Tag: Report

  • Day 100! Abridging the First Amendment: Zick releases major resource report on Trump’s executive orders — First Amendment News 468 

    Day 100! Abridging the First Amendment: Zick releases major resource report on Trump’s executive orders — First Amendment News 468 

    “Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end. America must have one tier of justice for all.” — Pamela Bondi (confirmation hearing for U.S. attorney general, Jan. 15, 2025)

    “After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, inaugural address)

    “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, executive order)

    So many lies, so many orders, so much suppression. The “flood” of free expression abridgments continues to be dizzying and depressing. 

    Unprecedented! That is the word for this new form of silencing that is spreading like a deadly cancer.

    The rules of the past cease to be honored. Retribution has replaced righteousness. Fear triumphs over courage. A one-party-led Congress has abdicated its authority. Judicial review is derided. And our system of justice as constituted is unable to adequately address the wrongs perpetuated by an authoritarian figure aided by his confederates. A blitzkrieg takeover of the federal government seeks to vest unchecked power in the Executive while normalizing suppression on the vile pretense of advancing free speech and equality — a page right out of Orwell’s “1984.”

    In some respects, we are witnessing what constitutes a threat perhaps as great as the Sedition Act of 1798, the Civil War actions taken by Lincoln, and the World War I, Cold War, and Vietnam War abridgments of free speech. Nonetheless, the number and frequency of such abridgments make it difficult to comprehend the cumulative gravity of this threat to our First Amendment freedoms.

    Within the Trump administration’s first 100 days, the government has ushered in a new era of direct and indirect suppression of speech. Meanwhile, cases are being litigated, individuals and institutions are being silenced, books banned, “settlements” coerced, scientific research squelched, history erased, while lower court rulings struggle to be relevant. And all of this, in its many forms, has occurred in the absence of any near-final resolution by the Supreme Court, as if that too might be slighted someday soon.

    We are beyond any “there are evils on both sides” mentality, much as we were beyond it in 1798. Recall that while John Adams, the lawyer, championed free speech in his writings, he later backed the Alien and Sedition Acts as “the Federalist” president. 

    Calling out tyranny is not partisan; it is American! And yet, many are relatively detached, silent, and clueless.

    Trump’s “flood the zone” tactics have taxed the American mind to such an extent that few can barely, if at all, remember yesterday’s free speech abridgments let alone those of last week or last month. The result: who remembers all of the trees leveled not to mention any big picture of the forest devastated in the process? What to do?

    Enter “First Amendment Watch” and the Zick Resource Report 

    Thanks to Professor Stephen Solomon and Susanna Granieri over at First Amendment Watch (FAW), there is a meaningful way to begin to get a conceptual hold on what has occurred within the first 100 days of the Trump administration and its attacks on free speech.

    Happily, FAW today released what is surely the most important First Amendment resource documenting the numerous First Amendment abridgments committed by the Trump administration within its first 100 days. This invaluable resource was prepared by Professor Timothy Zick. 

    Professor Timothy Zick

    Though the full resource repository is available over at FAW, its table of contents is reproduced below:

    Introduction by Timothy Zick

    I. First Amendment-Related Executive Orders and Memoranda 

    A. Freedom of Speech and Censorship
    B. Foreign Terrorism and National Security
    C. Law Firms
    D. Retribution Against Former Government Officials
    E. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
    F. Gender and Gender Identity
    G. K-12 Education
    H. Museums, Libraries, and Public Broadcasting
    I. Political Donations
    J. University Accreditors 

    II. First Amendment-Related Litigation

    A. Lawsuits Challenging Executive Orders, Guidance, and Policies

    1. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    2. Immigration 
    3. Educational Funding
    4. Law Firms
    5. Gender and Gender Identity
    6. Data and Scientific Inquiry
    7. Libraries and Museums
    8. Public Broadcasting

    B. Retaliatory Dismissal and Other Employment Lawsuits
    C. Lawsuits Filed by Media and Journalists
    D. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits Filed By Donald Trump

    III. Commentary and Analysis

    A. Actions Against the Press and Journalists
    B. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits
    C. Broadcast Media
    D. Social Media
    E. Education 

    1. DEI Programming and Initiatives
    2. Antisemitism Investigations and Demands
    3. Academic Freedom
    4. K-12 Curriculum

    F. Immigration Enforcement 

    1. International Students
    2. Foreign Scholars
    3. Immigration Activism

    G. Public Employees
    H. Private Sector

    1. Law Firms
    2. Individual Critics and Enemies

    I. Transparency, Data, and Information

    1. Data, Information, and Scientific Research
    2. Museums and Libraries
    3. Public Broadcasting
    4. Misinformation and Disinformation
    5. “DOGE” and Transparency

    J. Grants and Funding
    K. Protests and Demonstrations

    1. Campus Protests
    2. Public Protests

    L. Governmental Orthodoxy

    1. Race and DEI
    2. Gender and Gender Identity
    3. History and Patriotism

    M. Retribution and Chilling Speech
    N. Investigations
    O. The Bigger Picture
    P. Tracking All Trump 2.0 Lawsuit

    Related

    Coming Next Week

    The next installment of Professor Timothy Zick’s ongoing posts is titled
    “Executive Orders and Official Orthodoxies.”

    Justice Department to go after reporters’ records in government leak cases

    Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Pamela Bondi for Attorney General

    Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Pamela Bondi for Attorney General on Jan. 15, 2025. (Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com)

    The Justice Department is cracking down on leaks of information to the news media, with Attorney General Pam Bondi saying prosecutors will once again have authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.

    New regulations announced by Bondi in a memo to the staff obtained by The Associated Press on Friday rescind a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

    The new regulations assert that news organizations must respond to subpoenas “when authorized at the appropriate level of the Department of Justice” and also allow for prosecutors to use court orders and search warrants to “compel production of information and testimony by and relating to the news media.”

    The memo says members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo states.

    Former FCC Chairs attack FCC’s attack on First Amendment principles

    Mobile phone with seal of US agency Federal Communications Commission FCC on screen in front of web page

    (T. Schneider / Shutterstock.com)

    As former chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — one appointed by a Democrat, the other by a Republican — we have seen firsthand how the agency operates when it is guided by its mission to uphold the public interest. But in just over two months, President Donald Trump and his handpicked FCC Chair Brendan Carr have upended 90 years of precedent and congressional mandates to transform the agency into a blatantly partisan tool. Instead of acting as an independent regulator, the agency is being weaponized for political retribution under the guise of protecting the First Amendment.

    Their actions fall into two categories. First, the president used executive orders (EOs) to strip the agency of its independence, making it subservient to the White House. Second, the chairman has exploited the commission’s powers to undermine the very First Amendment rights it is supposed to uphold.

    Mchangama on the ‘New McCarthyism’

    Jacob Mchangama in 2024

    Jacob Mchangama

    Despite being Danish, I’ve always found America’s civil-libertarian free speech tradition more appealing than the Old World’s model, with its vague terms and conditions. For much of my career, I’ve been evangelizing a First Amendment approach to free speech to skeptical Europeans and doubtful Americans, who are often tempted by laws banning “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “disinformation.” That appreciation for the First Amendment is something I share with many foreigners — Germans, Iranians, Russians — who now call America home.

    [ . . . ]

    It’s now clear that the government is targeting noncitizens for ideas and speech protected by the First Amendment. The most worrying example (so far) is a Turkish student at Tufts University, apparently targeted for co-authoring a student op-ed calling for, among other things, Tufts to divest from companies with ties to Israel. One report estimates that nearly 300 students from universities across the country have had their visas revoked so far.

    Instead of correcting this overreach, the government has doubled down. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently announced that it would begin screening the social media posts of aliens “whose posts indicate support for antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity.” Shortly after, the X account of USCIS posted about a “robust social media vetting program” and warned: “EVERYONE should be on notice. If you’re a guest in our country — act like it.” And four days later, White House homeland security adviser Stephen Miller promised to deport “anyone who preaches hate for America.” What that means is anybody’s guess — and seems to depend entirely on subjective assessments.

    [ . . . ]

    Had America been known for deporting, rather than welcoming, dissent, I would never have made it my home. That might not have been much of a loss. But consider this: 35 percent of U.S.-affiliated academic Nobel laureates are immigrants, and nearly half of all American unicorn startups have founders born outside the country. How many of these brilliant minds would have chosen the United States if they risked exile for crossing the speech red lines of the moment?

    As a European who owes my freedom in life thus far to the America that fought Nazism and defeated communism, I feel a responsibility to speak out when this country strays from its founding ideals. I came to America for its freedom, not just to enjoy it, but to defend it — even if that puts me at risk.

    Related

    New scholarly article on commencement speaker provocateurs

    This Article explores an untheorized area of First Amendment doctrine: students’ graduation speeches at public universities or private universities that embrace free speech principles, either by state statute, state constitutional law, or internal policy. Responding to recent graduation speech controversies, it develops a two-tier theory that reconciles a multiplicity of values, including students’ expressive interests, universities’ institutional interests in curating commencement ceremonies and preventing reputational damage, and the interests of captive audiences in avoiding speech they deem offensive or profane. 

    The Article challenges the prevailing view that university students’ graduation speeches implicate individual First Amendment rights. It develops a site-specific understanding of the ritualistic sociology of the university commencement speech, which the Article argues is firmly within the managerial purview of the university. But it also argues that heavy-handed administrative regulation of student graduation speeches has the potential to undermine the academic freedom of students and professors.

    Reflecting on the history of the university commencement speech in the American intellectual tradition, it urges university administrators to exercise their authority to regulate speeches through transparent standards, a longitudinal view, and collaborative negotiation with student speakers.

    It concludes by discussing the conceptual dangers of turning the First Amendment into a metonym for every instance of speech abridgment within a managerial sphere.

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: Rabban and Chemerinsky on academic freedom


    Our guests today signed onto a statement by a group of 18 law professors who opposed the Trump administration’s funding threats at Columbia on free speech and academic freedom grounds.

    Since then, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, and nearly 60 other colleges and universities are under investigation with their funding hanging in the balance, allegedly for violations of civil rights law.

    To help us understand the funding threats, Harvard’s recent lawsuit against the federal government, and where universities go from here are:

    • David Rabban — distinguished teaching professor at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
    • Erwin Chemerinsky — distinguished professor of law and dean at UC Berkeley Law.

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (9-0: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Emergency Applications

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 467: “Thankfully: Larry David mocks Bill Maher”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • AAUP Report Backs Tenured Pro-Palestine Prof. Who Was Fired

    AAUP Report Backs Tenured Pro-Palestine Prof. Who Was Fired

    A new American Association of University Professors investigative report concludes that Muhlenberg College violated the academic freedom of a tenured associate professor who said the institution fired her for pro-Palestinian speech.

    Maura Finkelstein’s situation made headlines last year as the first instance that major academic freedom advocacy groups had heard about of a tenured faculty member being fired for pro-Palestine or pro-Israel statements. Complaints against Finkelstein also became the subject of a U.S. Education Department Office for Civil Rights investigation.

    Finkelstein previously said she was fighting her May 2024 termination and was continuing to be paid during the appeals. But a college spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed this week that Finkelstein has now “resigned from the college to pursue other scholarship opportunities.” Finkelstein didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment.

    Finkelstein, who is Jewish, had said a panel of faculty and staff recommended axing her over her Instagram repost that told readers not to “normalize Zionists taking up space” and called Zionists “genocide-loving fascists” who shouldn’t be welcome “in your spaces.”

    Members of the college’s Faculty Personnel and Policies Committee later unanimously concluded that Finkelstein shouldn’t be fired, according to the AAUP report released Tuesday. The report is from a Committee of Inquiry composed of three faculty from other higher education institutions, and it’s been approved by the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

    The report concludes, among other things, that “by initially dismissing Professor Finkelstein from the faculty solely because of one anti-Zionist repost on Instagram and without demonstrating—in fact, without ever seeking to demonstrate” that she was professionally unfit, “the Muhlenberg administration violated Professor Finkelstein’s academic freedom of extramural speech.” The report says the firing has “severely impaired the climate for academic freedom” at the college.

    A college spokesperson said the institution “has not been afforded the opportunity to review the amended report,” but pointed to the administration’s response to an earlier AAUP draft. That response, included in the final AAUP report, says Finkelstein “was afforded a fair and equitable process” and that “the cumulative effect of Professor Finkelstein’s conduct and post that called for the shaming of Zionists and to ‘not welcome them into your spaces,’ violated College policy.”

    Source link

  • Thinking about the support of Chinese students: a response to HEPI’s recent report

    Thinking about the support of Chinese students: a response to HEPI’s recent report

    In December 2024, HEPI and Uoffer Global published How can UK universities improve their strategies for tackling integration challenges among Chinese students? by Pippa Ebel. In this blog, academics at the Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester give their thoughts on the report. Beneath that, Pippa Ebel has provided her response.

    • By Dr Paul Vincent Smith, Lecturer in Education; Dr Alex Baratta, Reader in Language & Education; Dr Heather Cockayne, Lecturer in International Education; and Dr Rui He, Lecturer in Education, who are all at the Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester.

    The HEPI and Uoffer Global report How can UK universities improve their strategies for tackling integration challenges among Chinese students?, by Pippa Ebel, provides a series of ideas for supporting Chinese students. This clear and succinct report left us wanting more detail on some of its conclusions. However, we also noted that the report’s focus on integration is one that has been problematised in recent publications. In this response, we suggest some contrasting perspectives on the support of Chinese students for the purposes of further discussion.

    Generalising along national lines

    The framing of the report along the lines of national identity unavoidably makes for a broad-brush approach. We suspect Ebel would agree with us when we suggest that we cannot assume Chinese students will have uniform ambitions and desires. Although the structural conditions under which students are recruited must be taken into account (see ‘Admissions’ below), there is an increasing recognition of students as independent agents, capable of making their own choices, rather than being passive vessels of their national culture.

    Further, there are other student characteristics to bear in mind. For example, we suggest that the distinction between undergraduate and postgraduate student experiences should be reflected in how students are offered support. At the University of Manchester, international students comprise around one-third of the student body; at the taught postgraduate level, it is more than half. Many of these are students from China. When considering educational level alone, then, there are likely to be differences between students who will spend three years in a setting of student diversity, and those who will spend a calendar year in the UK, predominantly among compatriots.  

    What do students really need universities to do?

    The report suggests that ‘Most Chinese students would like more digital support from their institutions’ (p. 41), with the report tending to focus on social media. Yet (p. 27) 60% of Chinese learners are nonetheless described as using Whatsapp and Instagram; they simply have a preference for the continued use of equivalent Chinese platforms.

    We infer from the report the idea that Chinese students are missing out by not using ‘our’ platforms. It is suggested (p. 41) that Chinese students could be involved in marketing decisions on whether to use Western or Chinese platforms for social media messaging. This would have the advantage of directly involving Chinese students. It begs the question, though, of whether time is better spent on choosing the best platform for a given purpose, or on establishing a broad social media presence to maximise coverage.

    Our experience suggests that students find their domestic digital ecosystem enabling in a UK context. It also suggests that there might be some question of validity when it comes to the report findings. Is this a case of higher education researchers asking: ‘Would you like more support?’, and the students understandably answering ‘yes’?

    Admissions to UK universities

    The report has much to say on how Chinese students are admitted to UK universities. The ‘ethnic clustering’ addressed in the report is an index of how the university sector is organised and how universities generate income. Several of UK universities recruit thousands of Chinese students annually. It is well documented that many students will base their choices on university standings, purposefully selecting universities that are in the top 100 of world rankings. In this context, there is a limit to what agents who are charged with ‘promoting under-subscribed courses’ (p. 40) could achieve.

    The use of AI-supported interviews to further test applicants’ spoken English is again thought-provoking, but requires more discussion. This practice seems to be an invitation for universities to spend money on additional admissions arrangements, in order to reduce income by rejecting students who, while they may have otherwise met the formal language criteria for admission, fall foul of new spoken English tests, the requirements of which are in their formative stages.

    Institutional responses to proficiency in English

    The report takes a particular position on the English proficiency of Chinese students. We agree that universities and their staff must be able to invoke standards of language for purposes including admissions and assessment. As teaching staff, though, we find that there are many steps to traverse before we conclude that any particular student behaviour can be attributed to linguistic proficiency.  Have we met the students on their own terms, and found out about them as learners? Before we insist on invoking linguistic standards, are we satisfied that there are no better explanations for (e.g.) classroom silence? The issue of classroom passivity is not one specific to international students, although it seems that the wider issue is being put to one side in favour of a focus on some international students.

    Not least among these matters is that of how China English is manifested in student academic writing. In many cases, the language used in student texts is highly systematic and obeys the rules of a fully-fledged language. There is a need to raise awareness of these features. With regard to spoken language, perceived proficiency is not always about the grasp of the language itself, but can also be associated with the spaces students are working in. Lack of confidence (as noted on p. 16 of the report), mental health, sense of belonging, and divisive university-level language policies may all have an impact.   

    The discussion of IELTS in the report is notable for what it omits. Is it the case that universities are putting IELTS to a purpose it is not fit for; or that universities think of IELTS as a guarantee of proficiency rather than a time-and-space-constrained test result for which universities themselves, along with UKVI, have set the standards for success? We welcome the contribution of the report on this point, and we would be interested to read more on the author’s broader perspective and recommendations on IELTS.   

    Integrating or including?  

    Chinese students remain the largest international group on UK campuses, attracting ongoing attention from higher education policy-makers and practitioners. Nonetheless, where we see a focus on a single group, we need to ask how universities can manage their support without falling into the trap of re-hashing existing deficit narratives. Work on internationalisation in universities has suggested that ‘practice[s] with the most demonstrable impact on students’ include embedding internationalisation holistically across the institution, and encouraging inclusion – as opposed to integration, which is not always well-conceptualised. There is a balance to be struck between the economy of generalising according to background, and providing local, co-constructed spaces for students as independent agents to meet their own needs.

    I have been pleasantly surprised by the degree and depth of feedback received in response to my report published at the end of last year. It is always better to have engagement of any kind than none at all. Two threads of response have been most striking: the first by management teams of universities and education organisations wanting to better understand the report and how to apply it to their own strategies. Secondly, by Chinese students themselves on platforms like Little Red Book, with whom the report has thankfully resonated and prompted further discussion and exchange. Both are incredibly heartening. Yet as expected, responses have not all been glowing, and I am particularly grateful for the response issued by academics at the University of Manchester which critically addresses several points. It reflects in a nuanced way on my arguments and contributes valuable questions.

    I hope to add the following reflections in order to continue the dialogue on the report, as well as acknowledge the time and effort they put into forming a response.

    The value of identifying patterns & trends within a single ethnic group

    As suggested, I recognise that Chinese students do not have ‘uniform ambitions or desires’. My extensive conversations with Chinese students from a range of backgrounds have shown me how personal and individual every university experience is. However, in a report focusing exclusively on one group – partly chosen for the fact it represents the second largest international student group in the UK – a principle aim is to extract trends and patterns which can be useful in promoting better understanding and empathy. My report does not make statements such as ‘the Chinese student experience is X’ or ‘all Chinese students think…’, instead it focuses on which challenges were most consistent among a diverse group of Chinese respondents. It is important, for instance, for universities to understand that probably their entire Chinese student body uses WeChat, and how this cultural phenomenon might shape their digital behaviour on campus.

    A more detailed explanation of divergent social media usage

    My report is in fact entirely in agreement with the respondents in finding that China’s own social media platforms – such as Little Red Book – are enabling when transposed to a UK context, providing key information about the locality (for instance, hospital services and banks).

    The report does not ask whether Chinese students should continue to use their own software, or switch to a local one. Rather, it investigates the habits and preferences of Chinese students in the UK, in order to raise awareness of differences with other local and international students. How universities choose to engage with this information is an open question, but it raises the point that if universities wish to improve communication channels with Chinese students they must first understand which platforms are being used, and how.

    Promoting undersubscribed courses, not institutions

    The respondents rightly observed that the preference of UK institutions among Chinese students is the result of an emphasis on rankings, leading to a preference for the top 100 institutions. However, the respondents misunderstood my assertion that agents should promote ‘less well-known courses’ to mean they should promote a broader range of universities. Since agents often work on behalf of universities, this would clearly not be a realistic suggestion, as they would not be incentivised to promote an institution that was not their client.

    My suggestion was to help agents promote different courses which are less well-known and undersubscribed among international students. Furthermore, it was to encourage universities to maintain closer dialogue with their agents to better communicate their needs (and gaps), as well as to receive useful information from agents who are in daily conversation with prospective students. During a conversation with a senior faculty member from a UK institution with a meaningful agent network in China, the complaint was raised that the more niche or newer courses in science have surprisingly few Chinese students. Whilst this is a single anecdote, it was consistent with prior findings. Chinese students veer towards courses which are actively promoted, or undertaken by fellow students in their network: Business, Engineering, Marketing… This means that more niche, but perhaps highly suitable courses are overlooked. Do prospective students, for instance, know that Bristol has 16 courses related to Economics, or might they presume quite reasonably that there is just one?

    Language challenges, explained

    The respondents thoughtfully add to my point on language challenges of Chinese students by highlighting the differences in the education systems of China and the UK. These are indeed pertinent and have been written about at length (one reason why I chose not to focus on this area). My interviews with students indeed reflected surprise with the academic environment at UK institutions, which promoted a form of debate and discussion they were unused to. This aspect, however, doesn’t contradict the argument of Chinese students being underconfident in expressing themselves in English, but adds another dimension in explaining their underconfidence within a classroom setting.

    The response asks for further clarity on my assessment of IELTS as a suitable language evaluation tool. As stated, I believe that IELTS is too heavily relied on as a tool for understanding a student’s overall language ability and their suitability to enrol in a course. Whilst IELTS provides an indication of level, it is incomplete and as Manchester points out ‘a time-and-space constrained test’. The report suggests that universities consider additional methods of evaluation, for instance online or pre-recorded interviews, in order to gain a more holistic and accurate perspective. In a world where AI is proving increasingly central to our lives, universities might benefit from investment into AI tools which could elevate and enhance their recruitment processes.

    (Hopefully not) a final word

    My report does not assume that students should or must integrate. Rather it questions assumptions around the degree to which Chinese students wish to engage with their institution (particularly socially), and highlights distinct facets of the Chinese experience which may be less well known by institutions and non-Chinese students.

    I do not personally see the term ‘integration’ as problematic. I interpret it to mean engaging with and understanding a local context, not compromising one’s own unique identity and background to fit in. I commend the respondents’ use of the term ‘inclusion’ and agree we should all be aspiring towards a more inclusive environment on campuses. However, I assert that in order to make an environment more inclusive, it is first necessary to raise awareness and understanding of the individuals we are attempting to include. Without this understanding, how do we know what inclusive looks like?

    Awareness of the unique and precise challenges international students face – Chinese or otherwise – is the first step to actually making them feel included. It is not showcasing a range of faces on the front page of a brochure, or hosting Chinese calligraphy workshops on campus. It is creating structural opportunities in which students can give feedback and embedding representative voices of these different groups within the institution at diverse levels, be it the students’ union, alumni office or governing board.

    I welcome any additional points, and again reiterate my thanks for a thoughtful response to my original report.

    Source link

  • A smaller Nation’s Report Card

    A smaller Nation’s Report Card

    As Education Secretary Linda McMahon was busy dismantling her cabinet department, she vowed to preserve one thing: the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the Nation’s Report Card. In early April, she told a gathering of ed tech companies and investors that the national exam was “something we absolutely need to keep,” because it’s a “way that we keep everybody honest” about the truth of how much students across the country actually know.  

    That was clearly a promise with an asterisk. 

    Less than two weeks later, on Monday of this week, substantial parts of NAEP came crumbling down when the board that oversees the exam reluctantly voted to kill more than a dozen of the assessments that comprise the Nation’s Report Card over the next seven years. 

    The main reading and math tests, which are required by Congress, were preserved. But to cut costs in an attempt to appease Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) scrapped a 2029 administration of the Long-Term Trend NAEP, an exam that has tracked student achievement since the 1970s.* Also cut were fourth grade science in 2028, 12th grade science in 2032 and 12th grade history in 2030. Writing assessments, which had been slated for 2032, were canceled entirely. State and local results were also dropped for an assortment of exams. For example, no state-level results will be reported for 12th grade reading and math in 2028, nor will there be district-level results for eighth grade science that year. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    “These are recommendations that we are making with much pain,” said board chair Beverly Perdue, a former North Carolina governor who was appointed to this leadership role in 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term. “None of us want to do this.”

    The board didn’t provide an official explanation for its moves. But the vice chair, Martin West, a Harvard professor of education, said in an interview that the cuts were an effort to save the 2026 assessments. “A moment of reckoning came more quickly because of the pressures on the program to reduce expenses in real time,” he said. 

    In other words, the board was effectively cutting off the patient’s appendages to try to save the brain and the heart. Despite the sacrifice, it’s still not clear that the gambit will work.

    Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3

    DOGE has been demanding 50 percent cuts to the $190 million a year testing program. Nearly all the work is handled by outside contractors, such as Westat and ETS, and five-year contracts were awarded at the end of 2024. But instead of paying the vendors annually, DOGE has diced the payments into shorter increments, putting pressure on the contractors to accept sharp cuts, according to several former Education Department employees. At the moment, several of the contracts are scheduled to run out of money in May and June, and DOGE’s approval is needed to restart the flow of money. Indeed, DOGE allowed one NAEP contract to run out of funds entirely on March 31, forcing ETS employees to stop work on writing new questions for future exams. 

    Reading and math tests are scheduled to start being administered in schools in January 2026, and so additional disruptions could derail the main NAEP assessment altogether. NAEP is taken by a sample of 450,000 students who are selected to represent all the fourth and eighth graders in the nation, and each student only takes part of a test. This sampling approach avoids the burden of testing every child in the country, but it requires Education Department contractors to make complicated statistical calculations for the number of test takers and the number of test sections needed to produce valid and reliable results. Contractors must then package the test sections into virtual test booklets for students to take online. The Education Department also must get approval from the federal Office of Management and Budget to begin testing in schools — yet another set of paperwork that is handled by contractors. 

    A DOGE dilemma 

    People familiar with the board’s deliberations were concerned that contractors might be pressured to agree to cuts that could harm the quality and the validity of the exam itself. Significant changes to the exam or its administration could make it impossible to compare student achievement with the 2024 results, potentially undermining the whole purpose of the assessment. 

    Board members were ultimately faced with a dilemma. They could cut corners on the full range of assessments or hope to maintain NAEP’s high quality with a much smaller basket of tests. They chose the latter.

    The cuts were designed to comply with congressional mandates. While the Long-Term Trend assessment is required by Congress, the law does not state how frequently it must be administered, and so the governing board has deferred it until 2033. Many testing experts have questioned whether this exam has become redundant now that the main NAEP has a 35-year history of student performance. The board has discussed scrapping this exam since 2017. “The passage of time raises questions about its continued value,” said West.

    Related: NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card, was supposed to be safe. It’s not

    The writing assessments, originally scheduled for 2032 for grades four, eight and 12, needed an overhaul and that would have been an expensive, difficult process especially with current debates over what it means to teach writing in the age of AI.

    The loss of state- and district-level results for some exams, such as high school reading and math, were some of the more painful cuts. The ability to compare student achievement across state lines has been one of the most valuable aspects of the NAEP tests because the comparison can provide role models for other states and districts. 

    Cost cutting

    “Everyone agrees that NAEP can be more efficient,” said West, who added that the board has been trying to cut costs for many years.  But he said that it is tricky to test changes for future exams without jeopardizing the validity and the quality of the current exam. That dual path can sometimes add costs in the short term. 

    It was unclear how many millions of dollars the governing board saved with its assessment cancellations Monday, but the savings are certainly less than the 50 percent cut that DOGE is demanding. The biggest driver of the costs is the main NAEP test, which is being preserved. The contracts are awarded by task and not by assessment, and so the contractors have to come back with estimates of how much the cancellation of some exams will affect its expenses. For example, now that fourth grade science isn’t being administered in 2028, no questions need to be written for it. But field staff will still need to go to schools that year to administer tests, including reading and math, which haven’t been cut.

    Compare old and new assessment schedules

    Outside observers decried the cuts on social media, with one education commentator saying the cancellations were “starting to cut into the muscle.” Science and history, though not mandated by Congress, are important to many. ”We should care about how our schools are teaching students science,” said Allison Socol, who leads preschool to high school policy at EdTrust, a nonprofit that advocates for equity in education. “Any data point you look at shows that future careers will rely heavily on STEM skills.”

    Socol worries that DOGE will not be satisfied with the board’s cuts and demand more. “It’s just so much easier to destroy things than to build them,” she said. “And it’s very easy, once you’ve taken one thing away, to take another one and another one and another one.”

    On April 17, the Education Department announced that the 2026 NAEP would proceed as planned. But after mass layoffs in March, it remained unclear if the department has the capacity to oversee the process, since only two employees with NAEP experience are left out of almost 30 who used to work on the test. McMahon might need to rehire some employees to pull it off, but new hiring would contradict the spirit of Trump’s executive order to close the department.

    Socol fears that the Trump administration doesn’t really want to measure student achievement. “There is a very clear push from the administration, not just in the education sector, to have a lot less information about how our public institutions are serving the people in this country,” Socol said. “It is a lot easier to ignore inequality if you can’t see it, and that is the point.”

    The Education Department did not respond to my questions about their intentions for NAEP. McMahon has been quite forceful in articulating the value of the assessments, but she might not have the final say since DOGE has to approve the NAEP contracts. “What’s very clear is that the office of the secretary does not completely control the DOGE people,” said a person with knowledge of the dynamics inside the Education Department. “McMahon’s views affect DOGE priorities, but McMahon doesn’t have direct control at all.”

    The ball is now in DOGE’s court.  

    Canceled assessments

    • Long-Term Trend (LTT) assessments in math and reading for 9, 13 and 17 year olds in 2029. (The Education Department previously canceled the 2025 LTT for 17 year olds in February 2025.)
    • Science: Fourth-grade in 2028, 12th grade in 2032
    • History: 12th grade in 2030
    • Writing:  Fourth, eighth and 12th grades in 2032
    • State-level results: 12th grade math and reading in 2028 and 2032, eighth grade history in 2030
    • District-level results: Eighth-grade science in 2028 and 2032

    For more details, refer to the new schedule, adopted in April 2025, and compare with the old, now-defunct schedule from 2023. 

    *Correction: An earlier version of this sentence incorrectly said that two administrations of the Long-Term Trend NAEP had been scrapped by the governing board on April 21. Only the 2029 administration was canceled by the board. The 2025 Long-Term Trend NAEP for 17 year olds was canceled by the Education Department in February. Nine- and 13-year-old students had already taken it by April.

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or barshay@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about NAEP cuts was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Universities face ‘daunting’ facilities needs, report says

    Universities face ‘daunting’ facilities needs, report says

    Dive Brief:

    • Spending on higher education facility operations is keeping up with inflation, but it has yet to return to what it was before and during the pandemic, according to a report by construction data company Gordian.
    • Capital spending is also up, but because the backlog of needs is so high, the spending increase has only slowed the pace of growth in unmet needs; it hasn’t led to progress in closing the gap, the report said.
    • “Planned project costs [are] outstripping available and allocated budgets, tempering the impact of even the most well-meaning and thoughtfully directed dollars,” according to The State of Facilities in Higher Education, released this week.

    Dive Insight:

    Colleges and universities across the United States are facing a systemic enrollment gap driven by a projected drop in the number of high school graduates as well as broader cultural changes in which households are rethinking the value of higher education

    “Difficult choices that [institutions] have been talking about for several years now are upon them,” the Gordian report noted. “Most sustaining models involve reimagining the institution as a smaller place with reductions in employees and property to align spending with revenue. Alternatives demonstrated over the past decade would include merger, sale or dissolution.”

    Despite the long-term trends, 27% of colleges are expanding, although at a modest 3% rate on average. Some are growing because they’re seeing an increase in students, but others are building out because they don’t have high repair and replacement costs. “They are not yet feeling the pressure financially to keep up with what they have already built,” the report says. 

    Where institutions are renovating or replacing obsolete buildings, “these enhancements are being implemented with … thought to the costs to sustain that investment and healthy caution about a future with great uncertainty,” the report noted. 

    When the pandemic ended, schools quickly upped their spending on renovations — increasing spending 26% between 2021 and 2023. Spending is still relatively strong, but growing at a lower rate, Gordian said. Despite the spending, a funding shortfall of more than 32% persists. 

    “The gap between what is being invested and what is needed to sustain the institutional assets … will continue to grow,” the report said

    The backlog of capital renewal projects is more than $140 per gross square feet, up 2% from the previous year and up from just under $125 per gross square feet two years ago, according to the report. 

    Spending on operations is a bright spot — up 4.5% year over year. That rate is higher than inflation, but it’s still below what it was before the pandemic, and operational costs are rising. 

    “There may have been legitimate opportunities to cut back on spending based on innovation, enrollment decline or program changes,” the report said. “But there are usually going to be drivers outside of the department’s immediate control like salaries and wages, utility costs and any number of commodities expenses which continue to drive costs upward.”

    Source link

  • More Schools Report Visa Revocations and Student Detentions

    More Schools Report Visa Revocations and Student Detentions

     Reports have surfaced of a significant increase in the number of international student visas being revoked and students being detained across various universities in the United States. This follows heightened immigration scrutiny, particularly under the administration of Donald Trump. According to Senator Marco Rubio, more than 300 international student visas have been pulled in recent months, primarily targeting students involved in political activism or minor infractions. WeAreHigherEd has named 30 schools where students’ visas have been revoked. 

    Campus Abductions — We Are Higher Ed

    Key Universities Affected

    • University of California System (UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley):
      Universities within the University of California system, which hosts a large international student population, have reported multiple visa cancellations. These revocations have affected students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, political activism, or perceived violations of U.S. immigration policies. For instance, the University of California has seen as many as 20 students affected in recent weeks.

    • Columbia University:
      At Columbia University, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist, has gained significant media attention. Khalil, who was detained and faced deportation, exemplifies the growing concerns over student rights and the growing impact of politically charged visa revocations.

    • Tufts University:
      Tufts University is currently battling the Trump administration over the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student whose visa was revoked. Her detention and the ensuing legal battles highlight the growing tensions between academic freedom and government policy. Tufts and its student body are advocating for Öztürk’s release and seeking clarification on the legal processes involved.

    • University of Minnesota:
      At the University of Minnesota, one international graduate student was detained as part of an ongoing federal crackdown on visa violations. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions continue to raise concerns over the rights of international students to remain in the country, especially as visa renewals and compliance checks become more stringent.

    • Arizona State University:
      Arizona State University has also reported incidents of international students having their visas revoked without prior notice. These revocations have affected students from various countries, creating uncertainty within the international student community at the university.

    • Cornell University:
      At Cornell University, international students have similarly faced unexpected visa cancellations. This has raised concerns about the ability of universities to adequately support their international student populations, as students are left to navigate the complexities of visa status without sufficient notice or explanation.

    • North Carolina State University:
      North Carolina State University is another institution where international students have had their visas revoked without notice. The university has expressed concern over the lack of clarity from immigration authorities, which has left students in a precarious situation.

    • University of Oregon:
      The University of Oregon has experienced several cases of international students having their visas revoked. This has been particularly troubling for students who were actively pursuing their education in the U.S. and now face the prospect of deportation or being forced to leave the country unexpectedly.

    • University of Texas:
      At the University of Texas, international students have faced visa issues, with several reports of revocations and detentions, affecting students who are working toward completing their degrees. This has sparked protests and advocacy efforts from both students and university administration, seeking more transparency in the process.

    • University of Colorado:
      The University of Colorado has similarly reported instances of international student visa revocations, particularly affecting those involved in political activism. The university has been working to support students impacted by these actions, although many are left in limbo regarding their ability to continue their studies.

    • University of Michigan:
      The University of Michigan has also been impacted by a wave of visa revocations. Similar to other institutions, students involved in political protests or activism have found themselves under scrutiny, facing the risk of detention or deportation. Students, faculty, and staff are pushing for clearer policies and legal protections to support international students, who are increasingly at risk due to the political environment.

    The Broader Implications

    These incidents of visa revocation and detentions are seen as part of a broader trend of increasing immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Critics argue that these actions infringe upon students’ rights, potentially violating freedom of speech and academic freedom. International students, especially those participating in protests or political discourse, have found themselves at risk of being detained or deported, with little prior notice or transparency regarding the reasons for such actions.

    Moreover, the economic impact of these actions is significant. In 2023, a record 253,355 student visa applications were denied, representing a 36% refusal rate. This has major implications not only for the affected students but also for U.S. universities that rely heavily on international students for tuition revenue. The financial loss could be as much as $7.6 billion in tuition fees and living expenses, further emphasizing the broader consequences of these policies.

    Legal and Administrative Responses

    Many universities are rallying behind their international student populations, with advocacy efforts from institutions like Tufts University and Columbia University. These universities have criticized the abruptness of the visa cancellations and detentions, calling for more transparency and due process.

    However, despite these efforts, the political climate surrounding U.S. immigration remains volatile, and it is unclear whether policy changes will result in more lenient or more restrictive measures for international students.

    Conclusion

    These stories underscore the fragile position of international students in the U.S. today. With incidents of detentions and visa revocations increasing, students face significant challenges navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law, particularly those involved in political or activist circles. University administrations and students alike continue to call for clearer policies, protections for international student rights, and more transparent practices to avoid the unintended consequences of politically motivated visa actions.

    This issue remains ongoing, with much at stake for both 

    Source link

  • Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals

    Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals

    Key points:

    English/language arts and science teachers were almost twice as likely to say they use AI tools compared to math teachers or elementary teachers of all subjects, according to a February 2025 survey from the RAND Corporation that delves into uneven AI adoption in schools.

    “As AI tools and products for educational purposes become more prevalent, studies should track their use among educators. Researchers could identify the particular needs AI is addressing in schools and–potentially–guide the development of AI products that better meet those needs. In addition, data on educator use of AI could help policymakers and practitioners consider disparities in that use and implications for equitable, high-quality instruction across the United States,” note authors Julia H. Kaufman, Ashley Woo, Joshua Eagan, Sabrina Lee, and Emma B. Kassan.

    One-quarter of ELA, math, and science teachers used AI tools for instructional planning or teaching in the 2023–2024 school year. Nearly 60 percent of surveyed principals also reported using AI tools for their work in 2023-2024.

    Among the one-quarter of teachers nationally who reported using AI tools, 64 percent said that they used them for instructional planning only, whether for their ELA, math, or science instruction; only 11 percent said that they introduced them to students but did not do instructional planning with them; and 25 percent said that they did both.

    Although one-quarter of teachers overall reported using AI tools, the report’s authors observed differences in AI use by subject taught and some school characteristics. For instance, close to 40 percent of ELA or science teachers said they use AI, compared to 20 percent of general elementary education or math teachers. Teachers and principals in higher-poverty schools were less likely to report using AI tools relative to those in lower-poverty schools.

    Eighteen percent of principals reported that their schools or districts provided guidance on the use of AI by staff, teachers, or students. Yet, principals in the highest-poverty schools were about half as likely as principals in the lowest-poverty schools to report that guidance was provided (13 percent and 25 percent, respectively).

    Principals cited a lack of professional development for using AI tools or products (72 percent), concerns about data privacy (70 percent) and uncertainty about how AI can be used for their jobs (70 percent) as factors having a major or minor influence on their AI use.

    The report also offers recommendations for education stakeholders:

    1. All districts and schools should craft intentional strategies to support teachers’ AI use in ways that will most improve the quality of instruction and student learning.

    2. AI developers and decision-makers should consider what useful AI applications have the greatest potential to improve teaching and learning and how to make those applications available in high-poverty contexts.

    3. Researchers should work hand-in-hand with AI developers to study use cases and develop a body of evidence on effective AI applications for school leadership, teaching, and learning.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • What will NCES layoffs mean for the Nation’s Report Card?

    What will NCES layoffs mean for the Nation’s Report Card?

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

    The Trump administration has all but axed the U.S. Department of Education’s statistical research arm — the National Center for Education Statistics — sparing only a handful of employees who are left without department staff needed to analyze education data. 

    “They didn’t just RIF a few people, they deleted the agency for all intents and purposes,” said an NCES employee of more than a decade who was part of the massive March 11 layoffs. 

    The loss of over a hundred Institute of Education Sciences employees — including almost all of the NCES staff — comes as part of sweeping cuts to the Education Department that left the federal agency with only half of its workforce. NCES, which traces its existence to an 1867 law establishing a federal statistical agency to collect, analyze and report education data,  has been tasked with research and analysis on everything from graduation rates and student outcomes to teacher and principal development. 

    Overall, NCES research tracked the condition of education in the nation, including gaps in achievement and resources for underserved students. During the pandemic, the unit closely analyzed trends in school resources and educator and student mental health. 

    Perhaps most notably, NCES oversaw and ensured the quality of the Nation’s Report Card, along with other key student outcome studies. School and college leaders rely on such NCES research to improve student performance, and its findings often help inform federal and state policymakers on funding decisions.

    Now, those caught in the latest wave of the administration’s cuts are warning that their haphazard nature will lead to a decline in the quality of assessments and data overseen by NCES. Longtime NCES employees report being fired at a moment’s notice and abruptly losing access to years — sometimes decades — of work, with no communication from the administration about how to offboard so as to preserve and pass on critical information. 

    “A lot of institutional knowledge is going to be lost,” said another former NCES employee who worked closely on the Nation’s Report Card. This employee and the others who spoke to K-12 Dive asked to remain anonymous for fear that identification could affect their severance terms.

    NAEP and international assessment employees impacted

    Although NCES employees are nearly all gone, many of NCES’ functions they previously carried out are congressionally mandated, meaning they will still need to be done. That includes portions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as the Nation’s Report Card. 

    The required parts include: reading and math assessments in 4th and 8th grade, long-term trend assessments for 9, 13 and 17-years-olds, and 12th grade reading and math assessments. The long-term assessment for 17-year-olds was last administered in 2012, having been canceled during the pandemic, and again for this spring due to what the Education Department cited as funding issues.

    Other portions of the federal test such as science, U.S. history and civics are optional. 

    The federally mandated assessment has often served as a yardstick for student performance in various subjects, most notably reading and math. Following the pandemic, it helped educators understand which subject areas students struggled in the most during and following school closures. 

    “Despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds annually, IES has failed to effectively fulfill its mandate to identify best practices and new approaches that improve educational outcomes and close achievement gaps for students.”

    Madi Biedermann

    U.S. Department of Education’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications

    Congress also mandates that student performance be compared on an international level, a requirement usually fulfilled by the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA. 

    The latest round of PISA testing was expected to begin by the end of March. Plus, the main NAEP for grades 4, 8 and 12 was supposed to begin early next year — preparation for which was set to begin this summer, according to former NCES employees. 

    The Education Department, in a March 13 statement emailed to sister publication Higher Ed Dive, said, “IES employees impacted by the reduction in force conducted none of the research related to NAEP, the College Scorecard, and IPEDS.”

    “That work is all done through contracts that are still maintained by the Department,” said Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the department, in the statement.

    Source link

  • What will NCES layoffs mean for the Nation’s Report Card?

    What will NCES layoffs mean for the Nation’s Report Card?

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

    The Trump administration has all but axed the U.S. Department of Education’s statistical research arm — the National Center for Education Statistics — sparing only a handful of employees who are left without department staff needed to analyze education data. 

    “They didn’t just RIF a few people, they deleted the agency for all intents and purposes,” said an NCES employee of more than a decade who was part of the massive March 11 layoffs. 

    The loss of over a hundred Institute of Education Sciences employees — including almost all of the NCES staff — comes as part of sweeping cuts to the Education Department that left the federal agency with only half of its workforce. NCES, which traces its existence to an 1867 law establishing a federal statistical agency to collect, analyze and report education data,  has been tasked with research and analysis on everything from graduation rates and student outcomes to teacher and principal development. 

    Overall, NCES research tracked the condition of education in the nation, including gaps in achievement and resources for underserved students. During the pandemic, the unit closely analyzed trends in school resources and educator and student mental health. 

    Perhaps most notably, NCES oversaw and ensured the quality of the Nation’s Report Card, along with other key student outcome studies. School and college leaders rely on such NCES research to improve student performance, and its findings often help inform federal and state policymakers on funding decisions.

    Now, those caught in the latest wave of the administration’s cuts are warning that their haphazard nature will lead to a decline in the quality of assessments and data overseen by NCES. Longtime NCES employees report being fired at a moment’s notice and abruptly losing access to years — sometimes decades — of work, with no communication from the administration about how to offboard so as to preserve and pass on critical information. 

    “A lot of institutional knowledge is going to be lost,” said another former NCES employee who worked closely on the Nation’s Report Card. This employee and the others who spoke to K-12 Dive asked to remain anonymous for fear that identification could affect their severance terms.

    NAEP and international assessment employees impacted

    Although NCES employees are nearly all gone, many of NCES’ functions they previously carried out are congressionally mandated, meaning they will still need to be done. That includes portions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as the Nation’s Report Card. 

    The required parts include: reading and math assessments in 4th and 8th grade, long-term trend assessments for 9, 13 and 17-years-olds, and 12th grade reading and math assessments. The long-term assessment for 17-year-olds was last administered in 2012, having been canceled during the pandemic, and again for this spring due to what the Education Department cited as funding issues.

    Other portions of the federal test such as science, U.S. history and civics are optional. 

    The federally mandated assessment has often served as a yardstick for student performance in various subjects, most notably reading and math. Following the pandemic, it helped educators understand which subject areas students struggled in the most during and following school closures. 

    “Despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds annually, IES has failed to effectively fulfill its mandate to identify best practices and new approaches that improve educational outcomes and close achievement gaps for students.”

    Madi Biedermann

    U.S. Department of Education’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications

    Congress also mandates that student performance be compared on an international level, a requirement usually fulfilled by the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA. 

    The latest round of PISA testing was expected to begin by the end of March. Plus, the main NAEP for grades 4, 8 and 12 was supposed to begin early next year — preparation for which was set to begin this summer, according to former NCES employees. 

    The Education Department, in a March 13 statement emailed to sister publication Higher Ed Dive, said, “IES employees impacted by the reduction in force conducted none of the research related to NAEP, the College Scorecard, and IPEDS.”

    “That work is all done through contracts that are still maintained by the Department,” said Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the department, in the statement.

    Source link

  • Impact of Technology on Student Retention Report

    Impact of Technology on Student Retention Report

    Facing challenges in enrollment, retention, or tech integration? Seeking growth in new markets? Our strategic insights pave a clear path for overcoming obstacles and driving success in higher education.

    Unlock the transformative potential within your institution – partner with us to turn today’s roadblocks into tomorrow’s achievements. Let’s chat.

    Source link