Tag: Public

  • Trump Administration Proposes Restricting Public Service Loan Forgiveness for Organizations with ‘Illegal Purpose’

    Trump Administration Proposes Restricting Public Service Loan Forgiveness for Organizations with ‘Illegal Purpose’

    The Trump administration on Friday released a proposed rule that would exclude organizations deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose” from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, a move that could disqualify thousands of borrowers working for advocacy and legal aid organizations from having their student debt canceled.

    The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register and scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026, follows President Trump’s March executive order directing the Department of Education to revise PSLF eligibility criteria. The proposed changes would give the Secretary of Education broad authority to determine which employers qualify for the program that has provided loan forgiveness to more than one million public servants.

    Under the proposed rule, organizations could lose PSLF eligibility for activities including “aiding or abetting violations of Federal immigration laws,” “engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination,” or “engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing Federal Government policy.” The Department would use a “preponderance of evidence” standard to make determinations, and employers found ineligible would face a 10-year waiting period before they could regain qualifying status.

    The rule specifically targets several types of activities the administration considers problematic, including providing certain medical treatments to transgender minors, assisting with immigration cases, and various forms of protest activity that result in state law violations such as trespassing or disorderly conduct.

    Kristin McGuire, President and CEO of Young Invincibles, characterized the proposal as “continuing its attacks on education, deliberately targeting advocacy organizations whose work doesn’t align with its ideological agenda.”

    “By using a distorted and overly broad definition of ‘illegal activities,’ the Trump administration is exploiting the student loan system to attack political opponents,” McGuire said. “This is an illegal move by the administration; eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) is defined by law, not political ideology.”

    The proposed rule emerged from a contentious negotiated rulemaking process that concluded in July without consensus. According to the Department’s documentation, the negotiator representing civil rights organizations dissented from the draft regulations, preventing the committee from reaching agreement.

    The Department of Education estimates the rule would result in budget savings of $1.537 billion over 10 years by reducing the number of borrowers who achieve loan forgiveness. Administrative documents suggest the changes could affect borrowers in multiple sectors, including legal services, healthcare, social work, and education.

    Organizations operating under shared federal tax identification numbers could see entire agencies lose eligibility if one component is found to engage in disqualifying activities. The rule includes provisions allowing the Secretary to separate organizations under shared identifiers, but grants ultimate authority to the Department to make such determinations.

    The proposed rule draws heavily on the Internal Revenue Service’s “illegality doctrine,” which denies tax-exempt status to organizations with substantial illegal purposes. The Department argues this approach ensures consistency across federal agencies and prevents taxpayer funds from subsidizing activities the government aims to prevent.

    Employers would be required to certify on PSLF application forms that they do not engage in activities with substantial illegal purpose. Those who fail to provide such certification would immediately lose qualifying status.

    The rule includes safeguards requiring notice and opportunity to respond before final determinations, and allows employers to maintain eligibility if they submit approved corrective action plans before losing qualification.

    According to the Department’s regulatory impact analysis, implementation would cost between $1.5 million and $3 million annually during the first two years. The analysis acknowledges that compliance costs for employers would vary significantly, with larger organizations potentially facing higher expenses for legal consultation and operational adjustments.

    The Department projects reduced confusion among borrowers due to clearer eligibility criteria, though it acknowledges potential disruptions during the transition period. The analysis notes that borrowers working for disqualified employers would need to find new positions with qualifying organizations to continue progress toward loan forgiveness.

    The proposed rule will undergo a 30-day public comment period following publication in the Federal Register on August 18. The Department must review all submitted comments before issuing a final rule.

    If implemented as proposed, the new eligibility requirements would apply only to activities occurring on or after July 1, 2026. Borrowers whose employers lose qualifying status would receive notification from the Department and would no longer earn qualifying payment credit while employed by those organizations.

    The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, established in 2007, allows borrowers to have remaining federal student loan balances canceled after making 120 qualifying monthly payments while working full-time for eligible government agencies or qualified nonprofit organizations. The program has faced criticism and administrative challenges since its inception, with many borrowers initially denied forgiveness due to complex eligibility requirements.

    Young Invincibles and other advocacy organizations indicated they plan to submit detailed comments opposing the rule and may pursue legal challenges if the final version proceeds as proposed.

    Source link

  • July Brought Cuts at Public and Private Colleges

    July Brought Cuts at Public and Private Colleges

    July was marked by steep cuts at some of the nation’s wealthiest institutions while fewer small, cash-strapped colleges made significant workforce reductions.

    While some of the nation’s wealthiest universities—institutions with multibillion-dollar endowments—laid off hundreds of employees last month due to federal research funding issues, an uncertain political landscape and rising costs, those cuts were an anomaly. Colleges outside the top financial stratosphere, contending with issues such as declining enrollment, shrinking state support and other challenges, didn’t cut as deep compared to the megawealthy.

    Inside Higher Ed recently covered how the Trump administration is driving cuts at wealthy institutions. Now here’s a look at other layoffs and program cuts announced in July as both large, well-resourced institutions and smaller colleges with less capital contend with challenging headwinds for the sector.

    Temple University

    Grappling with a budget deficit that was projected as high as $60 million, Temple laid off 50 employees and eliminated more than 100 vacancies in July, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

    The 50 layoffs equal less than 1 percent of Temple’s total workforce, according to the university.

    Altogether Temple eliminated “190 positions across the university, with the vast majority of these coming through attrition, retirement or elimination of vacant positions,” President John Fry wrote in a message to campus last month. Fry added that those reductions narrowed the projected budget gap from $60 million to $27 million, cutting Temple’s structural deficit by more than half.

    Michigan State University

    The wealthiest institution represented here, with an endowment valued at more than $4.4 billion, the public university in Lansing cut nearly 100 jobs last month, The Detroit Free Press reported.

    Officials announced 94 employees in MSU’s extension division were being laid off due to a loss of federal grant funding. The cuts come as a result of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–Education program being discontinued this fall, which provided a $10 million grant. Layoffs will affect employees across the state.

    Additional jobs cuts also loom at Michigan State, where officials recently announced cost-cutting plans, citing the need to trim its budget by about 9 percent over the course of the next two years.

    University of Florida

    One of the wealthiest institutions on this list with an endowment of more than $2 billion, UF eliminated 75 jobs last month, largely through attrition and closing vacant roles, WCJB reported.

    A university spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed the cuts were part of a 5 percent reduction in administrative expenses, which amounted to $20 million in cost savings for UF. In addition to the 75 jobs eliminated, UF closed its Office of Sustainability, reportedly cutting another three jobs.

    UF is also shutting down its Health Science Center Police Service Technician program at the end of the year, which officials said will affect 15 positions, though seven are currently vacant.

    Barnard College

    The private women’s college affiliated with Columbia University, but with a separate and much smaller endowment, cut 77 jobs last month as part of a restructuring effort announced July 31.

    Barnard president Laura Ann Rosenbury wrote in a message to campus that the cuts were a “painful moment” but the “strategic realignment” reflected “evolving operational needs.” She added that no faculty positions or instructional services personnel were included in the cuts.

    Founded in 1889, Barnard had an endowment valued at $503 million in fiscal year 2024 and has dealt with rising debt in recent years.

    Southern Oregon University

    Last month officials at the public university in Ashland declared financial exigency and announced plans to cut SOU’s budget by 15 percent, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

    University officials are working to shrink SOU’s budget from $71 million to a more manageable $60 million. In the short term that means finding $5 million in savings for the 2025–26 fiscal year.

    The budget cuts will play out over three years and eliminate an estimated 65 jobs through a mix of voluntary retirements, leaving some positions vacant and cutting about 20 positions. SOU also plans to cut 15 majors and 11 minors, shrinking its academic portfolio as it restructures.

    SOU president Rick Bailey is also taking a voluntary 20 percent pay cut amid budget issues.

    Meredith College

    Cost-cutting measures prompted layoffs at the private women’s college in North Carolina, with 6 percent of the workforce—roughly 25 employees—affected, local TV station ABC 11 reported.

    None of Meredith’s full-time faculty members were laid off, according to ABC 11.

    “These strategic budget reductions were necessary and proactive steps in preserving Meredith’s long-term financial strength and helping it grow and thrive for the future,” college officials wrote in a statement to media outlets detailing the reason for the layoffs. “When making budget adjustments, Meredith leaders focused on protecting programs and services essential to fulfilling its mission. These difficult decisions were made for the good of the College as a whole.”

    Sullivan University

    The private Kentucky university is cutting 21 jobs, seven of which are vacant, closing two educational sites and selling its only residence hall, The Louisville Courier Journal reported.

    The changes come at a rocky time for the university, which was declared the worst company in the city to work for by LEO Weekly, another local news outlet, based on feedback on Glassdoor, a website used for job searches and employer reviews. Sullivan officials subsequently began offering a 1 percent 401(k) match, which officials told the Courier Journal was already planned.

    Sullivan also parted ways with President Tim Swenson, who abruptly resigned last week. The university had placed Swenson on administrative leave just a few days prior. Officials wrote, in an email obtained by the newspaper, that he was placed on leave “to allow time for a review of internal matters and to ensure the process is handled fairly and without disruption.” Sullivan officials did not specify the reason for his departure in a message to employees.

    Kalamazoo College

    The small, private liberal arts college in Michigan laid off 11 staff members due to financial pressures, to enrollment challenges and “an inflationary environment,” MLive reported.

    “This difficult decision was not made lightly, and it is part of a broader effort to ensure the long-term financial stability and sustainability of the institution,” officials said in a statement.

    Xavier University

    A challenging enrollment picture is driving layoffs at the private Catholic university, where officials are also cutting salaries and making other changes, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

    Though the full number of layoffs is unclear, a university spokesperson told the newspaper that the cuts include two jobs in Xavier’s executive cabinet as well as some temporary faculty and staff. University officials noted that no full-time faculty members have been part of the cuts.

    Xavier will also maintain restrictions on nonessential travel.

    Source link

  • Will Trump Try to Ban Immigrants from Public Schools? – The 74

    Will Trump Try to Ban Immigrants from Public Schools? – The 74


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

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    Funding cuts. Raids near campuses. Exclusion from programs like Head Start and career training. For months, the Trump administration has been chipping away at the rights of students without legal status in public schools.

    Could the administration take away those students’ right to free public school entirely? Experts say that may be the next step.

    “People have worried about this for a couple decades, but this is different,” said Patricia Gándara, education professor and co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA. “Right now we have to be extremely vigilant. These people will stop at nothing.”

    A 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Plyler v. Doe, guarantees all students, regardless of immigration status, the right to a free public education in K-12 schools. But last year the conservative Heritage Foundation called for the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling and for states to charge tuition to immigrant families, even if their children are U.S. citizens. The rationale is that schools spend billions of dollars educating those students — money that instead should be spent on students who, along with their parents, are native-born U.S. citizens.

    Project 2025, also published by the Heritage Foundation, echoes that vision.

    Such a policy would have an outsized impact in California, where nearly half of the state’s children have at least one immigrant parent, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

    “This would have tremendous negative impacts,” said Megan Hopkins, chair of the education department at UC San Diego. “For starters, we’d have a less educated, less literate populace, which would affect the economy and nearly every other aspect of life in California.”

    Tuition for noncitizens

    Plyler v. Doe stemmed from a case in Texas in the early 1980s. The state had passed a law allowing schools to charge tuition to students who weren’t citizens. The Tyler Independent School District in Tyler, Texas, a small city about 100 miles southeast of Dallas, was among the districts that tried, triggering a lawsuit that eventually brought the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that children who aren’t citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. Still, the ruling was close — 5 to 4 — even though the court was more liberal than it is today.

    Since then, the ruling has been mostly forgotten. But there have been occasional attempts to restrict immigrants in schools, in California and elsewhere. In 1994 California voters passed Proposition 187, which banned immigrants living illegally in the U.S. from receiving public benefits, including access to public schools. A federal court blocked it before it went into effect.

    In 2011, Alabama passed a law requiring schools to collect students’ immigration status. That law was later blocked by a federal court. In 2022, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he’d favor revisiting Plyler v. Doe and that states should not have to pay to educate students without legal status.

    Since the Heritage Foundation published its report, about a half-dozen states have attempted to pass laws that would allow schools to charge tuition to noncitizens. None passed last year, but advocates said they plan to keep trying.

    Route to Supreme Court

    They’re likely to have a sympathetic supporter in President Donald Trump, who’s so far followed many of the policies put forward by Project 2025. In the past few months, his administration has amped up immigration arrests and said it would no longer honor schools as safe havens from enforcement. It also cut (although later reinstated after states sued) funding for migrant students and barred students without legal status from Head Start, adult education and career and technical education.

    The issue could land before the Supreme Court in at least two ways. A state could pass a law allowing public schools to charge tuition, leading to a lawsuit which could end up before the Supreme Court. Or Trump could issue an executive order that could also trigger a lawsuit.

    Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said some of Trump’s actions, such as barring children without legal status from Head Start, is already a violation of Plyler.

    “There’s no doubt that the Trump administration has increased pressure on Plyler,” Chemerinsky said. “Certainly, what Trump is doing could lead to cases that would get to the Supreme Court. Could this court overturn Plyler? Of course they could. … all it would take is five justices wanting to overrule it.”

    Even if it’s not overturned, the current policy shifts have had a chilling effect on schools and immigrant families, said Hopkins, at UC San Diego. School attendance has dropped in communities experiencing immigration crackdowns, which has caused academic repercussions for some students and widened the achievement gap between Latino students and other groups. A recent report by Policy Analysis for California Education found that Latino students and English learners fared worse in math and English in the wake of immigration arrests in their communities, and reported a significant increase in bullying at school.

    Hopkins also said the policies aren’t especially effective. If the goal is to encourage immigrants to return to their home countries voluntarily, research has shown that doesn’t often happen. After Alabama passed its anti-immigrant law in 2011, many families simply moved to Mississippi.

    ‘Our biggest fear’

    In Monterey County, the new policies have led to widespread fear and confusion among immigrant families, said Monterey County Office of Education Superintendent Deneen Guss. Attendance has dropped not only in schools, but at community events as well.

    To support families, schools have been hosting “Know Your Rights” information nights (in-person and virtually), encouraged parents to submit child care plans to schools in case a parent is arrested, given out booklets in Spanish on how to help children experiencing anxiety, and provided a wide array of legal and other resources.

    But when the Trump administration announced it was barring students without legal status from Head Start, “that gave me pause,” Guss said. “That made me think they really were going after Plyler. That’s our biggest fear.”

    She worries about the impact that would have on families, as well as school staff who would suddenly be responsible for checking students’ citizenship paperwork. Currently, schools don’t ask for students’ immigration status.

    “Educators’ jobs are hard enough,” Guss said. “Our job is to give children the best possible education. Don’t make us become immigration officers. It’s a position we do not want.”

    She’s been urging parents, and the public, to stay informed and speak out. Regardless of whether the Supreme Court overturns Plyler, anti-immigrant policies are almost certain to continue, with devastating consequences for students.

    “You can’t sit back and pretend everything is going to be OK,” Guss said. “People need to ensure their voices are heard. And we have to fight for our kids.”

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


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

    Source link

  • Education Dept. Hears From Public About Higher Ed Overhaul

    Education Dept. Hears From Public About Higher Ed Overhaul

    The Education Department’s yearlong effort to roll out the sweeping higher ed changes signed into law last month kicked off Thursday with a four-hour hearing that highlighted the many tweaks college administrators and others want to see.

    The law, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, capped federal student loans, created new loan-repayment plans, extended the Pell Grant to include short-term workforce programs and instituted a new measure to hold institutions accountable. Now, the department is planning to propose and issue new regulations that spell out how those various changes will work. 

    On nearly all fronts, college administrators, policy experts and students argued that lawmakers left significant gaps in the legislation, and they want a say in how Trump administration officials fill them in. For instance, the legislation doesn’t explain what data will be collected for either workforce Pell or the accountability measure or who will have to take on that task. Some speakers raised concerns about how new reporting requirements could increase administrative burdens for colleges.

    But Nicholas Kent, the department’s newly confirmed under secretary, said at the start of the meeting that he looks forward to clarifying all the details during the lengthy process known as negotiated rule making.

    “Simply put, the current approach to paying for college is unsustainable for both borrowers and for taxpayers,” Kent said. “President Trump has laid out a bold vision, one that aims to disrupt a broken system and return accountability, affordability and quality to postsecondary education that includes reducing the cost of higher education, aligning program offerings with employer needs [and] embracing innovative education models … Today’s public hearing marks a key milestone in our accelerated timeline to implement this sweeping legislative reform.”

    Neither Kent nor other department officials said what specific changes and clarifications are on the table.

    What Is Negotiated Rule Making?

    Negotiated rule making, or “neg-reg,” started in the early 1990s. It entails using an advisory committee to consider and discuss issues with the goal of reaching consensus in developing a proposed rule. Consensus means unanimous agreement among the committee members, unless the group agrees on a different definition. The department must undertake negotiated rule making for any rule related to federal student aid.

    Determining the details of the regulations and policy changes will be left up to two committees of higher education leaders, policy experts and industry representatives that will review and negotiate over the department’s proposals during a series of meetings throughout the fall and into the new year. The first committee is scheduled to begin discussions in September.

    In the meantime, here are three key issues Thursday’s speakers said they hope to see addressed by both the advising panels and department officials before the legislation starts taking effect in July 2026.

    Who’s Making the Decisions?

    Before the public hearing, some higher ed lobbyists and advocates raised concerns about who would be included on the advisory committees. Multiple constituent groups argued they weren’t properly represented on the committees.

    For instance, neither committee includes a representative from the financial aid community, despite the fact that college financial aid administrators will play a key role in implementing the legislation on campuses.

    Multiple groups, including the American Council on Education, drew attention to the absence, but Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, voiced the most concern.

    Financial aid professionals will “interpret, communicate and operationalize the intricate details of this wide-ranging bill for millions of students and families. To exclude their practical, technical experience from the negotiation table risks developing rules that are difficult to administer, creating unintended negative consequences,” she said. “We have heard the perspective that representatives from each college sector can speak to the needs of their institutions. However, their role is to advocate for the broad interests of that sector. That is fundamentally different from representing the profession responsible for the … mechanics of aid delivery.

    A department official who moderated the hearing, responded, “We expect we will have financial aid administrators at the table,” as the department has in the past, but he did not clarify how that would be done. (This paragraph has been corrected.)

    Other speakers called for better representation of civil rights advocates, apprenticeship program leaders and minority-serving institutions, but none of those requests were directly addressed by government officials.

    What Qualifies as a Professional Program?

    Speakers also raised questions about how the new caps to student loans would work and whom they would affect.

    How to Make a Policy, Neg-Reg Edition

    As part of negotiated rule making, the Education Department must:

    1. Put out a public notice about intent to form a committee and hold a public hearing
    2. Publish notice inviting nominations for negotiators
    3. Hold a public hearing
    4. Pick the negotiators
    5. Hold negotiated rule-making sessions
    6. Write the proposed regulations
    7. Publish those regulations for public comment, which lasts at least 30 days
    8. Read and respond to the comments; revise the regulations as needed
    9. Publish the final rule. Rules need to be published by Nov. 1 in order to take effect July 1 of the following year, but the department can implement rules early.

    Congress’s Big Beautiful Bill caps loans for professional degrees at $200,000 and limits loans for graduate programs to half of that. But lawmakers didn’t specify which degree programs fall in which category. Determining how to sort programs will likely be a key point of debate for the rule-making committee, the comments showed.

    Certain programs, like law and medical school, will almost certainly be considered professional programs, but other programs, like master’s degrees in nursing, education or social work, are not guaranteed. Knowing this, a variety of academic association representatives, workforce advocates and college administrators made their case throughout the hearing for why their own discipline should be a professional program.

    Matt Hooper, vice president of communications for the Council on Social Work Education, said to not include certain programs in the professional bucket would mean ignoring their critical nature as a public service.

    Social work graduates “pursue careers in health care, children and family services, criminal justice, public policy, government, and more,” he said. “An M.S.W. provides full professional preparation, similar to a J.D. in law or an M.D. in medicine, and we think it should be categorized in the same respect.”

    A handful of speakers went so far as to argue that certain bachelor’s programs, like aviation or aeronautical science, that are often paired with certification from the Federal Aviation Administration should be grouped into the professional category, as they come at a cost and time commitment similar to graduate school.

    If those programs don’t get the benefit of a higher loan cap, multiple airline advocates said, America could see a steep shortage of pilots within the next two decades.

    “Over the next 15 years, nearly half of our nation’s airline pilots will retire due to mandatory age limits,” said Sharon DeVivo, president of Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology. “The current training pipeline is not equipped to meet that demand, putting at risk the transportation infrastructure, especially the economic health of small and rural communities that depend on reliable air service.”

    Training to become a pilot can cost $80,000 to $100,000 more than a traditional bachelor’s degree, added Carlos Zendejas, vice president of flight operations at the regional airline Horizon Air. So to hold these students to the same loan limit as other undergraduates would deter prospective pilots from pursuing a high-return-on-investment career.

    “The need to stabilize the pilot pipeline is real,” he said. “The One Big Beautiful Bill gives the department the ability to fix this.”

    Should Gainful Go?

    Since the inauguration, Trump officials in all sectors of the federal government have been vocal about combating fraud, waste and abuse. But higher education experts are concerned that one measure in the reconciliation bill could do the opposite.

    The new accountability tool it introduced uses a new earnings test to evaluate colleges’ eligibility for federal student loans. But it does not apply to certificate programs, which some policy and data analysts say are more likely to provide a poor return on investment.

    According to a recent report from the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University, only 1 percent of college programs at the associate level and higher will fail the new earnings test, but about 19 percent of certificate programs would do so.

    Representatives from American as well as New America, Third Way and the Century Foundation, all progressive think tanks, sounded the alarm on the matter at Thursday’s hearing. As a solution, they encouraged the administration to keep an existing accountability policy in place that applies to certificate programs and for-profit institutions. That metric, known as the gainful-employment rule, is not codified in law.

    “A recent publication from the Senate health committee’s chairman, Bill Cassidy, confirms it was not lawmakers’ intent to exempt such programs from any accountability,” said Clare McCann, the PEER Center’s managing director of policy and operations. “So to carry out that intent, the department should maintain a strong gainful-employment program regulation for those programs that should include maintaining the debt-to-earnings tests under the gainful-employment rules, which are an important check on institutions offering unaffordable degrees.”

    Source link

  • A smarter way to manage public dollars

    A smarter way to manage public dollars

    Key points:

    For public school districts across Florida and much of the country, employee benefits–particularly health insurance–are among the largest and fastest-growing budget line items. But too often, decision-makers in these districts manage benefits with incomplete information, little visibility into vendor practices, and limited tools for addressing escalating costs.

    Part of the problem is the complexity of the healthcare delivery system itself. The supply chain encompasses numerous moving parts, making cost drivers challenging to identify. While not intentional, school districts need to both educate and empower their agents and their team of specialists to peel back the layers that create added costs. Districts must also be willing to look inward.

    One of the real secrets to cost containment is transparency. A committed school district that wants to take control of its program must first understand its strengths and weaknesses, then fill gaps with specialists who can uncover hidden costs–an ongoing, vigilant effort that reveals the actual sources of waste and inefficiency. These efforts include transparent procurement and optimizing deal tension, as well as pharmacy contract negotiation, claims repricing, claims redirection, and more. Only then can districts make informed, strategic decisions that control costs and improve outcomes.

    The cost of opaque processes

    The result is a system that too often lacks meaningful transparency. School boards are presented with insurance renewals but not the data behind cost increases, insights into why claims costs are as they are, or guidance on how to contain them. Carriers field calls from district employees, but little to no reporting is returned to help the district understand what’s driving service demand. Without actionable data and intelligence, many districts default to passive renewals, accepting annual rate hikes without a clear strategy to contain costs or improve the employee experience.

    Building a foundation for smart decision‑making

    It doesn’t have to be this way. True transparency–in procurement, data, and intelligence–is not just a matter of regulatory compliance; it’s the foundation for smarter decision-making, better benefits engagement, and long-term cost control. When school districts gain access to previously unavailable data and unfiltered insights into how their benefits programs are performing, they can better serve their educators and protect their budgets.

    One example is call utilization data. Many school boards have no visibility into how often–and why–their employees contact their insurance carriers. Without this insight, they may not realize, for instance, that a large number of calls could pertain to prescription benefit confusion–something they could address through targeted employee education or plan redesign. Transparency in that data enables the district to act rather than react. It transforms benefits management from a cycle of guesswork into a proactive strategy, where decisions are driven by real needs rather than assumptions.

    Beyond call utilization, pharmacy and provider network fees can quietly escalate into six- or seven-figure losses if not monitored. Pharmacy contracts in particular demand negotiation by seasoned experts who understand the contractual nuances and levers that drive real savings. Ideally, a benefits partner will have a pharmacy benefits consultant or Doctor of Pharmacy on staff to review contracts and formularies line by line. Likewise, provider network claims and therapies must be benchmarked against competitive pricing. Transparency in these areas unleashes competition, and competition drives costs down.

    Operationalizing and incentivizing transparency leads to cost containment

    When a school district commits to operationalizing and incentivizing transparency, it can start to regain control of its costs. This process begins with examining the bigger picture of why and how the health-delivery supply chain can be leveraged or disintermediated to produce better outcomes. District leaders realize they have the power to effect change. Superintendents, HR, and finance departments can work in unison to embed transparency by empowering and incentivizing their benefits consultants to focus on solutions that reduce the district’s costs. This includes aligning agent compensation models with the district’s cost-containment roadmap.

    Equally important is how this transparency gets operationalized. Most small- to mid-sized school districts don’t have the staff or resources to analyze claims trends, facilitate wellness programs, or manage a complex benefits ecosystem. That’s why some are turning to outside partners to act as an extension of their internal team–not just as benefits brokers but as collaborative advisors who help design, implement, and maintain smarter benefits strategies. The difference is night and day: Instead of a transactional approach focused solely on renewals, these partners bring a year-round, data-driven mindset to benefits administration.

    Reclaiming control through radical transparency

    Ultimately, it’s about control. For too long, many public entities have ceded control of their benefits strategy to intermediaries operating behind closed doors. Radical transparency flips the script. It empowers school districts to take ownership of their benefits programs to lower costs and improve outcomes for the people they serve.

    That change doesn’t happen overnight. It starts with asking better questions:

    • Do we receive actionable data on employee engagement and utilization, and are we using it to drive measurable change?
    • Is our procurement process fully competitive and transparent, or are outdated practices perpetuating the status quo?
    • Do we have the tools and thought leadership from our broker to act on these insights?
    • Is our broker delivering transparent, cost-containment strategies, and are those solutions proven to reduce expense?
    • Are we empowered by a partnership structured around ROI?
    • Are we incentivizing our broker and vendor partners to prioritize ROI, transparency and ongoing savings?
    • Is our internal team contributing to transparency, data analysis and ROI? If not, what organizational changes are needed?

    The answers may be uncomfortable, but they’re necessary for reclaiming control. And in today’s fiscal climate, where every dollar matters and expectations for good governance are higher than ever, doing what’s always been done is no longer good enough.

    Transparency is more than a buzzword. It’s a path to fiscal responsibility, employee trust, and strategic clarity. And for public school districts facing mounting healthcare costs, it may be the smartest investment they can make.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Don’t Wait for Permission to Write for the Public

    Don’t Wait for Permission to Write for the Public

    Welcome to the first installment of my monthly column, “The Public Scholar,” in which I invite academics and other experts to step forward—thoughtfully, clearly and with purpose—to help shape public conversations that matter. In this space, I’ll offer practical, field-tested strategies for turning academic expertise into public impact, including how to know if an idea is op-ed–worthy, how to turn a classroom anecdote into publishable prose, how to know when it’s time to query a literary agent about your book idea and more.

    I’m Susan D’Agostino, a mathematician whose stories have been published in The Atlantic, the BBC, Scientific American, The Washington Post, The Financial Times, Wired, Quanta and other leading publications. (You may recall that I wrote with some frequency about math and technology for Inside Higher Ed a couple of years ago.) My last book, How to Free Your Inner Mathematician (Oxford University Press, 2020), won the Mathematical Association of America’s Euler Book Prize for an exceptionally well-written book with a positive impact on the public’s view of math. My next book, How Math Will Save Your Life, to be published by W. W. Norton, makes the case for harnessing mathematical thinking in the face of personal and global crises.

    But none of that came easily or automatically. A decade ago, I was a tenured mathematics professor who had spent years honing proofs and lectures. Yet amid lagging public math literacy, I felt an unshakable urge to reach beyond the walls of academia and write for the public. Still, I hesitated. Was my voice or expertise welcome outside of peer-reviewed journals? Did I have the authority to write for readers I could not picture in a seminar room? Did I even know how?

    That transition—from academic to public scholar—was bumpy. I made mistakes. I received more rejections than I care to count. (Stay tuned for a future column about all those rejections!) I had to unlearn some academic habits and relearn how to communicate with clarity for broad audiences. But step by step, I found my way.

    You don’t need to leave higher ed to write for the public. And you certainly don’t need permission. Academia often trains scholars to seek approval—through grants, press offices and peer-reviewed publications. But the reality is that institutional support often follows after a scholar gains visibility. You already have the credentials to write for the public in your area of expertise. Now you need the courage and practical tips for doing so.

    Maybe you’re a historian who sees how your field illuminates today’s political divides. Or a scientist concerned about climate change, misinformation or public health. Or an artist reflecting on what the arts can—and do—offer society. Or a literary scholar exploring how stories shape our moral imaginations. Or an educator with hard-won insights into what learning looks like in today’s classrooms. If you feel the tug to engage beyond campus gates, this column is for you.

    Many academics assume that public writing takes time away from scholarship. But making your work accessible to a wide audience forces you to think harder, not less. How can you distill the central argument of your research so that an intelligent friend with no training in your field can understand? Why should they care? Honing translation skills is an art. Your goal is to show up with clarity and generosity.

    As a bonus, crafting the occasional op-ed can energize your research and teaching—not distract from it. You can clarify your ideas and receive real-time feedback on your argument and may even attract collaborators. Public writing can also be personally restorative. It reconnects you with the real-world questions that made you fall for your field. Your op-ed may even catch the eye of a literary agent or editor who’s interested in discussing book ideas. Also, your willingness to be a novice again may offer credibility among students, as that’s what many are wrestling with in your classroom.

    When I began writing in public-facing newspapers and magazines, I felt newly connected to issues that mattered beyond academia. While campus conversations are vital and intellectually rich, I found that engaging the broader public offered a different kind of clarity and urgency—to respond to a moment unfolding in real time and to make research relevant to people’s lives.

    Scholars across disciplines have watched with rising unease as the Trump administration has terminated research grants, dismissed government scientists without cause and wielded funding as a cudgel against universities. In this atmosphere, it can be tempting to self-censor or to wait for more hospitable times.

    But the cost of silence must be weighed against the consequences of inaction. Public conversations—about health care, history, science, democracy, libraries, public art and education—unfold every day, with or without scholars who can offer nuance, evidence and context.

    “Opinions are most malleable before they are fully formed,” wrote Lisa Fazio, a psychology professor at Vanderbilt whose federal grant for misinformation research was terminated. “We must not shy away from the spotlight.”

    Fazio’s warning is especially resonant now, as academics face mounting pressure from funding threats to political scrutiny. These pressures are real, and they are unevenly distributed. As University of Washington computer scientist Kate Starbird, also a target for her work on misinformation, told Science magazine, “I never had the option of keeping my head down.”

    And yet: Sharing knowledge, humanizing data and contextualizing history are profound acts of public service in consequential times. The OpEd Project puts it plainly: “If you say things of consequence, there may be consequences. The alternative is to be inconsequential.”

    Here’s some good news: Editors at newspapers and magazines want academic voices in the mix, and they’re often willing collaborators in helping your ideas rise above the noise. Editors want assurance that you are trained in your area of expertise, but they are less concerned with titles or tenure than your academic colleagues. Whether you’re a graduate student, an adjunct, new on the tenure track or a full professor, what matters is your voice, your argument and your ability to meet the moment.

    Ready to begin? Here are a few prompts to spark your first (or next) op-ed:

    • What’s one thing people misunderstand about your field, and why does it matter?
    • What recent news headline made you think, “If only they understood this about my field …?”
    • What conversation is already happening in the news, online or in your community that your research can help reframe, complicate or clarify?
    • What’s one counterintuitive idea from your work that could shift how people think?
    • Has your research or teaching ever changed how you see the world, and could it do the same for others?
    • Where is your field falling short in meeting a public need, and what would it take to change that?

    You don’t need to have all the answers. Often, a strong op-ed starts with one sharp insight, thoughtfully delivered and timed to the news cycle.

    Try drafting a few notes in your phone during your commute, between classes or even while multitasking in that faculty meeting (I won’t tell). Write as if you’re talking to a smart, curious friend. Make it clear, specific and real. Proofread like your reputation depends on it, because for the editor you’re pitching, it does. Make it short, too! Aim for 800 words max.

    And if you’d like more help along the way, sign up for my monthly newsletter. You’ll get notice of each new article in “The Public Scholar,” practical writing tips, behind-the-scenes insights from my work and inspiration from other academics finding their voice in public spaces. Your expertise is hard-won. What might happen if you shared what you know more broadly?

    Susan D’Agostino is a mathematician whose stories have been published in The Atlantic, the BBC, Scientific American, The Washington Post, Wired, The Financial Times, Quanta and other leading publications. Her last book, How to Free Your Inner Mathematician (Oxford University Press, 2020) won the Mathematical Association of America’s Euler Book Prize for an exceptionally well-written book with a positive impact on the public’s view of math. Her next book, How Math Will Save Your Life, will be published by W. W. Norton. She has been a journalism fellow at Oxford University’s Reuters Institute, Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and the Mila-Quebec AI Institute. For notice of each new article in Susan’s Inside Higher Ed column, “The Public Scholar,” practical writing tips, behind-the-scenes insights from her work and inspiration from other academics finding their voice in public spaces, sign up for her free, monthly newsletter here.

    Source link

  • Sanders Introduces Bill Requiring $60,000 Minimum Salary for All Public School Teachers

    Sanders Introduces Bill Requiring $60,000 Minimum Salary for All Public School Teachers

    Senator Bernie SandersSenator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation last Thursday requiring all public school teachers to earn at least $60,000 annually, calling America’s teacher pay crisis a “national emergency” during a Capitol Hill town hall with more than 200 educators.

    The Pay Teachers Act, co-sponsored by eight Democratic senators including Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, would establish the first federal mandate for teacher salaries and represents the most ambitious federal intervention in educator compensation in decades.

    “Just four hedge fund managers on Wall Street make more money in a single year than every kindergarten teacher in America combined—over 120,000 teachers,” Sanders said. “No public school teacher in America should make less than $60,000 a year.”

    The legislation comes as schools nationwide face unprecedented staffing shortages, with nearly 200,000 teaching positions either vacant or filled by underqualified educators. According to the bill’s findings, 38% of teachers nationwide earn less than $60,000 annually, with starting teachers averaging $44,530.

    Maria Gonzalez, a third-grade teacher from Arizona who testified at the town hall, said she drives for Uber on weekends and tutors after school to pay rent. 

    “My students ask why I look tired. How do I tell them their teacher can’t afford to live in the community where she teaches?”

    The crisis extends beyond low pay. Twenty-one percent of elementary and middle school teachers’ families rely on public assistance programs including Medicaid, food stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, according to a University of California, Berkeley study cited in the legislation. Additionally, 44% of public school teachers quit within five years, and 17% worked multiple jobs during the 2020-2021 school year.

    The comprehensive bill would cost approximately $400 billion over five years, funded through mandatory appropriations. Beyond the $60,000 minimum salary requirement, the legislation would triple Title I funding, provide teachers with at least $1,000 annually for classroom supplies, and mandate that paraprofessionals and education support staff earn at least $45,000 annually or $30 per hour.

    States would have four years to implement the salary requirements, with extended timelines available for states demonstrating substantial financial need. The bill also includes $50 billion annually for career ladder programs allowing teachers to advance without leaving the classroom.

    The teacher shortage disproportionately affects schools serving students of color and low-income communities, which are four times more likely to employ uncertified teachers than schools with low minority enrollment, according to federal civil rights data cited in the legislation.

    James Williams, a high school mathematics teacher from North Carolina, told the town hall that his salary purchased “a decent life” 15 years ago but now forces him to choose between car repairs and classroom supplies.

    The legislation faces significant political obstacles with Republicans controlling the House. GOP lawmakers have criticized the massive federal spending, while some education policy experts question federal involvement in traditionally state and local compensation decisions.

    Major education unions endorsed the proposal. American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten called it “a crucial federal investment to help sustain the teaching profession,” while National Education Association Vice President Princess Moss praised it as legislation that “invests in our students, educators, and public schools.”

    Sanders criticized recent Republican legislation that he said provides “$900 billion in tax cuts to large, profitable corporations and a $1 trillion tax cut to the top 1%” while cutting over $300 billion in education funding. The Trump administration is also withholding nearly $5.5 billion in congressionally appropriated education funding, according to Sanders and his colleagues.

    “If we can provide over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1% and large corporations, please don’t tell me that we cannot afford to make sure that every teacher in America is paid at least $60,000 a year,” Sanders said.

     

     

    Source link

  • Judge pauses Mississippi’s DEI ban at public colleges and schools

    Judge pauses Mississippi’s DEI ban at public colleges and schools

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked enforcement of major parts of a new Mississippi law that bars diversity, equity and inclusion in the state’s public colleges and K-12 schools. 
    • The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi and other organizations filed a lawsuit in June on behalf of students and educators, arguing the new law imposes the state government’s views on race, gender and sexuality on public colleges and schools and censors opposing views. 
    • In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate pointed to accounts of educators having their programs shut down or censoring their own speech to ensure they don’t run afoul of the law. The accounts signal “possible widespread suppression of speech, programming, and institutional function,” Wingate wrote. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Educator and student groups sued over the law just two months after it took effect in April, arguing the legislation violates their First Amendment right to free speech and is unconstitutionally vague. 

    “It is difficult for administrators, teachers, and students to distinguish prohibited actions from permissible ones, making the law particularly susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” the lawsuit said. 

    One contested aspect of the law is a provision that bans public colleges and K-12 schools from either engaging in or requiring diversity training, which it defines as any formal or informal education meant to increase “awareness or understanding of issues related to race, sex, color, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or national origin.” 

    This edict applies to both elective or required courses, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs warn of dire consequences from the legislation, arguing its provisions would prohibit constitutional law professors from discussing discrimination and history teachers from teaching about the Civil War and slavery. 

    Under the bill, colleges and K-12 schools also can’t “engage in” eight “divisive concepts” — a provision the lawsuit calls “extremely broad.” One divisive concept, for instance, is that an individual “by virtue of his or her race, sex, color, national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” 

    The lawsuit argues that could block discussions of implicit bias in sociology, psychology and other classes.

    Public colleges and K-12 schools that don’t follow the law face a steep penalty if they rack up two violations — the potential loss of state funding. Colleges and schools must “cure” their violations to avoid this punishment, though the legislation doesn’t explain how that can be accomplished, sparking concerns that educators will be fired and students will be expelled, according to the lawsuit. 

    The legislation also carves out exceptions for “scholarly research or creative work” by students and employees. But the lawsuit argues those carve-outs are unclear and raise questions about whether students could discuss work on one of the banned concepts during class. 

    “Like other provisions of the act, this exception is vague and further confuses what is and what is not prohibited by the law,” the plaintiffs argued. 

    The defendants include Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, as well as the chairs of the state community college system’s coordinating board and education board, among others. They filed a motion to dismiss earlier this month, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and that the attorney general was shielded by sovereign immunity. 

    However, Wingate wrote that U.S. Supreme Court precedent allows plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief against state officials to prevent constitutional violations.

    The temporary restraining order is in effect until further court order. Wingate is holding a hearing Wednesday over whether to grant a preliminary injunction, which would last until he issues a final ruling on the case. 

    In his ruling, the judge pointed to accounts from educators and students. One plaintiff, a librarian at Hinds Community College, expressed uncertainty about whether she can recommend books on race, gender or identity or curate material for events like Black History Month. 

    And the director of student development at Tougaloo College said she has suspended programs meant to support LGBTQ+ students out of concern that discussion of gender identity could risk her institution’s funding.

    Since the law took effect in April, institutions have been attempting to follow the legislation, often “erring on the side of caution” by canceling programming that could now be prohibited, Wingate noted. 

    “This Court finds that each day the statute remains unclarified, undefined, and under a threat of open interpretation, exacerbates the suppression of protected speech,” Wingate wrote.

    Source link

  • Energy Department delays multiple rules after public pushback

    Energy Department delays multiple rules after public pushback

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

    The U.S. Department of Energy delayed implementation of multiple rules that it had quietly set to go into effect this week for colleges and schools that receive funding from the agency. The move comes in response to public pushback to proposed policy changes.

    The department said it was extending the effective dates for several direct final rules from July 15 to Sept. 12, 2025. The proposals would have undone some student protections related to sex discrimination under Title IX, disability discrimination under Section 504, and racial discrimination under Title VI. 

    One direct final rule, for example, would have no longer required schools to offer girls tryouts for boys’ teams in noncontact sports if the school didn’t have an equivalent girls’ team. Another would have removed protections allowing gender-conscious after-school programs or college initiatives to provide women and girls opportunities they have historically been denied, such as in STEM fields or in technical training.   

    Had the public not responded to the direct final rules with “significant adverse comments,” the rules would have undone such protections within a 30-day period — a much shorter timeline than the typical rulemaking process, which requires federal agencies to consider public feedback and make changes to their policy proposals accordingly. 

    The Trump administration’s decision to undo civil rights protections for students using expedited rulemaking — a process usually reserved for rules agencies expect to be uncontroversial — alarmed many civil rights organizations.

    Kel O’Hara, senior attorney for policy and education equity at Equal Rights Advocate, called the move a “backdoor elimination of student protections.”

    “The Trump Administration tried to exploit an obscure regulatory loophole meant only for minor administrative updates to gut fundamental protections for female athletes and transgender students,” O’Hara said in a Wednesday statement.

    Typical rulemaking would require a public notice and comment period, and a second version of the rule that takes into consideration changes based on public feedback. That process also gives school districts more time to prepare for policy changes. 

    The rules were also atypical in that they were released by the Energy Department rather than the U.S. Department of Education — meaning only schools receiving Energy Department funding would have been impacted by this set of changes. The Energy Department gave 28 schools just over $160 million in fiscal year 2025, and provides over $2.5 billion annually to more than 300 colleges and universities to fund research.

    However, had significant adverse comments not been received and delayed these rules’ implementation, and had the Energy Department been successful in its approach, the administration could have replicated the expedited method through other federal agencies to set education policies in many more schools, education policy experts predicted. 

    “This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University, when the direct final rules were announced. “Basically every single school, in practically every single school district, has some grants from one of the many agencies in the federal government.” 

    Most schools receive K-12 funding from multiple agencies, such as the Energy Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

    Because of the opposition to the rules, the Energy Department must now either withdraw them entirely or issue new final rules by September 12 that take the comments into account. 

    The Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

    Source link

  • How Portland Public Schools can afford to offer high-impact tutoring

    How Portland Public Schools can afford to offer high-impact tutoring

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

    SEATTLE — In 2024, nearly half — 48% — of Oregon’s 4th graders scored below basic in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. 

    Not only is that 7 percentage points worse than the national average, but 48% represented a significant jump from pre-pandemic levels in 2019, when 36% of Oregon’s 4th graders tested below basic for reading. 

    The state’s latest reading scores are “disgraceful” and “unacceptable,” said Darcy Soto, director of learning acceleration at Portland Public Schools.

    But unlike for the state at large, the Portland district has seen an increase — albeit a slight one of 1% — in reading scores since the pandemic, said Karla Hudson, program administrator for the district’s learning acceleration team. Still, Portland’s progress has been slow and incremental, she said, and less than 60% of the district’s students are proficient in reading.

    “We have a lot of work to do,” Hudson said, which is why the 43,500-student district has zeroed in on providing high-impact tutoring.

    Joined by Stanford University’s Nancy Waymack, Soto and Hudson shared what Portland has learned from its efforts during a July 12 session at UNITED, the National Conference on School Leadership.

    High-impact tutoring is a data-driven service that is embedded into the school day and uses consistent, well-supported tutors, said Waymack, director of research, partnerships and policy for Stanford University’s National Student Support Accelerator. The tutors use high-quality instructional materials and hold sessions at least three times a week in small groups of no more than four students, she said. 

    While teachers can be successful tutors, Waymack said, so too can community members like college students and retirees. Regardless, it’s important that students be able to build a relationship with their tutors, she said. 

    Data also plays a valuable role in tracking student progress throughout the tutoring, Waymack said. When tutoring occurs during school hours or shortly before or after class time, she said, research shows students are far more likely to attend sessions. 

    Years in the making

    Portland began its early literacy tutoring program through a small after-school pilot initiative in 2021-22 at a few elementary schools for students in grades 3-5, said Soto. The pilot started to show “some really great outcomes,” she said, allowing the district to expand the program from 6 to 20 schools by the 2022-23 school year.

    During those first two years, teachers were trained on the curriculum and paid for extended hours to tutor after school and. While that approach did improve students’ reading skills, Soto said, “it was very expensive” given teacher pay and the small student group size. This made the pilot difficult to scale to other schools.

    As the tutoring program continued into the 2023-24 school year, the district began shifting to a more cost-effective model — especially as federal pandemic relief funds were sunsetting, Soto said. 

    By the 2024-25 school year, Soto said, the district used some of its last remaining Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funds to partner with the Oregon Department of Education and Oregon State University to develop a free K-3 tutoring curriculum aligned with structured literacy instruction. 

    After successfully piloting the new curriculum in summer 2024, the district launched a $1.2 million program across 50 of its 58 elementary schools to serve over 1,200 students in 2024-25, Soto said. The program hired 152 tutors — mostly paraprofessionals — and was embedded during school hours during 30-minute blocks that didn’t interfere with core instruction. 

    Source link