Tag: rules

  • Five Rules for 2025-26 | HESA

    Five Rules for 2025-26 | HESA

    Morning all. 

    It’s been a busy summer at HESA Towers. We’ve been developing Boardwise, our new suite of governance products with our partners at Balsam Advisory, and exploring new ideas on data governance and analytics with our friends at Plaid Analytics. We’ve also been touring the country with the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) Thought Leadership Office and the Business +  Higher Education Roundtable (BHER) to talk about higher education, economic growth and productivity. The “what we heard” document from those sessions will be out in mid-September, and there are several follow-up events scheduled, including a leaders’ summit hosted by RBC later this month. This event will focus mainly on how higher education and business can work together to tackle some of the country’s most pressing challenges, such as clean energy and technology, artificial intelligence, and defence. Further insights from this work will also be explored at the BHER Executive Summit in February 2026.

    And, of course, our own Re: University conference – where we will be presenting some of the most interesting ideas out there to improve and inspire the quality, effectiveness and experience of postsecondary education in Canada – is coming up in late January in Ottawa. (Tickets are going fast – reserve your spot!)

    A couple of other small programming notes: 

    • The State of Post-Secondary Education in Canada 2025 will be released tomorrow. 
    • The World of Higher Educationpodcast will still come out every Thursday, but we’re back to an audio-only format because editing is a hassle and apparently very few of you are videophiles. 
    • The Fifteen will continue to bring you the top global higher education stories every other week. 
    • Next Friday will mark the debut of a new biweekly webinar series, Friday Focus, to be hosted by Tiffany MacLennan, surfacing the most interesting shifts and innovations in Canadian higher education – from AI & technology, cutting-edge programming, and the everchanging student experience – through the voices of those leading the change. We hope you can join us. 
    • Our University Vice Presidents Network (UVPN) is going strong and is scheduled to convene in Victoria in November, Quebec City in February, and then internationally for a May 2026 Study Tour in Germany. 
    • Finally, we are targeting the first week of December for the launch of the World of Higher Education Annual Review 2025, a new year-in-review publication which tries to document the year’s shifts across the whole of our crazy sector, right around the globe, using statistics, stories and strategic planning documents.

    Now, on to the year ahead.

    In most places, I think the hard part for colleges is over.  2025-26 isn’t going to be an easy year, by any means, but the big decisions have mostly been made, future directions have been set and the floor on institutional income has either been reached or is in sight. 

    Universities, on the other hand, are a different story.  They have – not everywhere, but in the main – been more hesitant to act. It’s a conservative sector that is resistant to change, be it financial, organizational or cultural. And the financial problems the sector faces – again, not everywhere but in the main – are going to drag on for quite awhile mainly because international student numbers aren’t bouncing back the way they might have (more on that next week) and because an imminent recession is the opposite of helpful when it comes to provincial finances.

    So, it’s going to be a tough year ahead.  In my mind, I think there are 5 rules for success.

    Rule 1 – Act like Universities are a Means to an End, not an End in Themselves.  Literally the worst thing universities can say right now is “universities are crucial, give us more money”. It’s an utterly tone-deaf approach, even if you give it an “elbows up” spin.  The sector has been saying it for years and it clearly hasn’t worked, so continuing with this approach is the literal definition of insanity. And the reason it doesn’t work is because Canadians (or at least Canadian politicians) simply don’t believe that universities are crucial because they don’t believe that knowledge and science is useful. Rather, they far prefer a Canada where the construction and natural resources industries continue to call the shots (if there is a Deep State in Canada, it is surely comprised of these two sectors and their watercarriers). The case we need to make is not “spend on universities”, it’s “a knowledge-driven Canada is a better Canada”.  And more importantly, it’s not a case institutions can make on their own – they need to make it with lots of other actors, particularly from industry.  Alliances, people. Form alliances.  Downsize your government relations team, build up your community relations efforts.

    Rule 2 – Stop with the Tri-Council Fundamentalism.  Federal budgets for research are going to get hammered in the coming months. This will make a lot of people argue that we should ditch all research funds except the tri-councils because inquiry-driven research is sacred etc. I understand the instinct here because so many institutions make council success a key part of the tenure/promotion process. But it’s a bad instinct. No one in Ottawa cares about your tenure processes. You can argue all you want about how basic research is more cost-efficient in terms of driving long-term discovery, but i) the public likes some short-term wins mixed in with the long-term ones and b) nobody outside universities is buying that one story about NSERC funding Geoffrey Hinton’s AI research 30 year ago as a business case for science. Like, nobody. Get over it. Understand that if there is to be growth in Canadian research funding in future, it’s going to look a lot more like Horizon Europe or the Biden Administration’s Chips and Science Act, both of which were widely hailed as being good for science despite – or perhaps because – they are largely mission-driven rather than inquiry-driven. If this is the hill the community chooses to die on, God help us all. 

    Rule 3 – Focus on what you can control, not what you can’t. Yes, things are bad.  You can spend time complaining about it – government is short-sighted, we’re always getting shafted by the granting councils, etc. – or you can get busy. Fire up your friend-raising and fund-raising. Ramp up your spend/effort on international recruitment (more on this next week). Make a big bang with some new programs that stand out. Go big on one theme. Stand out. Please.

    Rule 4 – Faster Collegiality is a Must. Part of regaining public confidence is going to involve being able to make changes at the institutional level with much more speed and determination than is historically the case. That means being able to deliver on promises and priority in the immediate term, not in some far-off future, to be able to act as an institution and not just as a sack full of cats fighting over research priorities and teaching schedules. The way this normally happens is to concentrate power in the hands of the upper administration. This is how it works in most of Asia, most of the United States, and increasingly in Europe as well (though crucially, senior admin tends to be elected in Europe). But it doesn’t have to be like that. There’s no obvious reason why collegial governance needs to be slow: it’s just custom and practice. I’ve been saying for a while that better, faster governance is key to institutions in rough times and while too few have heeded that advice, it’s never too late to start.

    Rule 5 – Do less, but do it better. Universities are ridiculously strung out. Many forces are at work here, but I will single out two. At a system level, we have governance systems that are great at approving new programs and initiatives but absolutely rotten at pruning them once they have outlived their purpose. Result: institutions do too much, but do it badly, thus leading to enshittifcation. But it works at the level of individual faculty too, since departments tend to hire the biggest keeners in the system, the kind of people who won’t say no to more research, or extra teaching, or whatever. Result: burnout. In a normal organization, a manager would come along and try to make workloads manageable. But since Canadian academia long ago decided that the main purpose of department chairs is to protect staff from unwanted Decanal or Provostial schemes rather than to manage academics’ workloads, there is no one in the system who can actually make the problem go away (high-sounding talk about “wellness” doesn’t do the trick either). So, seriously, do less.

    It’s going to be a hard year (or let’s face it, a hard few years), but if everyone gets the basics right, we can come out of this better and stronger. 

    Good luck everyone. Back to work!

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Religious Colleges in Minn.

    Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Religious Colleges in Minn.

    Religious colleges that require students to sign a faith statement cannot be shut out of a Minnesota program that funds the dual enrollment of high school students in the state’s public and private postsecondary institutions, a federal judge ruled Friday.

    U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel’s ruling overturns a Minnesota law prohibiting Christian colleges that participate in the state’s 40-year-old Postsecondary Enrollment Options program from forcing students to pass a religious test. The state Education Department and LGBTQ+ advocates had sought such legislation for years on the grounds that faith statements discriminate against students who are not Christian, straight or cisgender. It finally passed in 2023, under a Democratic State Legislature.

    The families of several high school students seeking to earn credits at two Christian institutions in the state, Crown College and the University of Northwestern, then sued, arguing that the law violated their First Amendment right to religious freedom. The ban on faith statements was suspended while the legal battle played out.

    “This dispute requires the court to venture into the delicate constitutional interplay of religion and publicly-funded education,” Judge Brasel said in her 70-page ruling. “In doing so, the court heeds the Supreme Court’s instruction that the First Amendment gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”

    Brasel noted in her ruling that the two Christian colleges have received nearly $40 million to cover the costs of the PSEO program since the 2017–18 academic year; she wrote that the University of Northwestern admits about 70 percent of dual-enrollment applicants. Over all, some 60,000 high school students have benefited from PSEO, The Minneapolis Star Tribune noted.

    The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs, applauded the decision.

    “Minnesota tried to cut off educational opportunities to thousands of high schoolers simply for their faith. That’s not just unlawful—it’s shameful,” said Becket senior counsel Diana Thomson, according to the Associated Press. “This ruling is a win for families who won’t be strong-armed into abandoning their beliefs, and a sharp warning to politicians who target them.”

    Source link

  • Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules

    Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules

    IFP Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules Affecting H-1B, F-1, J-1 and OPT

    The Institute for Progress (IFP) is conducting an H-1B employer survey with economist Michael Clemens (George Mason University/Peterson Institute). We know this topic is of significant interest for many CUPA-HR leaders and encourage you to forward this link to those with information needed to complete the survey.

    The survey is designed to document how upcoming immigration rulemakings could affect universities and other employers, including proposals to:

    • eliminate “duration of status” admissions for F-1 and J-1 visa holders,
    • institute a weighted lottery for H-1B petitions,
    • rescind Optional Practical Training (OPT), and
    • revise required wage levels for H-1B filings.

    Two of these proposals — ending duration of status for F-1/J-1 holders and creating a weighted H-1B lottery — have already cleared the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review and could be published imminently; the others are anticipated.

    By generating a strong university response, IFP and its partners (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Immigration Lawyers Association) aim to provide data showing the costs and negative impacts of these rules. The survey closes September 8, 2025, though the deadline may be extended depending on the federal comment period.

    You can preview the survey questions before completing the survey.


    Complete the Survey by September 8

    Source link

  • IFP Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules

    IFP Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules

    IFP Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules Affecting H-1B, F-1, J-1 and OPT

    The Institute for Progress (IFP) is conducting an H-1B employer survey with economist Michael Clemens (George Mason University/Peterson Institute). We know this topic is of significant interest for many CUPA-HR leaders and encourage you to forward this link to those with information needed to complete the survey.

    The survey is designed to document how upcoming immigration rulemakings could affect universities and other employers, including proposals to:

    • eliminate “duration of status” admissions for F-1 and J-1 visa holders,
    • institute a weighted lottery for H-1B petitions,
    • rescind Optional Practical Training (OPT), and
    • revise required wage levels for H-1B filings.

    Two of these proposals — ending duration of status for F-1/J-1 holders and creating a weighted H-1B lottery — have already cleared the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review and could be published imminently; the others are anticipated.

    By generating a strong university response, IFP and its partners (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Immigration Lawyers Association) aim to provide data showing the costs and negative impacts of these rules. The survey closes September 8, 2025, though the deadline may be extended depending on the federal comment period.

    You can preview the survey questions before completing the survey.


    Complete the Survey by September 8

    Source link

  • Federal District Judge Rules Against Trump’s Anti-DEI Orders

    Federal District Judge Rules Against Trump’s Anti-DEI Orders

    One of the Trump administration’s attempts to terminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on college campuses and in K–12 classrooms has been struck down by a federal district court judge who previously put the guidance on hold.

    Judge Stephanie Gallagher declared in the Thursday ruling that the Department of Education broke the law when it tried to withhold grant funding from institutions that practiced DEI based on one of the president’s executive orders and a related guidance letter. 

    In her opinion, Gallagher focused less on the legality of the attempt to ban DEI itself, but rather the process through which the president and secretary of education tried to do so.

    “This court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue in this case are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair. But, at this stage too, it must closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. Here, it did not,” the judge wrote. “By leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.”

    That said, she did explain the ways Trump’s policy violated the Constitution, saying, “The government cannot proclaim that it ‘will no longer tolerate’ speech it dislikes because of its ‘motivating ideology’—that is a ‘blatant’ and ‘egregious’ violation of the First Amendment.”

    Gallagher’s decision followed a motion for summary judgment that was filed by the plaintiffs, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, after they won a preliminary injunction that blocked parts of Trump’s anti-DEI policy since April. (Gallagher was appointed by Trump during his first presidency in 2018.)

    Since the Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance was enjoined, the Trump administration has made other attempts to block the same academic practices. Most recently, the Department of Justice published a nine-page memo that stated that DEI is unlawful and discriminatory.

    Still, AFT president Randi Weingarten viewed the ruling as a “huge win” against Trump’s “draconian attacks on the essence of public education.”

    “This decision rightly strikes down the government’s attempt to dictate curriculum, and, in so doing, upholds the purpose and promise inherent in our public schools,” Weingarten said in a news release.

    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

  • 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 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

  • NZ’s new study visa rules strike chord with Australian sector

    NZ’s new study visa rules strike chord with Australian sector

    The New Zealand government announced earlier this week that, from November, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) will increase permitted work hours for study visa holders, extend work rights to all tertiary students on exchange or study abroad programs. It may also introduce a short-term work visa of up to six months for graduates not eligible for a post-study work visa.

    While the relaxations are a key part of New Zealand’s push to boost international student numbers by over 40% by 2034, INZ has also clarified that students who change their education provider or lower their study level will need to apply for a new visa, rather than simply requesting a variation of conditions on their existing one.

    The mandate has struck a chord with Australia’s international education sector, where some individuals and associations have been calling for an overhaul of the study visa system, specifically on linking study visas to the institution of initial enrolment.

    Commenting on New Zealand’s recent changes, Ravi Lochan Singh, managing director, Global Reach, wrote in a LinkedIn post that instead of banning agent commissions for onshore student transfers to address attrition, Australia could “just copy” the neighbouring country’s approach. 

    “Australia is currently facing a significant issue where students use higher ranked or low-risk universities (as categorised by Home Affairs) to secure their student visas easily and then after the first semester of studies, the students get moved to private colleges offering higher education degrees,” Singh told The PIE News. 

    According to Singh, while such moves, often made by Indian or Nepali students with the help of onshore immigration agents, may be genuine, they “waste” the efforts of offshore education agents and universities that initially recruited the students.

    “Some policy makers feel that students have a right to choose the correct education provider and if they feel that what they desire as a customer can be met at private colleges, they should be allowed to move,” stated Singh. 

    “However, we also have the situation where students have demonstrated their available funds through an education loan which is issued in the name of a particular university,” he added. If the student does move institutions, the education loan is not valid as a demonstration of funds and thus the argument that the students should be asked to apply for a fresh student visa.”

    According to Singh, many international students, particularly from South Asia, who arrive in Australia on education loans often find themselves without “available” or “accessible” funds when they switch providers and are required to show new financial evidence.

    It would appear that three modern advanced economies who have championed consumer protections and who have established international study destinations believe this measure is not contrary to ‘consumer choice’
    Gareth Lewis, Western Sydney University

    Moreover, a recent report by Allianz Partners Australia revealed that over 61% of international students found daily life in the country “significantly more expensive than expected”, with more than a quarter considering withdrawing from their studies due to financial woes. 

    “While we are discussing attrition and student movements once the student is onshore, we also need to acknowledge that university fees have been increasing and students are beginning to question ROI. Thus there is an argument for more student visa grants for higher education degrees at TAFE and private providers,” said Singh. 

    “The fees of such programs is much lower to what is charged at the universities. If this happens, the students who are more price sensitive will join the TAFE and private providers right in the beginning and universities will have only those students who can afford the degree and likely to complete them at the university itself.”

    While Australia’s Ministerial Direction 111, which replaced MD 107, provides immigration case officers stricter guidance on assessing the Genuine Student requirement, and introduces a two-tier visa processing system that prioritises institutions with strong compliance records and low visa risks, it influences the decision-making process, not the entire visa mechanism unlike New Zealand’s recent move. 

    However, New Zealand is not the only model Australia could look to, according to stakeholders.

    A recent submission by the Association of Australian Education Representatives in India (AAERI) to the ministers for education and home affairs in Australia pointed to examples from the UK and Canada, where students must obtain a new Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) and a new study permit, respectively, if they wish to change institutions.

    “Australia’s recent reforms, such as closing the concurrent CoE loophole and requiring CoEs for onshore visa applications, are steps in a similar direction but do not go far enough to address the core issue of unethical student poaching, misuse of student visa and provider switching,” stated AAERI in its submission in May to the Labor government. 

    After New Zealand’s changes were announced, regional director, Western Sydney University, Gareth Lewis also echoed a similar opinion on Australia’s reluctance to do what New Zealand, the UK, and Canada have done. 

    “It would appear that three modern advanced economies who have championed consumer protections and who have established international study destinations believe this measure is not contrary to ‘consumer choice’,” read Lewis’s LinkedIn post. 

    “Unfortunately Australia believes it is. This needs to change.” 

    Find out more about how Australia can improve its visa system at The PIE Live Asia Pacific 2025 on July 30, during the session “Visa status: MD111 and MD106 mapping – is the current visa system working?”, which will explore the impact of current visa policies on HE, VET, and ELICOS sectors, covering genuine student assessments, onshore switching, and ways to improve the operating environment. Check out more details here – PLAP 2025 agenda.

    Source link

  • U.S. Judge Rules Colleges Can Directly Pay Student Athletes

    U.S. Judge Rules Colleges Can Directly Pay Student Athletes

    Grant House, the plaintiff in a now settled antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, swam for Arizona State University.

    Michael Reaves/Getty Images 

    Federal district judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval to a multi-billion-dollar settlement in the yearslong House v. NCAA lawsuit late Friday evening, effectively transforming college sports: Starting July 1, institutions will be allowed to pay student athletes directly.

    In accordance with the settlement, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and colleges in Division I conferences will distribute nearly $2.8 billion in back damages over the next 10 years to athletes who competed any time since 2016, as well as to their lawyers. The case also allows each college that opted in to pay their athletes collectively up to $20.5 million per year, in addition to scholarships. That figure will increase incrementally over time.

    The ruling, which technically resolves three antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA, essentially turns student-athletes from amateurs into professionals. But experts say this isn’t likely to end court battles over athletics. The creation of the revenue-sharing model (where schools distribute money earned from areas such as media rights or merchandise), combined with existing turmoil over the regulation of name, image and likeness (NIL) deals, will only invite more lawsuits, they say. 

    “The judge said, in essence, this is not a perfect settlement that solves everyone’s concerns, but it makes progress towards ‘righting the wrongs’ of higher education’s desire to maintain amateurism status for the players but no one else,” Karen Weaver, adjunct assistant professor in the graduate school of education at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    Although many colleges began making changes to their programs in anticipation of the settlement’s approval, the timing of the ruling could present logistical challenges as they move to start revenue-sharing with students from the July 1 deadline set out in the suit. 

    Current and former athletes have celebrated the ruling. 

    “It’s historic,” former college basketball star Sedona Prince, a co-lead plaintiff in one of the lawsuits, told ESPN. “It seemed like this crazy, outlandish idea at the time of what college athletics could and should be like. It was a difficult process at times … but it’s going to change millions of lives for the better.”

    Wild West Yet to be Tamed

    Judge Wilken’s ruling comes nearly two months after both parties presented arguments in early April for approving the settlement, and nearly five years after the suit was first filed in 2020. But contentious debates over how to manage paying student athletes really erupted in 2021, when NIL deals were first legalized. 

    Since then, collectives made up of alumni and boosters have paid athletes millions of dollars to play at schools through unregulated NIL partnerships. Top football and basketball players have earned the most.

    College leaders have argued that the collectives could give wealthier institutions an unfair recruiting advantage. The House settlement, which not only allows colleges to pay athletes directly but also gives conferences the power to regulate booster influence, could help solve that problem.

    “For several years, Division I members crafted well-intentioned rules and systems to govern financial benefits from schools and name, image and likeness opportunities, but the NCAA could not easily enforce these for several reasons,” NCAA president Charlie Baker wrote in a statement Friday. “The result was a sense of chaos: instability for schools, confusion for student-athletes and too often litigation.”

    “The settlement opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports,” Baker said. “This new framework that enables schools to provide direct financial benefits to student-athletes and establishes clear and specific rules to regulate third-party NIL agreements marks a huge step forward for college sports.”

    The settlement also establishes a new clearinghouse, run by Deloitte, that will vet any endorsement deal between a booster and an athlete worth more than $600, with the goal of ensuring it is for a “valid business purpose.”  

    Still, doubts remain about how the watchdog will work; one commenter on X noted that all it takes for boosters to create an NIL regulatory loophole is to pay athletes in multiple $599 payments rather than one mass sum

    Despite the efforts to regulate NIL payments through the clearinghouse, Weaver said the settlement will create “a feeding frenzy of agents and dealmakers capitalizing on a few athletes wealth while schools scramble to lock down players who could bolt for a better offer at any moment.”

    “I expect to see the first Title IX lawsuits, and requests for an immediate stay, filed as soon as this week,” she said. “It’s important for higher education leaders to understand the far-reaching impact on our industry—it’s only just begun.”

    Source link

  • Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns

    Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns


    The U.S. Department of Education announced Thursday it will eliminate the rigorous review process previously required for colleges and universities seeking to change accreditors, a move critics warn could undermine educational quality standards.

    The announcement, which implements parts of President Trump’s Executive Order on “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” simultaneously lifts a moratorium on reviewing applications for new accrediting bodies.

    In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the policy change as promoting competition.

    “We must foster a competitive marketplace both amongst accreditors and colleges and universities in order to lower college costs and refocus postsecondary education on improving academic and workforce outcomes for students and families.” she said.

    However, higher education policy experts expressed concerns that the streamlined process could enable institutions to evade accountability by shopping for less stringent accreditors.

    The Department’s new Dear Colleague Letter revokes guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 that had established a pre-clearance process for institutional accreditor changes. The new guidance explicitly allows institutions to change accreditors for reasons including finding one that “better aligns with a religious mission,” accommodating shifts in academic programs, complying with state law requirements, or avoiding accreditors that impose “discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices and principles.”

    Education advocates worry the policy shift prioritizes institutional freedom over student protections.

    “When we make it easier for colleges to switch accreditors without thorough vetting, we risk creating a race to the bottom where standards are compromised,” said one higher education researcher. “The students who will suffer most are often those from historically underrepresented groups who depend on accreditation as an assurance of quality.”

    The Department characterized its previous approach as overreaching, stating in the new guidance.

    “It is not the Department’s prerogative to infer any other meanings from the basic requirements or contrive a multi-step investigation. This guidance re-establishes a simple process that will remove unnecessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation.”

    The policy change also rescinds the October 2024 pause on reviewing applications for new accrediting agencies. At least one prospective accreditor that had its application temporarily paused has now been notified that its review will proceed.

    Critics contend that enabling more accreditors with potentially varying standards could fragment the higher education quality assurance landscape in ways that confuse students and employers.

    “The fundamental question is whether reducing oversight will actually improve educational outcomes or simply make it easier for underperforming institutions to avoid consequences,” said a public university president, who asked to remain anonymous, for fear of retaliation. “History suggests the latter is more likely.”

    The Department has not announced specific metrics to evaluate whether the policy changes lead to improved outcomes for students or institutions.

    Source link