Tag: States

  • The United States as guardian or bully

    The United States as guardian or bully

    The recent United States military incursion into Venezuela and abduction and subsequent arrest of its President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in New York is a major geopolitical event. Like all major geopolitical events, it has several components — historical, legal, political and moral.

    And like all major geopolitical events, it has very different points of view. There is no grandiose “Truth” about what happened. There are many truths and points of view.

    What can be said is that on 3 January 2026, the United States military carried out strikes on Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife Cilia Flores. The two were then flown to the United States where they were arrested and charged with issues related to narcoterrorism.

    The United States’ intervention in a Latin American country has historical precedents as well as current foreign policy implications.

    Under President James Monroe, the United States declared in 1823 that it was opposed to any outside colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. Now known as the Monroe Doctrine, it established what political scientists refer to as a “sphere of influence”; No foreign country could establish control of a country in the United States-dominated Western Hemisphere.

    (This was indeed one of the central issues in the 13-day October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the United States established a blockade outside Cuba to stop the installation of Soviet missiles on the island.)

    The Trump Corollary

    In the latest U.S. official security strategy document — National Security Strategy 2025 — the Monroe Doctrine was presented in what has been labelled “The Trump Corollary.” In it, the government said that defending territory and the Western Hemisphere were central tasks of U.S. foreign policy and national interest. The document clearly stated that activities by extra-hemispheric powers would be considered serious threats to U.S. security.

    As such, the “Trump Corollary” of the Monroe Doctrine is the justification of the military action in Venezuela based on stopping Russian and Chinese influence in Venezuela. In addition, it can be seen as the justification for the U.S. to acquire Greenland, resume control of the Panama Canal and stop narcotics and illegal migrants coming into the United States from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.

    But the Corollary and Doctrine are mere national strategic statements. Are they legally justified? The U.S. military operation in Venezuela has been highly criticized by international lawyers as well as United Nations officials. The United Nations Charter, of which the United States is a signatory, clearly forbids the use of force by one country against another country except in the case of self-defense and imminent threat.

    In an interview with New Yorker magazine reporter Isaac Chotiner on 3 January, Yale Law School Professor Oona Hathaway noted that when the UN Charter was written 80 years ago, it included a critical prohibition on the use of force by states. “States are not allowed to decide on their own that they want to use force against other states,” she told Chotiner. “It was meant to reinforce this relatively new idea at the time that states couldn’t just go to war whenever they wanted to.”

    Hathaway said that in the pre-UN Charter world, you could use force if you felt like drug trafficking was hurting you and come up with legal justification that that was the case. “But the whole point of the UN Charter was basically to say, ‘We’re not going to go to war for those reasons anymore’,” she said.

    The legality of an ouster

    Besides the international legal issue, there is also a domestic legal question about the Venezuelan military action. The 1973 War Powers Act was enacted to limit the power of the U.S. president to use military forces with the approval of the Congress.

    It was enacted following the Vietnam War during which the president engaged troops without Congressional approval or a formal declaration of war. The Act clearly requires the president to notify Congress before committing armed forces to military action.

    Trump did not consult with members of Congress before and during the military action in Venezuela. The political implications of the Venezuelan strikes and abduction also have international as well as domestic implications. Internationally, there is a dangerous precedent being set.

    If the United States asserts its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, what is to stop the Russian Federation from claiming a similar sphere of influence in the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as well as Ukraine?

    Similarly, what about Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region and especially Taiwan? If the United States claims domination in one geographic region, why can’t other powers like Russia and China do the same?

    The Westphalian system

    Within the United States, there have also been serious reservations about President Trump’s actions. That was to be expected from the opposing Democratic Party. But, several members of Trump’s Republican Party as well as loyal members of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement argue that Trump was elected on the slogan “Make America Great Again.” One of the pillars of that movement is a focus on internal problems instead of foreign interventions.

    Republican U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene used to be one of Trump’s staunchest supporters. On 3 January she told interviewer Kristen Walker on the NBC show “Meet the Press” that America First should mean what Trump promised on the campaign trail in 2024.

    “So my understanding of America First is strictly for the American people, not for the big donors that donate to big politicians, not for the special interests that constantly roam the halls in Washington and not foreign countries that demand their priorities put first over Americans,” Greene said.

    Other criticisms have centered on President Trump’s focus on restoring business in Venezuela for the U.S. oil industry, which has the world’s largest oil reserves. Republican U.S. Representative Thomas Massie warned that “lives of U.S. soldiers are being risked to make those oil companies (not Americans) more profitable.”

    Finally, there are moral arguments against the use of force in Venezuela as well as Trump’s threats of the use of force in Colombia, Cuba and elsewhere. There is no question that Venezuelans had suffered under the rule of Maduro; statistics show the rapid decline in the economy as well as a significant democratic deficit.

    Fundamental to today’s notion of international order is what’s known as the Westphalian system of the integrity of state sovereignty. The world has seen an order since the end of World War II and the establishment of the United Nations. That order was based on respect for the rule of law. There are other means for states to act against other states, such as sanctions, below military intervention. One country invading another goes against the basis of the Westphalian system.

    The Venezuelan strikes and abduction have set a dangerous precedent.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What is meant by the “Monroe Doctrine”?

    2. When is one country considered part of a “sphere of influence” of another country?

    3. How do you define “national security”?

    Source link

  • Trump celebrates returning education to the states in national address

    Trump celebrates returning education to the states in national address

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

    In an address to the nation on Wednesday night, President Donald Trump celebrated increased state involvement and decreased federal oversight in education — a task he said his administration has accomplished in the last 11 months.  

    “We have broken the grip of sinister woke radicals in our schools,” he said, “and control over those schools is back now in the hands of our great and loving states, where education belongs.” 

    Trump, however, remained silent on his education plan for 2026.

    Increased state control over education — partly by gutting the U.S. Department of Education — loomed large among U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s priorities when entering the office in March. McMahon has since announced at least two rounds of layoffs at the department, pauses in some federal funding, and reorganization and outsourcing of key parts of the department itself. 

    Trump’s comments come a month after the Education Department announced six interagency agreements, shifting management of major programs to other federal agencies. The agreements included sending the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to the U.S. Department of Labor.

    However, increasing state control over education and decreasing federal oversight has deeply divided the education community. 

    While Republican-led states have celebrated Trump’s education agenda as allowing them to tailor education to local needs, Democratic-leaning states and lawmakers have said decreased oversight will create more challenges. 

    An adult sits at a table with a name tag and microphone in front of them.

    Angelica Infante-Green, Rhode Island commissioner of elementary and secondary education, speaks during a spotlight forum on the Trump administration’s impact on education on Dec. 16, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

    Courtesy of U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono

     

    “After a year that included mass firings, canceling critical grant funds for our local schools, and cutting access to student loans, the Trump administration is trying to make good on their promise to shutter the Department of Education,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., according to a statement from a forum convened by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, a day before the president’s address.

    Van Hollen added, “While there are many ways to improve our education system, dismantling the department piece by piece only threatens our longstanding goal of ensuring that every child has access to a quality education.” 

    Angelica Infante-Green, Rhode Island commissioner of elementary and secondary education, told Van Hollen and other lawmakers at the Dec. 16 forum that by stepping back from federal support of education, the Trump administration has created “chaos and concern.” 

    Red states, meanwhile, have already begun submitting waiver requests to the Every Student Succeeds Act, a bipartisan measure passed under President Barack Obama that gave increased flexibility to states compared to its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act.

    Indiana, Kansas and Iowa are among those that have so far sought waivers, and the Education Department’s response to them could pave the path for future waivers in other states.

    Source link

  • Teaching might be synchronous, but learning is always happening asynchronously

    Teaching might be synchronous, but learning is always happening asynchronously

    Key points:

    The bell rings at 10:00 a.m. A teacher begins explaining quadratic equations. Some students lean forward, pencils ready. Others stare at the clock. A few are still turning yesterday’s lesson over in their minds. On the surface, it’s a standard, well‑planned class period. But here’s the catch: Learning doesn’t always happen on schedule.

    Think about your own class last week. Did every student learn exactly what you were teaching? Or did some of them circle back a day or two later with new questions, fresh insights, or sudden understanding?

    Across the country, laws and regulations attempt to define and balance synchronous and asynchronous instruction. Some states fund schools based on seat time, measuring how long students sit in classrooms or log into live online sessions. Here in Indiana, recent legislation even limits the number of e‑learning days that can be asynchronous, as if too many days without live teaching would somehow shortchange students. These rules were written with the best of intentions–ensuring students are engaged, teachers are available, and learning doesn’t slip through the cracks.

    Over time, “asynchronous instruction” has picked up a troubling reputation, often equated with the idea of no teaching at all–just kids simply poking through a computer on their own. But the truth is far more nuanced. The work of teaching is so difficult precisely because all learning is, at its core, asynchronous. The best teachers understand the enormous variance in readiness within any group of students. They know some learners grasp a concept immediately while others need more time, multiple exposures, or a completely different entry point. Giving them space beyond the live moment is often exactly what allows learning to take hold.

    Devoting resources to well-designed asynchronous learning, such as recorded lectures available for rewatch, self-paced learning modules, project-based activities, and educational games, allows students to immerse themselves in instructional materials and gain a better understanding of content on their terms. Instead of helping students catch up during class time, teachers can focus on whole-group instruction and a deeper analysis of curriculum content.

    When we’re measuring butts in seats or time in front of a screen with an instructor on the other end, live, we’re measuring what’s easy to measure, not what’s important. Real student engagement happens in the head of the learner, and that is far harder to quantify.

    That’s why I can’t help but wonder if some of these mandates, while well‑intentioned, actually get in the way of real learning, pushing schools to comply with a regulation rather than focus on the conditions that actually help students grow.

    What if, instead of focusing so much on the ratio of synchronous to asynchronous minutes, we asked a better question: Are students being given the time, space, and support to truly learn? Are we creating systems that allow them to circle back and show growth when they’re ready, not just when the bell rings? As an administrator, I know our district is still figuring out the complexities of putting these goals into practice.

    Instead of tying funding and accountability to time in a seat, imagine tying it to evidence of growth. Imagine policies that encourage schools to document when and how students show understanding, no matter when it happens. Imagine giving educators the freedom to design opportunities for students to revisit, rethink, and re‑engage until the learning truly sticks.

    The teaching might be synchronous. But the learning is always happening asynchronously, and if we can shift our policies, practices, and mindsets to honor that truth, we can move beyond compliance and toward classrooms where students have every chance to succeed.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • With preschool teachers in short supply, cities, states turn to apprenticeships 

    With preschool teachers in short supply, cities, states turn to apprenticeships 

    by Nirvi Shah, The Hechinger Report
    December 5, 2025

    SAN FRANCISCO — In a playground outside a YMCA, Mayra Aguilar rolled purple modeling dough into balls that fit easily into the palms of the toddlers sitting across from her. She helped a little girl named Wynter unclasp a bicycle helmet that she’d put on to zoom around the space on a tricycle. 

    Aguilar smiled, the sun glinting off her saucer-sized gold hoop earrings. “Say, ‘Thank you, teacher,’” Aguilar prompted Wynter, who was just shy of 3. Other toddlers crowded around Wynter and Aguilar and a big plastic bin of Crayola Dough, and Aguilar took the moment to teach another brief lesson. “Wynter, we share,” Aguilar pressed, scooting the tub between kids. “Say, ‘Can you pass it to me?’” 

    Aguilar and Wynter are both new at this. Wynter has been in the structured setting of a child care center only since mid-August. Aguilar started teaching preschoolers and toddlers, part-time, in February. 

    It has been life-changing, in different ways, for them both. Wynter, an only child, is learning to share, count and recognize her letters. Aguilar is being paid to work and earning her first college credits — building the foundation for a new career, all while learning new ways to interact with her own three kids.

    Early educators are generally in short supply, and many who attempt this work quickly quit. The pay is on par with wages at fast food restaurants and big box stores, or even less. Yet unlike some other jobs with better pay, working with small children and infants usually requires some kind of education beyond a high school diploma. Moving up the ladder and pay scale often requires a degree. 

    What’s different for Aguilar compared to so many other people trying out this profession is that she is an apprentice — a training arrangement more commonly associated with welders, machinists and pipefitters. Apprentice programs for early childhood education have been in place in different parts of the country for at least a decade, but San Francisco’s program stands out. It is unusually well, and sustainably, funded by a real estate tax voters approved in 2018. The money raised is meant to cover the cost of programs that train early childhood educators and to boost pay enough so teachers can see themselves doing it for the long term. 

    Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues.

    Some policy experts see apprenticeships as a potential game changer for the early educator workforce. The layers of support they provide can keep frazzled newcomers from giving up, and required coursework may cost them nothing. “We want it to be a position people want to go into as opposed to one that puts you in poverty,” said Cheryl Horney, who oversees the Early Learning Program that employs apprentices at Wu Yee Children’s Services in San Francisco, including the site where Aguilar works.

    Aguilar, 32, is paid to work 20 hours a week at the Wu Yee Children’s Services’ Bayview Early Learning Center, tucked inside a Y in a residential neighborhood a little under a mile from San Francisco Bay. She works alongside a mentor teacher who supports and coaches her. The apprenticeship covers the online classes, designed just for her and other apprentices and taught live from City College of San Francisco, that Aguilar takes a few nights a week. She was given all the tools needed for her courses, including a laptop, which she also uses for homework and discussions with other apprentices outside of class. 

    After high school, Aguilar had tried college, a medical assistant program that she quit after a few months. That was more than 10 years ago. She hadn’t touched a computer in all that time. When she was enrolling her youngest daughter at another Wu Yee location, Aguilar saw a flyer about the apprenticeship program and applied. She is finding this work to be a far better fit: “This — I think I can do it. This, I like it.” 

    The need for more early educators is longstanding, and in recent years there’s been a push for early educators to get postsecondary training, both to support young children’s development and so the roles command higher salaries. For example, a 2007 change in federal law required at least half of teachers working in Head Start to have bachelor’s degrees in early childhood education by 2013, a goal the program met.

    Despite efforts to professionalize the workforce, salaries for those who work with young children remain low: 87 percent of U.S. jobs pay more than a preschool teacher earns on average; 98 percent pay more than what early child care workers earn. In 2022, Head Start lead teachers earned $37,685 a year on average. 

    Apprenticeships are seen as one way to disrupt that stubborn reality: Would-be teachers are paid while being trained for everything from entry-level roles that require a small number of college credits or training to jobs, like running a child care center, that require degrees and come with more responsibility and even higher pay. According to a June 2023 report from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank, 35 states have some kind of early childhood educator apprenticeship program at the city, regional or state level, and more states are developing their own programs. U.S. Department of Labor data shows that more than 1,000 early educator apprentices have completed their programs since the 2021 fiscal year. Early Care & Educator Pathways to Success, which has received Labor Department grants to help set up apprenticeship programs, estimates the numbers are far larger given its work has cultivated hundreds of apprentices in 21 states, including  Alaska, California, Connecticut and Nebraska.

    These programs can be complicated to launch, however. They sometimes require painstaking work to find colleges that will provide coursework specific to local regulations and at hours that work for apprentices who may be in classrooms much of the workday as well as tending to their own children. They require money to pay the apprentices — on top of whatever it already costs to run child care centers and pay existing staff. The apprentices also typically need other layers of support: coaching, computers, sometimes child care and even meals for apprentices’ own kids as they study and take exams.

    In San Francisco, Horney advocated for her employer to set up an apprenticeship program for staffers at its 12 Head Start centers even before the tax money became available. She recalled losing teachers to chain retailers like Costco and Walgreens where they found less stressful jobs with more generous benefits. When she arrived in San Francisco to work in the classroom, with five years of experience and a bachelor’s degree, she was paid $15 an hour. “Now the lowest salary we pay is $28.67 for any sort of educator,” she said, and the wages and apprenticeships are even drawing people from other counties and stabilizing the San Francisco early educator workforce. “It has helped immensely.”

    Other parts of the country have seen success with similar initiatives.

    The YWCA Metro St. Louis in Missouri, which hasn’t had a single teacher vacancy for the last two years at the child care centers it oversees, credits its apprenticeship program. In Guilford County, North Carolina, vacancies and staff turnover were a plague until recently, but an apprenticeship program for entry-level early educators has kept new teachers on the job. 

    Elsewhere, there is hope for those kinds of results. In the Oklahoma City area, an apprenticeship program started in 2023 just yielded its first graduate, who worked in a child care center for two years and completed a 288-hour training program. Curtiss Mays, who created the program for teachers at the group of Head Start centers he oversees, was in the midst of trying to hire 11 educators just as the first apprentice earned a credential that allows her to back up other teachers. 

    “It’s a pretty major project,” Mays said. “We hope it’s the start of something really good.” Mays worked with the Oklahoma Department of Labor to set up the apprenticeship program, which he said has already pulled one person out of homelessness and is helping to lure more aspiring teachers. It will pay for education all the way through a bachelor’s degree if apprentices stick with it. 

    Apprenticeship programs can be costly to run, but bipartisan federal legislation to support them has never gained traction. (Advocates note that apprenticeships can cost far less than a traditional four-year college degree.) Labor Department money for organizations that help set up and grow early childhood educator apprenticeships helped increase the number of apprentices in so-called registered apprenticeship programs — ones that are proven and validated by the federal agency. But some of those grants were axed by the Trump administration in May. 

    In San Francisco, while setting up apprenticeships was as labor intensive as in many other places, the 2018 real estate tax provides a new and deep well of money to propel the early educator apprentice effort. The money pays for all of the things that are letting Aguilar and dozens of others in the county earn at least 12 college credits this year. In two semesters, Aguilar will have the credentials to be an associate teacher in any early education program in California. Other apprentices across San Francisco, in Head Start centers, family-owned child care programs, even some religious providers, can work toward associate or bachelor’s degrees using the new tax revenue to pay for it. 

    Related: The child care worker shortage is reaching crisis proportions nationally. Could Milwaukee provide the answer?

    Long before the ballot measure across the bay in San Francisco, Pamm Shaw dreamed up the forerunner of an early educator apprenticeship program in a moment of desperation.  

    It was over a decade ago, and Shaw, who was then working at the YMCA East Bay overseeing a collection of Head Start centers, said her agency was awarded a grant to add spaces for about 100 additional infants. Except her existing staff didn’t want to work with children younger than 3. So Shaw sent notices to the roughly 1,000 families with children enrolled in YMCA East Bay Head Start programs at the time and convinced about 20 people, largely parents of children enrolled in Head Start, to consider the role. She pulled together the training that would qualify the parents to become early educators — 12 college credits in six months.

    The education piece, Shaw realized, was a huge draw. Some of the parents had spent 10 years working toward associate degrees on their own without completing them. Giving them the chance to earn those degrees in manageable chunks — while getting paid and receiving raises relatively quickly as their education advanced — proved a powerful recruitment tool. “It changed their lives,” Shaw said. And these new teachers had their eyes opened to how what they would be doing wasn’t just babysitting. They took away lessons they used with their own children — who in turn took notice of their parents studying. “It’s actually child care,” said Shaw. “So much happens in the first year of life that you never get to see again. Never, ever, ever.” 

    It changed Shaw’s life, too, and inspired many other apprenticeship programs all over. Her role morphed into fundraising to build out the apprenticeship pipeline. The program, now baked into the YMCA of the East Bay system, reflected the overall early educator workforce: It was made up entirely of women, mostly women of color, some of them immigrants and many first-generation college students. By the time Shaw retired a few years ago, more than 500 people in the Berkeley area had completed the early educator apprenticeship program. 

    Erica Davis, a single mom, is one of its success stories. When she met Shaw, Davis said, she was relying on public assistance and jobs caring for other people’s children, while taking care of a daughter with significant medical needs, as well as her toddler-age son. Davis was at a Head Start dropping off paperwork for the family of a child in her care when an employee told Davis her young son might be eligible for Head Start too. He was, and as Davis enrolled him, she learned about Shaw’s apprenticeship program. Davis missed the first window to apply, but as she put it, “I was blowing their phone up. I needed to get in.” 

    That was 2020. By this spring, Davis will have earned her bachelor’s degree from Cal State East Bay. She works full-time at a Richmond, California, Head Start center while taking classes and supporting her kids, now in high school and elementary school. She can afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment, owns a car and no longer relies on state or federal assistance to pay bills. She’s on the dean’s list, and, she said proudly, she can squat 205. 

    “I didn’t take my education seriously,” Davis, 41, said of her younger self. “I feel like I’m playing catch-up now.” She is in her element at the YMCA of the East Bay Richmond Parkway Early Learning Center, reading to children, working on potty training and leading the kids through coloring-and-pasting exercises. She has even become an informal coach for newer apprentices. The network and family feel of these apprenticeships is some of what helps many succeed, she said. “I have a sad story, but it turned into something beautiful.”

    Related: The dark future of American child care

    While Davis said she prefers the flexibility of taking classes at her own pace, other apprentices thrive in the kind of classes Aguilar attends, with a live instructor who starts off leading students in a mindfulness exercise. That is the same approach to teaching apprentices at EDvance College in San Francisco, which works exclusively with early childhood apprentices, according to its president and CEO, Lygia Stebbing. 

    The college provides general education classes in reading, math and science for apprentices pursuing degrees, taught through an early childhood lens so it feels approachable and relevant. And every lesson can be applied nearly in real time, unlike other paths to degrees, in which in-person teaching experience comes only after many classes, Stebbing said. Before beginning classes, apprentices get a crash course in using technology, from distinguishing between a tablet and a laptop to using Google Docs and Zoom, “so they can jump right into things,” she said. A writing coach and other student support staff are available in the evenings, when apprentices are taking courses or doing homework. Because many of the apprentices are older than typical college students and may even have used up their federal Pell Grants and other financial aid taking courses without earning a degree, the college works with foundations and local government agencies to offset the cost of courses so graduates don’t end up in debt.        

    “We’ve really put the student at the center,” Stebbing said.   

    For Mayra Aguilar, her mentor teacher Jetoria Washington is a lifeline who can help her unstick an issue with any aspect of the apprenticeship — in the classes she takes or the classroom where she works. Taking courses online means she can be home with her own kids in the evenings. Earning money for the hours she spends in the classroom means she is not going into debt to earn the credential she needs to find a full-time job. The constellation of support has helped her shift from feeling in over her head to feeling ready to keep working toward a college degree.        

    And she is having fun. On the playground, one of the kids had the idea to trace another with sidewalk chalk, working on their pencil grip as much as they were playing. Except it wasn’t just the other kids: They traced Aguilar, too. When it was time to go back inside, powdery green and pink lines crisscrossed the back of her brown pants and black blouse. She wasn’t bothered.   

    “I love the kids,” she said. “They always make me laugh.”       

    Aguilar has even picked up skills that she uses with her own children, something many apprentices describe.        

    Now, she sometimes says to her youngest daughter, “Catch a bubble.” That’s preschool speak for “Be quiet.” When a teacher needs the toddlers’ attention, kids hear this phrase, then fill their cheeks with air.        

    Most of the time, at home and at work, a brief silence follows. Then the kids look up, ready to hear what comes next.    

    Contact staff writer Nirvi Shah at 212-678-3445, on Signal at NirviShah.14 or [email protected]. 

    Reporting on this story was supported by the Higher Ed Media Fellowship. 

    This story about preschool teachers was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/one-city-finding-early-educators/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113662&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/one-city-finding-early-educators/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • One State’s Collaborative Efforts to Improve Transfer

    One State’s Collaborative Efforts to Improve Transfer

    Recent “Beyond Transfer” articles have garnered a lot of attention and discussion among many in the transfer world, including those of us involved in transfer work in Virginia. The reactions to these articles demonstrate just how complex transfer is, and while we may not all agree, the importance of the work is undeniable. One state has taken steps to reduce the complexity and clarify transfer for students and colleges.

    The article “The Transfer Credit Myth: How Everything We Know About Excess Credits May Be Wrong,” while narrow in scope, highlighted several important aspects of transfer that should be reiterated: Early and consistent academic planning support is imperative. Additionally, we know program changes, prerequisites and financial aid exhaustion can have serious implications to progress whether a student transferred or not. Furthermore, as highlighted in a response article, we cannot forget about state- and system-level policies that may impact these efforts, for better or worse.

    In recognition of these complexities, Virginia passed legislation in 2018 to improve transfer, which addressed three elements: general education, transfer pathways and a state transfer tool. In response and through a collaborative effort between the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) and two- and four-year institutions, the Transfer Virginia initiative was born. Its goal is to remove barriers while improving credit efficiency, reducing time to transfer and boosting degree-attainment rates.

    • General education: A two-year institutional general education package, known as the Uniform Certificate of General Studies (U.C.G.S.), was created to apply to lower-level general education at all Virginia public four-year institutions and many participating private four-year institutions.
    • Transfer pathways: Common curricula have been developed to provide the foundation for the transfer pathways—or student-facing transfer guides—which are created with the goal of mapping associate degree curricula, including the U.C.G.S., to baccalaureate degrees to strengthen credit efficiency and applicability. Each guide includes a curricular section showing the student exactly what to take at both the two-year institution and the remaining requirements at the four-year institution for a true 2+2. There is also a “Transfer Guidance” section that includes information about the college/university, major, admission—including guaranteed admission—as well as important dates, deadlines and links, serving as a one-stop shop for transfer information. There are currently over 500 transfer guides, representing over 30 pathways to four-year institutions, with approximately 150 to 200 guides submitted each year. These work very well when a student has identified a transfer plan. For those who would like to explore further, these and many other resources are available in the portal.
    • State transfer tool: The Transfer Virginia portal, officially launched in 2021, is designed to be a robust repository to assist students at any point in their higher education journey, including dual enrollment. The portal provides standardized information for more than 60 Virginia colleges—two-year and four-year, public and private—all in one place. Users can compare institutions, explore program listings, find colleges offering their major, see how their coursework transfers, create a portfolio and connect with transfer specialists directly.

    For states looking to effect change, a good place to start is identifying commonalities between general education curriculum at both two- and four-year institutions to craft a statewide pathway. However, the work cannot be done in silos. Collaboration and commitment from the two- and four-year institutions and state administrative agencies is vital. For Virginia, legislation ignited the initiative, but the teamwork between all stakeholders keeps the momentum going.

    Source link

  • States Should Step Up on Graduate School Aid (opinion)

    States Should Step Up on Graduate School Aid (opinion)

    Two decades ago, Uncle Sam offered a helping hand for college graduates who desired careers that required advanced degrees by establishing a loan program known as Grad PLUS. That hand has now been withdrawn. Also known as Direct PLUS loans, this program allowed students to borrow beyond the $20,500 limit available through direct unsubsidized loans to cover their full cost of attendance. With the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law last summer, Grad PLUS loans will no longer be an option for prospective graduate students after July 2026.

    The question of whether colleges and universities raise their tuition prices as the availability of federal aid increases has been a hotly debated topic for more than four decades, with contradictory findings. One recent study found that institutions increased their tuition prices after the creation of Grad PLUS, and determined that the funds did not increase access (or completion) for graduate education in general or for underrepresented groups in particular. These findings echo previous studies that also support a positive relationship between government aid and college prices. In contrast, other studies and analyses at the undergraduate level, as well as for graduate business, medical and law programs, have found little evidence of nonprofit institutions increasing tuition in relation to government subsidies. (The for-profit sector is another story.)

    In any case, the elimination of Grad PLUS is a new reality that incoming graduate students will have to face. Now, students in master’s and doctoral programs will only be able to borrow up to $20,500 annually (with a maximum of $100,000). Students in professional degree programs, like law and medicine, will have a higher cap of $50,000 annually (up to $200,000 total). Additionally, the maximum amount students can borrow from the federal government for their undergraduate and graduate studies combined is $257,500. Students who borrow beyond any of these limits annually will have to turn to private loans to finance the remaining costs, which are less accessible for low-income students (who have less credit) and often come with higher interest rates.

    The specific impact of these new limits on students is not yet known, but if we look at data for borrowers from previous years, we see potential impacts. In 2019–20, approximately 38 percent of all graduate borrowers borrowed beyond these caps, according to an analysis by Jobs for the Future. When disaggregated by degree type, 41 percent of graduate borrowers pursuing master’s degrees, 37 percent pursuing Ph.D. degrees and 25 percent pursuing professional degrees borrowed beyond the loan caps set by OBBBA.

    A recent analysis published by American University’s Postsecondary Education & Economics Research Center shows potential impacts not just by graduate degree type but also by specific field of study. For professional degrees (with the higher loan cap), more than half of borrowers for chiropractic, medicine, osteopathy and dentistry programs borrowed more than $200,000 for their degrees in recent years. Among the master’s programs reviewed, half or more of borrowers in programs including audiology/speech pathology, public health, nursing and school and mental health counseling, to name a few, borrowed beyond the new limits.

    Based on these analyses, it is clear that many prospective graduate students will be impacted by the new loan caps, at least in the short term. The rationale for these loan caps is that graduate programs will lower their costs to make graduate education more affordable, although it is doubtful that colleges will decrease the costs of graduate programs within just a year. It should be noted that many students do not borrow at all to obtain their degrees. In 2019–20, approximately 40 percent of full-time domestic students enrolled in master’s degrees did not borrow.

    For programs that attract students from high-income backgrounds (usually selective elite institutions), what incentive is there to decrease costs if enough students can pay out of pocket? For instance, between 2014 and 2019, medical school matriculants from high-income backgrounds (over $200,000) increased substantially. The number of students attending law schools from wealthy backgrounds has also increased in the past couple of decades, particularly at selective elite institutions. Graduate education, at least at elite schools, has become less accessible for many low-income students.

    Without financial support, options for low-income students will become even more limited. These students will largely be relegated to less selective public universities, and the more elite private schools will become even less economically diverse than they already are. Financial aid offices will become the de facto second admissions office. Using Massachusetts as an example, our analysis found that the annual cost of attendance exceeded the annual loan limit of $50,000 in the case of every accredited law and medical school in the state, with the gap between the cost of attendance and the limit ranging from about $5,600 in the case of the lone public law school (the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth), and $33,000 in the case of the only public medical school option (University of Massachusetts Chan), to as high as $71,000 for Harvard Law School and $64,000 for Harvard Medical School.

    Law School (J.D.) Institution Type 2025 Estimated Cost of Attendance Annual COA Above/ Below Cap
    Boston College Private, nonprofit $99,991 $49,991
    Boston University Private, nonprofit $92,914 $42,914
    Harvard University Private, nonprofit $121,250 $71,250
    New England Law Private, nonprofit $113,279 $63,279
    Northeastern University Private, nonprofit $88,926 $38,926
    Suffolk University Private, nonprofit $96,190 $46,190
    Western New England University Private, nonprofit $74,176 $24,176
    University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Public $55,648 (in-state) $5,648
    Amounts calculated based on current advertised rates for first-time (entering), full-time students enrolled in daytime, nine-month and on-campus programs.
    Medical School (M.D.) Institution Type 2025 Cost of Attendance Annual COA Above/Below Cap
    Boston University Private, nonprofit $100,927 $50,927
    Harvard University Private, nonprofit $113,746 $63,746
    Tufts University Private, nonprofit $99,884 $49,884
    University of Massachusetts Chan Public $83,247 (in-state) $33,247
    Amounts calculated based on advertised rates for first-time (entering), full-time students enrolled in daytime, 10-month and on-campus programs.

    This simple analysis, of course, does not take into account any institutional grants or scholarships students may be awarded, but those funds vary by institutional budgets.

    What happens when a deserving medical school applicant gains admission and a financial aid offer, only to realize that they still have a balance of $40,000 after institutional and federal aid is applied? For students to turn to private lenders, they will likely need either good credit and a substantial income or a cosigner, which may not be an option for many students from underresourced backgrounds. Almost 93 percent of private student loans given last year had a cosigner. Almost 51 percent of individuals from low/moderate incomes have limited or poor to fair credit. Even if they are lucky to be offered loans, the interest rates will likely be much higher.

    With Washington Out, States May Have to Intervene

    With the recent federal cuts to Medicaid likely to lead to decreases in state funding for postsecondary education, states may be hesitant to award funds to support students pursuing graduate education—but there are frameworks to help states determine which graduate programs deserve state funding and which type of funding to provide students. Third Way recently produced a framework that categorizes programs by personal return on investment and social value. One possible solution would be to offer accessible loans and state subsidies based on how a state places certain programs in this model.

    For programs that lead to high ROI and social value—for example, dentistry—states that are facing a shortage of dentists could offer accessible (and lower than market rate) loans in exchange for working in certain geographic areas in that state. Providing low-interest loans instead of grants would make sense for this category because dentists are more likely to have high enough earnings (postresidency) that they can repay their loans. Certain localities have set up zero-interest loans for students pursuing specific industries, such as a San Diego County program for aspiring behavioral health professionals (a type of pay-it-forward program).

    Some states, such as Pennsylvania, do have loan repayment programs for certain health occupations in exchange for working in specific areas of their states. Offering this solution without providing accessible loans will only benefit students who come from wealthier families, as they are more likely to have good enough credit or relationships with creditworthy cosigners to access private loans in the first place.

    For programs that are high in social value but low in personal ROI, such as teaching or social work, if a state determines this is an area of need, they can offer grants to lower the cost of attending these programs and minimize the amount of loans students will have to take out, in exchange for service in these fields for a specific period of time. Offering accessible, low-interest loans to students pursuing these careers could still be an option, but should be secondary, or supplemental to, grants.

    In line with recommendations from a jointly authored report from the American Enterprise Institute, EducationCounsel and the Century Foundation, states can offer grants to graduate students who demonstrate financial need, in addition to targeted grant aid for certain programs. Already, certain states, such as Maryland, New Mexico, Virginia and Washington, offer grant aid to graduate students in specific fields or based on financial need. Massachusetts also offers a tuition waiver to incentivize students to enroll in graduate programs at its public universities.

    Unfortunately, I was unable to find a single repository of state aid specifically for graduate students from various states. The closest I could find was a report released by the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs for the 2023–24 academic year with data on state-funded expenditures for both undergraduate and graduate student aid. The report shows that only a handful of states allocated more than a million dollars to need-based graduate aid (Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia), but does not specify for which programs, nor does it detail how aid is awarded and to which institutions.

    The Education Finance Council also maintains a list of nonprofit loan providers in different states that offer lower-interest or more accessible loans, many of which are state-administered, such as the Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority. States that already administer conditional loans, scholarships, grants or loan forgiveness programs at the undergraduate level should consider expanding these programs to high- demand industries that require postbaccalaureate credentials if they have not already.

    What Can Institutions Do?

    Institutions are the closest to students, and they can play a role as well. Beyond offering need-based grants/scholarships to lower the cost of attendance, institutions can also guide students in the lending process, such as by publishing preferred lenders on financial aid websites. These lenders should have a good reputation with borrowers and offer low interest rates. Examples of institutions that advertise preferred lenders include Baylor University, the University of Iowa and the University of Central Missouri.

    Institutions with more financial resources can either directly partner with lenders to offer lower fixed interest rates through risk sharing or provide loans themselves. Harvard Law School makes loans available to graduate students through a partnership with the Harvard Federal Credit Union. Some private loan providers looking to get into the graduate lending space are now in conversations with institutions about developing new risk-sharing models.

    Many occupations that typically require graduate degrees, such as teaching, nursing and medicine, will face steep shortages in the coming years. States should align aid programs with current and future workforce shortages, determine which graduate programs will exceed federal loan caps and by how much, offer targeted grants for high-social-value but low-earning fields where costs exceed caps, and provide below-market or zero-interest (and accessible) loans for high-social-value, high-earning fields.

    Institutions must act urgently by partnering with accessible, ethical lenders; increasing need-based aid for students who need it most; and protecting students from predatory options. At the very least, institutions can advertise the upcoming student loan changes on their websites. With OBBBA loan caps, Washington is stepping back. Will states and institutions be able to step forward and lead the way in preserving access and promoting economic mobility? Only 2026 will tell.

    Josh Farris is research and policy specialist and Derrick Young Jr. is cofounder and executive director at Leadership Brainery, a nonprofit organization focused on improving access to graduate education for students from limited-access backgrounds.

    Source link

  • Texas State’s ‘value neutral instruction’ walks a fine (and risky) line

    Texas State’s ‘value neutral instruction’ walks a fine (and risky) line

    Over the past year, many Texas politicians and university leaders have pursued hamfisted and unconstitutional higher education reforms that too often violate the expressive rights of students and faculty. 

    We recently explained how some government officials misread the law and used online outrage to chill controversial speech and punish a Texas A&M professor for protected expression. Other recent highlights from Texas include a campus speech law prohibiting expressive activities after 10:00 p.m. and a systemwide ban on drag shows at Texas A&M schools. In both cases, FIRE filed suit and won preliminary victories ensuring students can continue exercising their expressive rights.

    Recently, FIRE learned that Texas State University is taking its own stab at institutional reform. It is conducting a “curricular review” built around a guide titled “Value Neutral Instruction and the Curriculum,” which encourages faculty to frame their teaching around inquiry and intellectual exploration, rather than beginning from predetermined conclusions.

    This is a sound pedagogical goal. Professors should present competing arguments and perspectives to students, teach them to evaluate the evidence and think critically, and arrive at their own conclusions. And the guidance does much more than most to protect the core of academic freedom and stay within constitutional bounds. However, like many other efforts at curricular reform, it nevertheless risks chilling protected expression and infringing upon academic freedom. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

    The good

    Much of the guidance is framed as best practices, not mandatory policy. That matters because academic freedom requires giving faculty broad latitude to direct classroom discussion and design syllabi as they see fit. The guidance also focuses more on teaching style than class content, which limits the scope of the risks discussed below.

    It also promises that faculty may “share their own scholarly perspective when relevant,” and that academic freedom includes the right to “pursue truth without political constraints” and reach “controversial scholarly conclusions.” Those provisions are essential because faculty at public colleges have the First Amendment right to teach pedagogically relevant material. And unlike many reform efforts that offer vague nods to academic freedom, this language specifies what faculty can actually do — pursue truth, reach controversial conclusions, and share their views in class.

    Regarding course content, the guidance makes clear that faculty may “cover any topic, including obvious moral wrongs,” and when it comes to “contested questions . . . neutral instruction does not avoid these topics” (more on that later). This is a far cry from the many bills we’ve opposed that identify certain “divisive concepts” and restrict the freedom to discuss them in class. Here again, constitutional considerations demand nothing less. The Supreme Court has explained that the First Amendment “does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”

    VICTORY: Federal court halts Texas’ ‘no First Amendment after dark’ campus speech ban

    A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the University of Texas from enforcing a law that bans virtually all free speech on public university campuses after dark


    Read More

    The guidance also protects the right of students to come to their own conclusions, stating that they should not be graded on viewpoint-based criteria, such as “whether [they] agree with [a] particular ideology.” Along the same lines, the guidance warns against class learning objectives that assume students will leave with particular viewpoints, highlighting some examples that it claims are “frequently flagged”: 

    • “Students will value diversity”
    • “Students will demonstrate commitment to social justice”
    • “Students will recognize their privilege”
    • “Students will develop empathy for marginalized groups”
    • “Students will embrace antiracist identity”

    If this type of learning objective is common, as the guidance claims, that’s a real problem for students’ freedom to come to their own well-reasoned conclusions. Such learning outcomes stray from education and veer into indoctrination.

    The guidance instead suggests that students should leave any class with the ability to:

    1. Remember: Retrieve relevant knowledge. 

    2. Understand: Construct meaning from material. 

    3. Apply: Use procedures in given situations. 

    4. Analyze: Break material into parts and determine relationships. 

    5. Evaluate: Make judgments based on criteria. 

    6. Create: Put elements together to form coherent whole.

    In sum: Students should learn the material, understand the material, and be able to apply the material to reach their own well-reasoned conclusions. These are high-level learning objectives, and setting them is well within the purview of university decision-makers.

    The risks

    While the language highlighted above may be unobjectionable, or even desirable on its face, it’s important to remember the context in which it comes: a review of the entire curriculum. This review might fairly aim to target courses with ideologically prescriptive learning outcomes, but it could also be a leverage point for strictly applying the guidelines and targeting disfavored ideas. We have warned schools that curricular reviews targeting certain ideas can violate the First Amendment by creating a chilling effect. 

    And right off the bat, the guidance dips its toe in these waters by advising faculty to avoid using particular words or phrases in course titles and descriptions. For example, the guidance cautions against using the following words in course titles: “Dismantling, Decolonizing, Interrogating, Challenging, Centering, Combating, Liberation, Resistance, Activism, Justice-Oriented, Transformative, Anti-[Group], and Pro-[Political Position].”

    Although public university leaders may give some direction to educational style and goals, the guidance’s focus on particular words suggests a level of pedagogical micromanagement that will chill expression and undermine faculty autonomy.

    If this process results in Texas State censoring professors or banning ideas from the classroom, we urge faculty to reach out to FIRE.

    And its core framing language — “value-neutral instruction” — is itself fraught. Texas State positions this principle as a defining feature of its curriculum going forward, but public university faculty members have a First Amendment right to share their non-neutral views on relevant material. Though despite this framing concern, the guidance explicitly protects that right.

    The guidance also says professors should consider whether a class reading list “represent[s] intellectual pluralism.” But as ever with this type of direction, the question is: how much pluralism is enough?

    The key with these provisions will be how they’re applied, particularly within the context of the curricular review. Are they merely best practices that serve as high-level pedagogical guidance from the university? Or are they policies that will be strictly enforced to target disfavored ideas and micromanage classroom discussion?

    Texas State University

    San Marcos, TX

    More Info

    Similarly, although the guidance tells faculty that they should not “avoid [controversial] topics,” it adds that “neutral instruction . . . approaches them differently.” Suggested best practices include avoiding straw-man arguments, focusing on the logical structures of different arguments, modeling intellectual humility, and prioritizing process over outcome. In general, this is legitimate pedagogical guidance. But again, professors must retain wide latitude to apply them in different ways that fit particular classroom environments and pedagogical imperatives. And these standards must never serve as a pretext to punish professors for expressing or defending controversial but relevant ideas.

    In this fraught moment for higher education, we must remember that not every attempt at institutional reform is created equal. Some are good-faith attempts to redirect educational approaches and goals. Others attempt to police ideas and micromanage discussion. In Texas State’s case, there’s both reason for caution and room for optimism. We’ll soon see whether university leaders are serious about academic freedom when the rubber meets the road. 

    If this process results in Texas State censoring professors or banning ideas from the classroom, we urge faculty to reach out to FIRE. Faculty can submit a case online or reach out to us via our 24-hour Faculty Legal Defense Fund hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).

    Source link

  • Trump Gutted ED’s Civil Rights Office. Could States Step Up?

    Trump Gutted ED’s Civil Rights Office. Could States Step Up?

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which is supposed to protect students from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, age and disability status, isn’t what it once was.

    The Trump administration laid off nearly half the staff in March, shuttered seven of its 12 regional offices, shifted the hollowed-out agency’s focus to new priorities (including keeping transgender women out of women’s sports) and then reportedly terminated more employees amid the ongoing shutdown.

    Philadelphia was among the cities that lost its OCR regional office in the first round of layoffs. Lindsey Williams, a Pennsylvania state senator who serves as minority chair of the Senate Education Committee, said the region’s cases now go to Atlanta, “where they may or may not be heard.”

    To fill this void, Williams, a Democrat, announced she will file legislation to establish an Office of Civil Rights within the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The bill has yet to be written, but Williams said she wants to “create new authorities for the Pennsylvania Department of Education to investigate and enforce federal civil rights violations.” She noted, “There may be opportunity as well to strengthen our state laws in this regard.”

    “We’re looking at all of it to see what we can do,” she said, “because we haven’t been here before.”

    Students facing discrimination across the country now have far fewer staff in the federal Education Department OCR who can respond to their complaints. The agency had a large backlog of cases even before President Trump retook office, and then it dismissed thousands of complaints in the spring. Some advocates have expressed particular concern about OCR’s current capacity to process complaints of disability discrimination.

    And those left at OCR appear to be applying a conservative interpretation of civil rights law that doesn’t recognize transgender students’ gender identity. The Trump-era OCR has actively targeted institutions for allowing trans women in women’s sports. It’s also focused on ending programs and practices that specifically benefit minorities, to the exclusion of whites.

    Civil rights advocates are calling for states to step up.

    “We cannot stop what is happening at the federal level,” Williams said. “There’s plenty of lawsuits that are trying … but, in the meantime, what do we as a state do?”

    One of those ongoing suits, filed by the Victim Rights Law Center and two parents in April, alleges that shrinking OCR harms students from protected classes. It argues that the federal OCR cuts left “a hollowed-out organization incapable of performing its statutorily mandated functions,” adding that “without judicial intervention, the system will exist in name only.” But that intervention may not work in students’ favor—judges have issued preliminary injunctions, but the Supreme Court has, so far, allowed the Education Department layoffs to continue.

    Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center and a Pennsylvania resident, said, “States need to be picking up some of the slack.”

    “If more states with Democratic leaders started to propose such offices or legislation or money, it would likely create a bigger conversation,” Chestnut said.

    He noted that during the Obama administration, the federal government sued North Carolina over its controversial law banning trans people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity. But that’s not something the Trump administration would do. Chestnut said some states are now saying—and more should be saying—“OK, you won’t do your job, so we’ll do your job for you.”

    Beth Gellman-Beer, who was director of the Philadelphia regional office of the federal OCR before the Trump administration laid her off, said she doesn’t know of other states creating a new state-level agency like the one that’s been proposed in Pennsylvania. Even there, Republicans control the state Senate, and the legislation isn’t certain to pass. She said other state legislatures “should be really thinking about this and taking immediate steps to build out some kind of civil rights unit to help students in their state.”

    Some states already have their own agencies that protect civil rights in higher ed, Gellman-Beer said, including the existing Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. But she said these entities “are traditionally severely understaffed and don’t have the resources and relied heavily on OCR.”

    Chad Dion Lassiter, executive director of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, agreed with Gellman-Beer’s assessment of commissions like his. Lassiter said he feels “sheer exuberance” over the proposed legislation—which he said would be even greater if the new Office of Civil Rights were created in his agency.

    “Give us 20 additional staff and we’ll do the work,” Lassiter said. Ideally, 15 would be investigators in his agency’s education division and five would be attorneys, he said.

    “Each state that has a human relations commission should have an educational component,” he said. “Fund these commissions.”

    Gellman-Beer said the only true fix is to restore a federal OCR—because even if some states do step up, students’ rights will be contingent on where they live.

    “It used to be, under the model prior to this administration, that the promise for equal educational opportunity was across the board,” she said.

    Unequal Rights Across States

    For a student going before a state-level OCR in a state that doesn’t recognize their identity, the process could be as fruitless as seeking help from the Trump-era federal OCR. The Movement Advancement Project, which advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, says 27 states have laws banning trans students from participating in sports matching their gender identity. Such laws don’t all affect postsecondary students, but they often do, the organization said.

    Nicholas Hite, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBTQ+ people in court, said the federal OCR was supposed to provide a single, consistent application of federal legal protections. Now, he said, “that just isn’t happening—they’re just refusing to do it.”

    “If we’re relying on states to be the enforcement mechanism, we’ve created this patchwork where each state is going to take their own approach,” Hite said.

    Universities in states with laws recognizing trans students’ rights have to decide whether to comply with those laws or with the Trump administration’s approach. The administration, using massive cuts to federal research funding, forced concessions from the University of Pennsylvania for allowing a trans woman to compete in women’s sports. But Scott Lewis—a co-founder of the Association of Title IX Administrators and managing partner of TNG Consulting, which advises higher ed institutions on civil rights issues—said so far he’s seen blue-state universities handling discrimination complaints like they did before Trump retook office.

    Lassiter, of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, said, “It’s important for people to know you still have protections under the state.” But protections for trans students can be unclear.

    His agency enforces state laws protecting students against discrimination based on gender identity, but wouldn’t directly answer whether that means it would order a university to allow a trans woman to play on a woman’s sports team. Lassiter said his agency avoids “cultural wars.”

    Students facing discrimination of all sorts can still sue under federal civil rights law in lieu of seeking help from the federal OCR or any state version of that agency. But personal lawsuits can be expensive.

    Williams, the Pennsylvania state senator, noted that lawsuits may also not wrap up by the time a student graduates. Gellman-Beer, the former federal OCR employee, said they also often lead to individual remedies for a victim, rather than “systemic interventions to make sure that the problem doesn’t occur again for other students.” That was the kind of broad solution the federal OCR could achieve, she said.

    Hite welcomed people whose rights are being infringed, or who are concerned about others’ rights, to reach out to Lambda Legal. He noted the federal OCR did much of its work through negotiating with universities to fix issues, rather than pursuing litigation. If the federal OCR is no longer doing these negotiations, the burden is placed on students and parents to sue to uphold their own rights—while an added cost of litigation is also placed on universities, he said.

    Lewis said that if the Trump administration continues its trajectory, people who don’t feel they’re being served at the federal level will go to the state level.

    “If the federal government won’t do it,” he said, “the states are going to be left to do it.”

    Source link

  • States, districts grapple with declining enrollment

    States, districts grapple with declining enrollment

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

    Declining student enrollment is plaguing public schools at state and district levels nationwide, with the impact being felt from falling birthrates and expanding school choice programs.

    As preliminary enrollment data for the 2025-26 school year has begun rolling out, school leaders are being forced to plan ahead for some tough decisions over staffing and school consolidations. 

    Significant enrollment declines have been cause for alarm in districts ranging from Texas’ Austin Independent School District and Arizona’s Kyrene School District to Atlanta Public Schools and Florida’s Broward County Public Schools — all of which are considering school closures or consolidations. 

    While K-12 finance researchers have warned of this trend for years, the historic and one-time federal COVID-19 relief funds delayed the inevitable financial challenge for some districts — until now.  

    Here is a look at how the development is affecting selected states and districts.

    Alabama

    Alabama experienced a 0.8% dip in public student enrollment from 720,181 in 2024-25 to 714,358 for the 2025-26 school year, according to data from the Alabama State Department of Education. 

    This marks the state’s steepest enrollment drop in 40 years, Alabama State Superintendent of Education Eric Mackey told an October board meeting. The state’s historic enrollment decline is most likely due to students opting into a new voucher program known as the CHOOSE Act, Mackey said. 

    Another key reason, though, is that some students “just disappeared” and never showed up despite being enrolled in an Alabama public school, he said. Alabama superintendents have told Mackey that it seems a majority of those students who were unaccounted for were Hispanic with unknown immigration statuses, he said.

    Because of the sharp decline in overall student enrollment, Mackey projects that the district will need 500 to 700 fewer teachers by the 2026-27 school year. 

    Over 23,000 students were approved this year to receive an estimated $124 million in education savings accounts through the CHOOSE Act, which allows families to use ESAs to cover private school tuition, fees and other qualified education expenses, according to an Oct. 17 announcement by Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey. 

    West Virginia

    West Virginia’s enrollment has been in steady decline for the last decade. Between 2023 and 2024, the state saw one of the largest public school enrollment drops in the nation, losing 1.7% of its student body, according to a June analysis by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank. 

    Since 2017-18, the state’s public school enrollment has fallen steeply —  from 270,613 students to 241,013 in 2024-25, for a 10.9% decrease, according to the most recently available data from the West Virginia Department of Education. 

    This decline, along with the expiration of federal COVID-19 aid, an “outdated” state education funding formula and an increasingly popular state school voucher program have contributed to a wave of school closures statewide, according to the West Virginia Center on Budget & Policy. Over 70 West Virginia public schools have closed since 2019, “and more closures are on the way,” the center said. 

    Wisconsin

    In Wisconsin, preliminary unaudited state data reveals that enrollment fell nearly 6%, or by about 46,180 students in September 2025-26 school year compared to the year-over-year counts. After that drop, the state enrolled 759,701 students this school year versus 805,881 in September of 2024-25, according to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

    One Wisconsin state representative said in September that the number of public school districts in the state — currently at 421 — “is going to have to drop,” The Center Square reported. The legislator, Rep. Amanda Nedweski, added in a press conference that she plans to introduce state legislation by year’s end that would encourage school districts to consolidate as a shrinking population and lower birth rates continue contributing to declining enrollment. 

    Source link

  • 21 States, D.C. Ask Court to Reverse TRIO Grant Rejections

    21 States, D.C. Ask Court to Reverse TRIO Grant Rejections

    Twenty-one state attorneys general and the AG of Washington, D.C., filed briefs in support of lawsuits challenging the cancellation of TRIO grants for programs such as Upward Bound at Montgomery County Community College.

    Linda Johnson/Montgomery County Community College

    Democratic attorneys general from 21 states and Washington, D.C., filed briefs this week asking a court to reverse the Trump administration’s rejection of grants supporting TRIO programs, which help disadvantaged students attend and graduate from colleges and universities.

    The Council for Opportunity in Education, which advocates for TRIO programs such as Upward Bound, said about 100 grants were rejected or canceled last month after the Education Department delayed funding for thousands of grants that were slated to begin Sept. 1. Another 23 programs lost funding earlier in the year.

    Those terminations deprived more than 43,600 students of services such as tutoring and financial aid help. (Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget request would end TRIO altogether, and all but a handful of staff in the TRIO grants office were fired early in the ongoing government shutdown.)

    On Sept. 30, the Council filed two lawsuits against the department and Education Secretary Linda McMahon in the U.S. District Court for D.C., alleging that the department canceled grants for complying with the General Education Provisions Act Equity Directive—a requirement at the time of the applications. One suit argues the department faulted a University of New Hampshire application for allegedly saying its program would be “identifying and recruiting students of color and non-Caucasians.”

    The Council is requesting preliminary injunctions vacating the department’s denials and ordering reconsideration of the grants. The attorneys general filed amicus briefs supporting this call.

    “TRIO programs serving thousands of high-school and college students have closed, many of which have operated successfully for years with track records of success,” the briefs say. “Students who relied on these programs’ guidance and academic assistance are now being turned away. The result will be fewer students going to college and fewer students graduating college, to the detriment of impacted Amici States, their residents, and their economies.”

    The AGs of Nevada and Massachusetts were the briefs’ lead authors; they were joined by their counterparts in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

    Source link