2026 fiscal year, arguing the reductions were a key step toward winding down the agency. 

    “We seek to shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money and empower states who best know their local needs to manage education in this country,” McMahon said before lawmakers on the House Committee on Appropriations’s education subcommittee. 

    President Donald Trump’s budget request, released at the beginning of the month, would slash funding to the Education Department by 15.3%, or about $12 billion. 

    The plan calls for eliminating two federal programs aimed at improving college access for disadvantaged and low-income students — TRIO and Gear Up — as well as shifting the responsibility of the Federal Work-Study program to the states. And it would eliminate funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which provide need-based aid to undergraduate students. 

    It also would reduce funding for the already-diminished Office for Civil Rights, which investigates harassment and discrimination on college campuses and in K-12 schools, by about $49 million, a 35% cut from the previous year. 

    Republicans on the panel largely lauded the proposal, with many praising the Trump administration’s support for charter schools, which would receive a $60 million funding bump in the budget. 

    Democrats, however, slammed the budget, arguing the cuts would undermine student success and restrict pathways to higher education. 

    “Your visions for students aspiring to access and pay for college is particularly grim,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee, said during the hearing. “Some families do not need financial assistance to go to college, but that’s not true for the rest.” 

    ‘You will not have the partnership of Congress’

    Trump signed an executive order in March directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.” 

    His administration has shared plans to move its key functions to other agencies. In one instance, Trump suggested that operating the student loan portfolio should be the responsibility of the newly-downsized Small Business Administration.

    Some Republicans on the panel voiced support for this plan Wednesday. Rep. Jake Ellzey, from Texas, suggested the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services could take over mental health support provided by the Education Department. He also proposed that the U.S. Department of Justice could oversee civil rights matters — an option McMahon floated during her confirmation hearing in February. 

    On Wednesday, McMahon described the Education Department as a federal funding “pass-through mechanism” and said other agencies could take over the job of distributing allocations from Congress. 

    “Whether the channels of that funding are through HHS, or whether they’re funneled through the DOJ, or whether they’re funneled through the Treasury or SBA or other departments, the work is going to continue to get done,” McMahon said. 

    However, Democrats indicated they would not support those efforts. 

    “You will not have the partnership of Congress in your efforts to destroy the Department of Education,” DeLauro said. “Not on our watch.” 

    DeLauro also slammed McMahon over recent cuts to the Education Department, which has eliminated about half of its staff and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars worth of grants. 

    “By recklessly incapacitating the department you lead, you are usurping Congress’ authority and infringing on Congress’ power of the purse,” she said. 

    Democrats also took issue with the budget’s proposal to shift the responsibility of funding programs to states. 

    Along with Federal Work-Study, the 2026 proposal would cut funding for other higher education programs, including the Strengthening Institutions Program, which provides grants to help colleges become more financially stable, improve their academic quality and ability to serve low-income students. 

    Source link

  • Proposed Budget Cuts Could End Fulbright Program

    Proposed Budget Cuts Could End Fulbright Program

    The Trump administration is looking to cut the State Department’s budget by almost half, and educational and cultural exchange programs, like the Fulbright scholarship, could be fully eliminated as a result, The Washington Post reported Monday.

    An internal memo, obtained by the Post, suggested that the department may only have $28.4 billion to spend next fiscal year to cover all of its staffing and operations and to share with the U.S. Agency for International Development, an independent agency that Trump has already tried to eliminate. That’s $27 billion, or 48 percent, less funding than the two groups received in fiscal year 2025.

    The proposed budget cuts would terminate the Fulbright scholarship, a highly selective cultural exchange program established by Congress in 1946, along with the State Department’s other educational and cultural programs. The president has yet to propose his budget for fiscal year 2026 to Congress, though he’s expected to do so later this month, the Post reported. Congress, by law, has the final say about which programs get funding.

    Fulbright funding and operations have already been in flux during the early days of the Trump administration as some participants have struggled to obtain their visas for next academic year and others are waiting on stipend funds that had been promised to get them through the current term, Inside Higher Ed has reported.

    The State Department did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.

    Source link

  • Search for Higher Ed Legislation Proposed in Congress

    Search for Higher Ed Legislation Proposed in Congress

    Welcome Inside Higher Ed‘s legislation tracker, a database of the key higher-ed related bills lawmakers have proposed in Congress. Few will likely become law, but the proposals offer insights into how Republicans and Democrats want to reshape the sector.

    So far, lawmakers have proposed 31 bills that would directly impact colleges and universities.

    You can search the database below to learn more about each proposal. The current session of Congress runs through the end of 2026 which means this list will grow. We’ll update the database regularly, so please check back for updates.

    Questions, comments or think we’re missing a bill? Email [email protected].

    The database was last updated March 20.

    More Coverage of Higher Ed and Congress:

    Source link

  • FIRE opposes Virginia’s proposed regulation of candidate deepfakes

    FIRE opposes Virginia’s proposed regulation of candidate deepfakes

    Last year, California passed restrictions on sharing AI-generated deepfakes of candidates, which a court then promptly blocked for violating the First Amendment. Virginia now looks to be going down a similar road with a new bill to penalize people for merely sharing certain AI-generated media of political candidates.

    This legislation, which has been in SB 775 and HB 2479, would make it illegal to share artificially generated, realistic-looking images, video, or audio of a candidate to “influence an election,” if the person knew or should have known that the content is “deceptive or misleading.” There is a civil penalty or, if the sharing occurred within 90 days before an election, up to one year in jail. Only if a person adds a conspicuous disclaimer to the media can they avoid these penalties.

    The practical effects of this ban are alarming. Say a person in Virginia encounters a deepfaked viral video of a candidate on Facebook within 90 days of an election. They know it’s not a real image of the candidate, but they think it’s amusing and captures a message they want to share with other Virginians. It doesn’t have a disclaimer, but the person doesn’t know it’s supposed to, and doesn’t know how to edit the video anyway. They decide to repost it to their feed.

    That person could now face jailtime.

    The ban would also impact the media. Say a journalist shares a deepfake that is directly relevant to an important news story. The candidate depicted decides that the journalist didn’t adequately acknowledge “in a manner that can easily be heard and understood by the average listener or viewer, that there are questions about the authenticity of the media,” as the bill requires. That candidate could sue to block further sharing of the news story.

    The First Amendment safeguards expressive tools like AI, allowing them to enhance our ability to communicate with one another without facing undue government restrictions.

    These illustrate the startling breadth of SB 775/HB 2479’s regulation of core political speech, which makes it unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. Laws targeting core political speech have serious difficulty passing constitutional muster, even when they involve false or misleading speech. That’s because there’s no general First Amendment exception for misinformation, disinformation, or other false speech. That’s for good reason: A general exception would be easily abused to suppress dissent and criticism.

    Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems

    News

    There’s no ‘artificial intelligence’ exception to the First Amendment.


    Read More

    There are narrow, well-defined categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment — such as fraud and defamation — that Virginia can and does already restrict. But SB 775/HB 2479 is not limited to fraudulent or defamatory speech.

    For laws that burden protected speech related to elections, it is a very high bar to pass constitutional muster. This bill doesn’t meet that bar. It restricts far more speech than necessary to prevent voters from being deceived in ways that would have any effect on an election, and there are other ways to address deepfakes that would burden much less speech. For one, other speakers or candidates can (and do) simply point them out, eroding their potential to deceive.

    The First Amendment safeguards expressive tools like AI, allowing them to enhance our ability to communicate with one another without facing undue government restrictions.

    We urge the Virginia General Assembly to oppose this legislation. If it gets to his desk, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin should veto.

    Source link