Tag: step

  • All Eyes on Florida As State Gets One Step Closer to Nixing Vaccine Mandates – The 74

    All Eyes on Florida As State Gets One Step Closer to Nixing Vaccine Mandates – The 74


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

    A week after Florida health officials brought the state one step closer to abolishing childhood vaccine mandates, pediatricians, parents and advocates are expressing alarm over the ramifications. 

    If such a change goes into effect, “pediatric hospitals will be overwhelmed with [childhood] infections that have virtually been non-existent for the last 40 years,” said Florida-based infectious disease specialist Frederick Southwick. Southwick attended a Dec. 12 public comment workshop on the issue hosted by the Florida Department of Health. 

    “We’re in trouble right now,” he added, pointing to falling vaccine rates and the likelihood that some diseases could become endemic. “We’re getting there, and this [ending the mandate] would just do-in little kids.”

    The session delved into the proposed language the department has drafted for a rule change that would do away with vaccine mandates for four key immunizations: varicella, more commonly known as chickenpox; hepatitis B, pneumococcal bacteria and Haemophilus influenzae type B, or HiB. Currently, children cannot attend school in Florida without proof of these four immunizations, among others, including the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. 

    Although Florida is not considering removing the mandate for the MMR vaccine, health experts see the move it is contemplating as eroding childhood immunization generally. It comes when more than 300 people are being quarantined in South Carolina because of a burgeoning measles outbreak.

    Rana Alissa is the president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. (American Academy of Pediatrics)

    Rana Alissa, president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, was also in attendance to express her concerns. She told The 74 this week that thanks to the success of vaccines, she’s never had to treat some of these “horrible diseases,” including HiB, which can lead to meningitis.

    “Don’t make our kids — Florida’s kids — guinea pigs to teach me and my classmates and other pediatricians how to manage these diseases,” she implored.

    Tallahassee parent Cathy Mayfield lost her 18-year-old daughter, Lawson, to meningitis in 2009, a few months before she was supposed to leave for college and just before she was due for a booster shot. (At the time, the booster was not recommended until college, according to Mayfield.)

    “You just don’t realize until it happens to you,” she said.

    She hopes others will learn the importance of vaccinating their own kids from her family’s story. 

    Cathy Mayfield, and her daughter, Lawson, who died in 2009 from meningitis. (Cathy Mayfield)

    “All the information I learned through our tragedy about vaccinations made me very supportive of the safeguards [they] offer,” she said.

    “You’ve also got to realize,” Mayfield added, “that your decisions affect your community, and that’s something I think has gotten lost in … all this conversation and hesitancy about vaccinations.”

    Equating vaccine mandates to slavery

    The workshop, which was announced the day before Thanksgiving, was held in Panama City Beach, in the Florida Panhandle, far from the state’s main population centers. About 100 people showed up to the session, which was characterized by attendees as heated but civil. Northe Saunders, president of the pro-vaccine advocacy organization American Families for Vaccines and who was there, estimated that about 30 people spoke in favor of keeping the current vaccine mandates, while approximately 20 spoke in opposition.

    Some speakers opposed to vaccine mandates included conspiracy theories in their arguments, according to news reports and numerous people present at the workshop, echoing language heard from the federal government since Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-time vaccine skeptic, took over the Department of Health and Human Services.

    One attendee argued that giving children multiple jabs in a 30-day period “accounts to attempted murder,” according to NBC News. A number of others questioned if this year’s reported measles outbreaks, which resulted in the deaths of two school-age, unvaccinated children in Texas, had actually occurred.

    Florida leaders’ desire to become the first state to end all vaccine mandates was announced in September by its surgeon general, Joseph A. Ladapo, standing beside Gov. Ron DeSantis in the gym of a private Christian high school. In sharing their plan, Ladapo claimed that “every last [mandate] is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery.” 

    Only four vaccines are mandated through a Department of Health rule and are therefore under Lapado’s purview. The remaining nine, which in addition to the MMR shot include polio, are part of state law and can only be changed through legislative action. 

    Experts told The 74 this is a much more difficult feat, one that state legislators — even conservative ones — don’t seem to have an appetite for. Richard Hughes, a George Washington University law professor and leading vaccine law expert, said such a legislative attempt would “warrant legal action.”

    ‘We really need to turn this around’ 

    The debate in Florida and other states over mandatory childhood immunization comes as the country teeters on the edge of losing its measles elimination status. This year alone has seen nearly 2,000 confirmed cases, the most since 2000, when measles was declared eliminated in the U.S. by the World Health Organization. Just over 10% of cases have led to hospitalization. The current South Carolina outbreak has infected at least 138 people, and among those forced to quarantine are students from nine schools. 

    Significant educational implications from the outbreaks emerged in a new study by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, which found that absences increased 41% in a school district at the center of the West Texas outbreak, with larger effects among younger students.

    The spread of measles is also a warning of the ramifications of dropping vaccine rates, according to William Moss, executive director at Johns Hopkins’ International Vaccine Access Center.

    “Measles often serves as what we [call] the canary in the coal mine,” he said. “It really identifies weaknesses in the immunization system and programs, because of its high contagiousness.”

    “Unfortunately, I see a perfect storm brewing for the resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases,” he added, “… We really need to turn this around.”

    Earlier this week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention got rid of a recommendation that all newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine, and in the preceding months changed policies surrounding the measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (chickenpox) combination vaccine and this year’s COVID 19 booster — all based on recommendations from an advisory committee hand-picked by Kennedy. The universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, in place for decades, was credited with nearly eliminating the highly contagious and dangerous virus in infants.

    Lynn Nelson, the president of the National Association of School Nurses, fears that other, more conservative states will now look to Florida as an example.

    “We already have seen outbreaks all over, and they’re only going to escalate if you have an area of the country whose herd immunity levels slip down further than they already are, which I think will happen if those [anti-mandate rules] come into effect,” she said. “That, in combination with some of the other misinformation that’s coming out, people will feel validated in decisions not to immunize their children.”

    Florida’s Department of Health appears to be moving ahead to end requirements for the four vaccines it controls, despite a recent poll indicating nearly two-thirds of Floridians oppose the action. Proposed draft language presented at the Dec. 12 workshop would also allow parents to opt their kids out of the state’s immunization registry, Florida SHOTS, and expand exemptions. 

    Currently, all 50 states have vaccine requirements for children entering child care and schools. Parents across the country are able to apply for exemptions if their child is unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons and most states — including Florida — also have religious exemptions. Part of the proposed changes presented at the Dec. 12 meeting would add Florida to the 20 states that additionally have some form of personal belief exemptions, further widening parents’ ability to opt their kids out of routine vaccines. 

    The public comment period remains open through Dec. 22, after which the department will decide whether or not to move forward with the rule change. In the interim, advocates are pushing state health officials to conduct epidemiological research around the impact of removing the vaccine mandates and studies on the potential economic costs. Florida is heavily reliant on tourism and out-of-state visitors. 

    Without that information, pro-vaccine advocate Saunders said these critical public health care decisions will be made “at the whim of an appointed official.” 

    “The nation,” he added, “is looking at Florida.”


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Re-associating with Erasmus+ is only the first step

    Re-associating with Erasmus+ is only the first step

    There was something very odd about the big Westminster government announcement on the UK rejoining Erasmus+.

    Pippa Crerar’s reporting in the Guardian on Tuesday night quoted “sources” claiming that there is expected to be an “international fee waiver” for EU students studying at UK universities under the scheme, meaning they would pay the equivalent of domestic fees that are capped at £9,535 a year.

    The piece added:

    In return, UK students would continue paying their standard domestic fees at their home university during their year studying in Europe as part of their UK degree courses. They would be eligible for a grant to help with the additional costs of living abroad.

    But hold on. That makes no sense. Not only would that break a fundamental Erasmus rule (you don’t pay fees to the host university), the arrangement as described would see £10,648 flowing into the UK university for doing very little for the student studying abroad.

    Meanwhile the European student coming to the UK would suddenly be forking out a lot more than most of them do at home.

    All of the material published on the announcement day merely said that UK students will pay “no more” than they do now – but what most of the media missed is that what they pay now is a fixed 15 per cent of the maximum fee to the UK university. “No more” than £1,598 or “no more” than £10,648?

    The Department for Education (DfE) – which has already announced that the maximum fee a UK university can levy on a student studying abroad will be that 15 per cent thing that’s been in place for a decade – referred me to the Cabinet Office. No reply was forthcoming there or via the EU, and UUK simply told me to contact the government. Weird.

    For the time being, let’s assume that Crerar’s “sources” were mixing up what might well be coming in the wider youth mobility deal – it does suggest that for students coming here (or going there) for a course outside of Erasmus+, students will pay the home fee rate in the host country, as they did pre-Brexit – which resurrects the “EU students pay £0, RUK students pay £9,535” issue in Scotland.

    The issue of fees will matter quite a bit when considering inward demand given fees are generally much lower and loan schemes to pay them less common. And from a UK student perspective, even 15 per cent of the max fee looks like a rip off. What are they getting for that?

    It’s a jolly holiday in Bari

    The political debate has been mainly focussed on the “middle class jolly” thing, which is not helped by half a billion flowing to HE for this looking very odd when there’s very little other money that students don’t take out a loan for flowing into the sector, at least on the teaching side.

    The government has pressed the breadth of opportunities for non-HE students, the widening participation aspects of the plus version of Erasmus, and the “bang for buck” on wider spending – but does look a little top heavy.

    Overall of course the cost should be covered by the raid on Plan 2 graduates in the Budget – suffering their second repayment threshold freeze in a decade. Let’s think of this as robbing Covid grads whose year abroad was on Youtube to pay students to have a proper one now.

    As I’ve noted on here before, Erasmus+ is not your granddad’s Erasmus. For higher education students there’s your core study periods of 2-12 months at partner institutions, as well as traineeships in workplaces abroad for 2-12 months, or a combo both within a mobility period.

    Doctoral students can access shorter “mobilities” of 5-30 days or longer periods of 2-12 months, with the option to include traineeships. School pupils can participate in group mobilities of 2-30 days accompanied by staff, individual short-term learning mobilities of 10-29 days, or long-term mobilities exceeding one month.

    FE students and apprentices can access group mobilities of 2-30 days, short-term placements of 10 days to 3 months (or from 2 days for disadvantaged students), long-term Erasmus Pro placements up to one year, and funding to attend skills competitions for 1-10 days. Adult education learners can spend up to one month learning, training or volunteering abroad.

    Young people can also join youth exchanges of 5-21 days for workshops and activities, access Discover EU rail passes at age 18, and participate in youth participation projects addressing civic and cultural issues.

    Mobility funding covers travel, living costs, course fees, visa costs, language preparation and organisational costs, with additional support for students with disabilities, additional learning needs and disadvantaged backgrounds.

    Universities and education institutions can access multiple partnership and mobility frameworks. Higher education institutions must first secure Erasmus Charter for Higher Education accreditation, then can participate in cooperation partnerships, Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters programmes, Alliances for Innovation, and capacity-building projects. And Jean Monnet actions support teaching and learning about EU policies in schools and universities.

    Staff can undertake teaching periods or training activities of 2-60 days, combining both if desired, with job shadowing and observation opportunities at partner institutions or enterprises.

    Schools can develop partnerships with other schools, access the eTwinning online collaboration platform, and send teachers for training courses of 2-10 days, job shadowing from 2 days to 2 months, or teaching assignments from 2 days to one year. VET providers can establish partnerships addressing Erasmus+ priorities and send staff for courses and training of 2-10 days, job shadowing of 2 days to 2 months, or teaching assignments of 2 days to one year. Adult education providers can develop partnership projects for innovative practices.

    Youth organisations can run Mobility Projects for Youth Workers lasting 3 months to 2 years, including seminars, training courses, networking events and study visits. Funding applications must be submitted through institutions either individually or via consortia, with some Key Action 2 and 3 activities managed directly by the European Education and Culture Executive Agency.

    The programme extends beyond formal education into youth work and sport as well. Youth workers can access professional development through mobility projects involving seminars, training courses, networking events, study visits and job shadowing abroad in projects involving at least two organisations from different countries. Sports coaches and grassroots sports staff can undertake job shadowing or observation periods of 2-14 days, or coaching and training assignments of 2 weeks to 2 months, with non-grassroots staff eligible if their work benefits grassroots sport.

    Not a fair swap

    The main moan about Erasmus always was that far more students came to study in the UK than vice versa, which Brexit types put down to our education system being better. I’m not so sure about that – there were clearly a range of other barriers in play, and a lot of European HE is now taught in English given wider non-EU internationalisation agendas as universities across the continent clock on to international fees as an income source.

    Here in 2025, however expensive student housing is across Europe, it’s almost always cheaper than here – and the “pent up demand” thing may well kick in, as well as the attractions of what was usually a “pass/fail” second year rather than their weird grind of grading everything that moves that we maintain in the UK.

    The decision in 2012 to allow universities to charge that 15 per cent came off the back of a report led by Colin Riordan, then VC at Cardiff on barriers to mobility. It said that the problem was mainly money and language, but those headline barriers were reinforced by a system that made mobility feel like an optional add-on for confident, well-off students rather than a normal, supported part of study.

    Costs and debt aversion sat alongside low language confidence, especially once pupils had already been funnelled into narrower choices at school. Then the university-level friction kicked in – tightly specified curricula, professional accreditation constraints (particularly in health and STEM), patchy recognition of overseas learning (itself a subset of the UK’s general failure to do credit transfer properly), and the sheer administrative grind of making exchanges work when support teams are small and incentives for academics and departments are thin.

    The report called for a coherent UK outward mobility strategy and an organising body to professionalise practice, coordinate messaging, and create a single, navigable portal of opportunities and support. It argued for sustainable funding beyond fragile pots, including sponsorship and philanthropy, and for mainstream student finance to travel with the learner (loan portability), backed by a clearer map of scholarships and bursaries so students were not left guessing.

    It called for curriculum redesign so mobility would fit more easily, and for consistent recognition and accreditation of the learning and skills gained abroad, with targeted work with professional bodies to unblock the hardest-to-move disciplines. It also pushed for a proper national data regime with agreed definitions, so the sector could understand participation patterns and equity gaps and stop flying blind.

    Alongside that, it recommended collaboration and shared services to reduce duplication and build capacity, more creative models than the traditional “extra year abroad”, and earlier intervention through schools and stronger language learning as national infrastructure. And it made a case for equality – if employers care about a global mindset more than the route, then UK-based “international” experiences were to be recognised too.

    A lot of that simply never materialised – although HEFCE was funded to do a supplement to support students on overseas exchange programmes, offering around £2,250 for full-year placements abroad. Albeit with a declining value per student over time, that actually survived in England until this academic year – only for it to be scrapped in Bridget Phillipson’s OfS allocation for 2025-26. Unsurprisingly, there’s no news on a resurrection to accompany today’s announcement.

    Widening access to mobility

    Later in the decade an EU-funded UUKi report on widening participation in mobility found that UK’s problem was never just “low participation” overall, but was patterned inequality with compounding effects. Students with overlapping disadvantages had even lower rates of participation.

    In 2015–16, students from higher socio-economic backgrounds were sixty-five per cent more likely to be outwardly mobile (2.5 per cent vs 1.5 per cent). BME students were 22.2 per cent of the cohort but only 17.6 per cent of outwardly mobile students. Care leavers sat at 1.0 per cent participation (below the 1.7 per cent sector average).

    Practical exposure to upfront costs, uncertainty, and the limits of support were all key, and those financial issues were felt more strongly among certain socio-economic groups. Students often financed mobility through loans, because grants did not cover all costs.

    Longer-term mobility was blocked by cost, responsibilities at home such as caring duties or paid work, and less flexibility in the length of degree programmes. So the barrier was structural. When the timetable didn’t not bend, only certain lives could travel.

    Students’ decisions were shaped by the type of information provided and the timing of it, with many saying earlier awareness helped. Academic staff mattered too, and academic buy-in was persuasive when students were considering mobility. If the message comes late, or from someone students do not trust, why would we expect take-up to widen?

    The report also flags negative assumptions and links these to culture shock and homesickness. It also noted that for some groups, families needed to know what to expect in terms of cost, culture, and impact on the degree. Outward mobility is often sold as a confidence booster. But whose confidence is being asked for upfront?

    Weak national signalling on widening participation in mobility was also a factor. It drew on European-level analysis that national targets that included widening participation signalled strong political commitment. Yet it noted the UK did not have a national target for mobility participation by underrepresented groups.

    To fix, university leaders were invited to shift from mobility-as-optional-extra to mobility-as-designed-and-funded pathway (our old friend “whole university approach”), targets were to be set to mirror the institution’s student body, delivery was to be hardwired through academic departments (including named coordinators and staff induction) rather than leaving it to an international office, and it wanted joined-up support with widening participation teams, disability services, careers and SUs, alongside clearer “no surprises” information and pre-departure preparation.

    No doubt that happened in some universities, but I’m also willing to stick my neck out and suggest that the report and its recommendations gathered digital dust in the way that so many reports of its ilk do. If nothing else, DfE should require outward mobility to show up in access and participation plans in England.

    The road ahead

    Here in 2025, I’d add in money and provision responsibility. The Riordon report tended to treat Erasmus as an intercalary extra year that extended a standard bachelor’s degree, warning that higher fees and debt could deter students from extending their degree to encompass a period of mobility”. That later report tended to treat an Erasmus “year” (or, more often in the case studies, a semester-length period) as part of the degree rather than some bolt-on “extra credit” activity.

    In the latter case, UK universities’ repeated lack of interest in student transfer (a duty in England that few observe with enthusiasm) is a signal of the problem – having three years of fees is financial lock in, so mobility becomes a financial loss. While I’d love to imagine that governing bodies will ever think about anything else (like purpose or the student interest), I’m also a realist.

    Generally, the lack of action on transfer, credit accumulation, mobility and any number of issues also reflects that unlike across the EU, we don’t seem much interested in framing anything as a student right, despite levying much higher fees than most of the continent. If ministers really want this to succeed, they should get a grip. A lifelong “entitlement” to loans with barely any rights over the education the loans buy remains the worst aspect of the UK’s “wooden legs, real feet” approach to HE policy.

    Meanwhile it’s always been the case that the regulatory position is up in the air – QA has often been “light” (assumed to be covered by Bologna processes) but things like harassment and sexual misconduct, or free speech, or any number of other areas where a student might assume at best equivalence or at least that someone’s thought about it back home (in exchange for their 15 per cent of the fee) have tended to be filed in the “too difficult to resolve” box.

    Without a proper strategy inside DfE, proper incentives (or targets) for universities and progress on stuff like credit transfer, the real danger is that a future government that is less interested in being anything other than little England mentality will look at similarly disappointing participation (either in volume or access terms) and just yank the reverse lever. I’d love to be wrong.

    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

  • The Last Step Toward the First Step – Teaching in Higher Ed

    The Last Step Toward the First Step – Teaching in Higher Ed

    This final PKMastery workshop post is what I’m referring to as the last step toward the first step, meaning that while I’m through with the formal/structured activities and curated lessons from Harold Jarche, there’s such tremendous potential for even deeper learning, with a renewed commitment toward PKM.

    Jarche shares a report from many years ago about the most valued Future Work Skills. He writes of how: “The report identified six drivers of change.

    1. Longevity, in terms of the age of the workforce and customers
    2. Smart machines, to augment and extend human abilities (quite obvious since 2023)
    3. A computational world, as computer networks connect
    4. New media, that pervade every aspect of life
    5. Superstructed organizations, that scale below or beyond what was previously possible
    6. A globally connected world, with a multitude of local cultures and competition from all directions

    Ten future [present] work skills were derived from these drivers and these were seen to be critical for success in the emerging network era workplace. In 2014 a relatively simple infographic was published to show the relationship between these drivers and skills. Of these 10 skills, four compose the essence of personal knowledge mastery:

    1. sense-making
    2. social intelligence
    3. new media literacy
    4. cognitive load management

    Participants in the workshop are then invited to focus on which competency we would most like to develop in, as part of our overall PKM practice. I’m torn between sense-making and cognitive load management. While further understanding of systems thinking and sense-making practices would certainly help me in my ongoing learning, I recognize my lack of sufficient discipline for what a focus on cognitive load management might bring me.

    Throughout this process of blogging my way through Harold Jarche’s Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery workshop, I essentially wrote the equivalent of half of a book. When I tell myself that I don’t have time for certain pursuits in my life, these past six weeks would seem to counter those self-limiting beliefs. While I’m not actually interested, necessarily, in writing a book for other people at this exact moment, my shift in focus to a more reflective and open writing style for all these posts has felt liberating. As Ronald Burt shares:

    It is not being in the know, but rather having to translate between different groups so that you develop gifts of analogy, metaphor, and communicating between people who have difficulty communicating to each other.

    Having no idea who will ever read these words, but knowing that the writing practice this workshop has instilled in me has been tremendously helpful in my own sense-making. James Lang would say I’m getting lots of practice writing to an imaginary audience and that has felt good. By Jarche asking us to engage on Mastodon and to use the #PKMastery hashtag, I’ve been able to share my work with a niche audience, reconnecting with people I hadn’t been in regular touch with for a long while, in addition to meeting a couple of new people along the way.

    Source link

  • With Butchers Disappearing, High Schools Look to Step In – The 74

    With Butchers Disappearing, High Schools Look to Step In – The 74


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

    LEWISTOWN — Slaughterhouses and butchers used to be scattered throughout the United States, numbering about 10,000 in 1967.

    Only about 3,000 remain and about 85% of the American meatpacking industry is controlled by four companies: JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill and Smithfield. The other 15% of that market share is held in part by small and very small meat producers scattered across the country, including some in Montana.

    About half of small and medium meat processors have disappeared in the last 20 years, and a decades long University of Illinois study found the average length of a meat processing business surviving was 9.7 years. Between inspections, startup costs and other factors, it’s not an easy business to get into or keep afloat. 

    This is true for much of the agricultural industry, and many small businesses have disappeared as corporate America has exerted its will on farmers and ranchers. About 70% of the consumer’s dollar went to cattle producers in 1970, with the other 30% going to processors and retailers. Cattle producers now get about 30% of the consumer’s dollar, according to Farm Action.

    Additionally, about 98% of America’s beef is processed in just over 50 plants. Beef processing co-ops have been created around the state in an effort to help give beef producers more options, but there’s another problem too — employees.

    That’s the place some educators in Montana are looking to step in. Fergus High School in Lewistown, for example, has a robust agricultural education program. It’s also part of the Central Montana Career and Technology Education Academy, a public charter school that was set up this year to connect students with skills and knowledge needed to work in agriculture.

    ‘A dying art’

    Logan Turner, one the teachers at Fergus High School, put it pointedly.

    “Kids aren’t really getting into it,” he said. “Cutting meat is kind of a dying art.”

    His goal has been, in part, to help change that trend. The technical academy seeks to bridge a gap of agricultural knowledge. Beyond meat cutting, classes at the school include farm business management, fabrication and science classes geared toward teaching about soil health among others.

    Turner grew up on his family’s farm outside Missoula and quickly decided he wanted to be a teacher. There’s an urgency for him too, with worries, among them a feeling no one knows where their food comes from and the world’s growing population. 

    “We’ve always been faced with this big issue as agriculturalists,” Turner said. “2050 is right around the corner, and there’s going to be two billion more people on the face of the planet, and how are we going to feed them all? I think it all starts with education and understanding … and so I felt like being an educator probably was the best way for me to contribute.”

    Only about three percent of the food Montanans eat is produced in the state. There are options for eating local food, but they can sometimes be hard to find. 

    Having kids learn about these could also help them enter the workforce with more ideas about what they want to do, which is one of the goals of the program. Orin Johnson, the Central Montana CTE Academy director, said they also want to get students as close as possible to certification in a variety of careers.

    “Every kid doesn’t learn the same way,” Johnson said. “And some really do strive and need to be hands on, and it’s about finding a way to create opportunities that they can be hands on.”

    Students at the school have shown interest and it’s included partnerships with Future Farmers of America and the Montana Farmers Union, which gave the meat processing program two grants totaling about $13,000 over the summer.

    “We do a lot of meat processing at my house because my dad loves hunting, and so we do a lot of wild game,” said Shyanne Ricks, a student at the school who’s gone through the program. “And so doing the meats class really helps with seeing the whole process, not just wild game.”

    Ricks, along with Tori Rindal, a freshman at the school, and the other Lewistown agricultural education teacher — Jared Long — went to the Montana Farmers Union Annual convention and spoke about the program.

    Rindal said she’s hoping to take the meats class next year. Long pointed out agricultural education is broad and students can take many different paths.

    The program offers five pathways: welding, natural resource and conservation, meat processing, animal science and agricultural mechanics. There’s a variety of classes within those, both Long and Turner explained.

    “The common misconception is that it’s just cows and plows,” Long said. “So that’s really our job, we feel like, is to open doors to kids that they might never have.”

    Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: [email protected].


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • 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

  • A Step in The Wrong Direction in Engaging College Students in our Democracy

    A Step in The Wrong Direction in Engaging College Students in our Democracy

    Amanda Fuchs Miller On this Election Day, it is critical to think about how we as a country want to ensure that more young people vote and get involved in public service.  As a democracy, we should all be striving to make it easier for new voters to register, get to the polls, and have their vote count.  However, what we are seeing instead are efforts to make it harder for college students to be engaged in our electoral process – through restrictions on supports and language designed to have a chilling effect on voting instead of encouraging it. 

    Right before college students returned to campuses, the U.S. Department of Education issued new guidance designed to make it harder for college students to vote.  Every school year, students receive an email with information about how to register to vote.  This is because it is required in law.  The Higher Education Act requires institutions of higher education to “make a good faith effort to distribute a mail voter registration form…to each student enrolled in a degree or certificate program and physically in attendance at the institution, and to make such forms widely available to students at the institution.” 

    Contrary to statute, the Trump Administration is now encouraging schools to limit who they send this information to – saying that if a school doesn’t send it to students who they have “reason to believe” are ineligible to vote, that’s okay.  In addition to this being contrary to law, which requires all students to receive this information, this will increase the likelihood of students who are eligible not receiving information about how to register to vote (thus suppressing their votes) – and is likely to most impact students of color.  The Department is also encouraging the voter registration information to include language reminding students of the list of ways that voting may be fraudulent – another tactic that may have a chilling effect on students going to the polls.

    The same Department guidance prohibits students from being paid with federal work-study funds for any voting-related activities.  A press release from the Department says that they are making a change to this longstanding policy because “Federal Work-Study is meant to provide students opportunities to gain real-world experience that prepares them to succeed in the workforce, not as a way to fund political activism on our college and university campuses.”

    As we prepare our next generation of leaders to play a role in our democracy, in government, and in public service, it is hard to see how allowing students to participate in nonpartisan voting engagement is not aligned with experience they will benefit from in the workplace. By engaging in nonpartisan voter registration efforts using work-study positions, college students are able to increase the number of their peers who are registered to vote while learning and participating fully in our democratic system – all while earning the funds they are entitled to so that they can afford a college degree.  It can’t go without saying that this restriction is also counter to statute and regulations which do not limit the types of on-campus work study positions to those that are in the “public interest,” as the guidance suggests.  That limitation is only linked to off-campus work-study positions.

    In a survey by CIRCLE following the 2024 elections about why young people didn’t register to vote, more than one in 10 – 12 percent – of people aged 18-34 said they did not know how to register or had problems with voter registration forms. Nearly a third of young people – 31 percent – said they were too busy, ran out of time, or missed the registration deadline.  Without receiving voter registration information, in an objective way, from their college or university or their peers on campus, these numbers are likely to go up as more students will lack the information they need about voter registration.

    Ensuring college students are able to vote shouldn’t be a partisan issue.  In 2024, there were disparities by both gender and race in youth voter turnout.  We all benefit from a democracy where everyone’s voice is heard and every vote is counted – for whomever the ballot is cast. 

    _________

    Amanda Fuchs Miller is president of Seventh Street Strategies and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs at the U.S. Department of Education in the Biden-Harris Administration.

     

    Source link

  • States Must Step Up as Federal College Aid Crumbles, New Report Warns

    States Must Step Up as Federal College Aid Crumbles, New Report Warns

    File photoAs the Trump administration moves to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and gut federal financial aid programs, a new analysis released Thursday warns that college is becoming increasingly unaffordable for low-income families — and states may be the last line of defense.

    The report from The Education Trust examines state financial aid programs in Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota, revealing that while some states are making progress, critical gaps remain in helping students who need assistance most.

    “The role of states in ensuring postsecondary access and affordability is essential now,” the report states, citing the Trump administration’s July Supreme Court victory allowing it to proceed with layoffs that cut the Department of Education’s staff in half.

    The staffing cuts, which disproportionately targeted financial aid personnel, come as congressional Republicans passed legislation in July 2025 that restricted Pell Grant eligibility, limited parent borrowing, and made student loan repayment more expensive.

    The report documents a stark affordability crisis. For recent high school graduates in Illinois, the average cost of attending a public four-year college represents 63.2% of annual family income for Black students, compared to 25.8% for white students.

    In Indiana, the gap is similarly wide: 58.8% for Black families versus 22.1% for white families. Minnesota shows comparable disparities at 57.1% and 22.9%, respectively.

    “Despite the benefits of a college degree, most families cannot cover the costs,” according to the report, which notes that the average cost of tuition, room, and board at public four-year colleges rose from $8,984 in 1980 to $22,389 in 2023, adjusted for inflation.

    Meanwhile, the Pell Grant — the nation’s primary need-based aid — has lost purchasing power dramatically. In 1975, it covered more than 75% of college costs; today it covers only about one-third.

    The Education Trust analysis found significant problems with how states allocate financial aid:

    Illinois dedicates 98.8% of its undergraduate aid to need-based programs, primarily through its Monetary Award Program. However, the grant functions as “first dollar” aid, meaning other assistance must be applied to tuition before MAP funds, potentially leaving low-income students with little support for non-tuition costs.

    Indiana splits funding more evenly: 40% goes to its need-based Frank O’Bannon Grant, while 44% supports combination need-and-merit programs like the 21st Century Scholars Program. The O’Bannon Grant provides larger awards to students at private colleges than public institutions — a policy that researchers say “privileges students from higher-income and higher-asset families.”

    Minnesota allocates 72% of aid to its need-based State Grant program. The state recently launched the North Star Promise Scholarship, which provides tuition-free education to families earning under $80,000, though as a “last-dollar” program, it may provide minimal assistance to the lowest-income students already receiving Pell Grants.

    The report identifies numerous eligibility requirements that exclude vulnerable students:

    • Neither Indiana nor Minnesota provides aid to undocumented students, despite those residents paying state and local taxes
    • None of the three states allow currently incarcerated students to receive aid, even though Congress restored Pell Grant eligibility for this population in 2023
    • Minnesota excludes students in default on federal loans, making it harder for those experiencing financial hardship to complete degrees
    • Part-time students — often working parents or adult learners — face reduced aid or exclusion in many programs

    The Education Trust urges states to redesign financial aid systems with ten key features:

    1. Prioritize need-based aid over merit-based programs
    2. Cover costs beyond tuition, including housing, food, transportation, and childcare
    3. Serve part-time students, adult learners, and returning students
    4. Include undocumented and justice-impacted individuals
    5. Never convert grants to loans
    6. Serve students at all public colleges equally
    7. Allow access for those in loan default
    8. Consolidate programs into streamlined, need-based grants
    9. Use negative Student Aid Index numbers to direct more aid to the neediest
    10. Implement college access policies like direct admissions and FAFSA completion requirements

    “What’s more, policies that promote college attendance are crucial for reducing barriers to higher education,” the report states, highlighting that both Illinois and Indiana have FAFSA completion requirements and direct admission programs, while all three states offer dual enrollment opportunities.

    The report highlights the economic benefits of state investment in higher education. Each college graduate in Illinois increases the state’s annual GDP by approximately $155,566 and generates 6.8 jobs. The state recoups its education investment in just 4.1 years of the graduate’s working life.

    Bachelor’s degree holders earn $1.2 million more over their lifetimes than those with only high school diplomas, are 24% more likely to be employed, and are nearly five times less likely to be incarcerated.

    “State policymakers have a vested interest in ensuring that recent high school graduates pursue higher education and stay in state to complete their education,” the report concludes.

    The analysis comes as education advocates warn that the federal retreat from college affordability could reverse decades of progress in expanding access to higher education, particularly for students of color and those from low-income backgrounds.

    Source link

  • Many children with ADHD miss a crucial step in treatment

    Many children with ADHD miss a crucial step in treatment

    When pediatricians diagnose preschoolers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, there are clear steps they are supposed to take.

    Families should first be referred to behavior therapy, which teaches caregivers how to better support their children and manage challenging behaviors that may be related to ADHD. If therapy isn’t making a significant difference, the American Academy of Pediatrics advises, pediatricians can then consider medication.

    Nationwide, this process — behavior therapy, then medication if needed — isn’t being followed as often as it should, according to a study recently released by Stanford Medicine and published in JAMA Network Open. Instead, more than 42 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds with ADHD were prescribed medication within a month of their diagnosis.

    Missing out on behavior therapy has worrisome implications for children and families, said Dr. Yair Bannett, assistant professor of pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and lead author of the study. Behavioral management training for parents over the course of several months has been found to reduce children’s ADHD symptoms and behavioral problems, and improve parent skills and their relationships with their children. 

    Without that support, families may be left facing additional challenges. Behavioral training “reduces the chaos in the house and can improve the quality of life for the parents and the child,” Bannett said. 

    There are several reasons families may be missing this intervention. Some pediatricians aren’t familiar with the purpose of behavior therapy, Bannett added, which is specifically aimed at the adults who support children with ADHD, not the children. “It’s really more of an advanced type of parenting course,” he said. Families also may have trouble finding affordable local therapists.

    Bannett said parents should use three key practices to support young children with ADHD. (These strategies also work well for teachers, he added.)

    Focus on building a strong, positive relationship: Having a strong attachment between the child and parent or teacher is an important first step to managing behavior, Bannett said. That means spending quality one-on-one time with the child. “That’s the child’s motivation, they want to please you,” he added. “Without that first piece, none of this will work.”

    Use positive reinforcement: Rather than punishing a child’s negative behavior, Bannett said, parents and teachers will see more success if they praise good behaviors and develop reward systems to encourage them.  

    Adjust the child’s environment: Children with ADHD may thrive with simple environmental changes, such as “visual schedules” — charts that use pictures to show a child daily activities or tasks — and a consistent, structured routine.

    Parents who can’t find in-person therapists can substitute online therapy, Bannett said. The training is also useful for families even after their children are prescribed medication. 

    To make sure more families have access to helpful strategies, Bannett would like to see more education for doctors and clinicians on these best practices. 

    “The pediatricians could also counsel families in the office about these techniques,” Bannett said. “Some written materials and resources could be enough” to at least introduce these practices, he added. “That’s what I’m hoping could make a change.”

    Reading list

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

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Education Department takes a preliminary step toward revamping its research and statistics arm

    Education Department takes a preliminary step toward revamping its research and statistics arm

    In his first two months in office, President Donald Trump ordered the closing of the Education Department and fired half of its staff. The department’s research and statistics division, called the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), was particularly hard hit. About 90 percent of its staff lost their jobs and more than 100 federal contracts to conduct its primary activities were canceled.

    But now there are signs that the Trump administration is partially reversing course and wants the federal government to retain a role in generating education statistics and evidence for what works in classrooms — at least to some extent. On Sept. 25, the department posted a notice in the Federal Register asking the public to submit feedback by Oct. 15 on reforming IES to make research more relevant to student learning. The department also asked for suggestions on how to collect data more efficiently.

    The timeline for revamping IES remains unclear, as is whether the administration will invest money into modernizing the agency. For example, it would take time and money to pilot new statistical techniques; in the meantime, statisticians would have to continue using current protocols.

    Still, the signs of rebuilding are adding up. 

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

    At the end of May, the department announced that it had temporarily hired a researcher from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, to recommend ways to reform education research and development. The researcher, Amber Northern, has been “listening” to suggestions from think tanks and research organizations, according to department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann, and now wants more public feedback.  

    Biedermann said that the Trump administration “absolutely” intends to retain a role in education research, even as it seeks to close the department. Closure will require congressional approval, which hasn’t happened yet. In the meantime, Biedermann said the department is looking across the government to find where its research and statistics activities “best fit.”

    Other IES activities also appear to be resuming. In June, the department disclosed in a legal filing that it had or has plans to reinstate 20 of the 101 terminated contracts. Among the activities slated to be restarted are 10 Regional Education Laboratories that partner with school districts and states to generate and apply evidence. It remains unclear how all 20 contracts can be restarted without federal employees to hold competitive bidding processes and oversee them. 

    Earlier in September, the department posted eight new jobs to help administer the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also called the Nation’s Report Card. These positions would be part of IES’s statistics division, the National Center for Education Statistics. Most of the work in developing and administering tests is handled by outside vendors, but federal employees are needed to award and oversee these contracts. After mass firings in March, employees at the board that oversees NAEP have been on loan to the Education Department to make sure the 2026 NAEP test is on schedule.

    Only a small staff remains at IES. Some education statistics have trickled out since Trump took office, including its first release of higher education data on Sept. 23. But the data releases have been late and incomplete. 

    It is believed that no new grants have been issued for education studies since March, according to researchers who are familiar with the federal grant making process but asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. A big obstacle is that a contract to conduct peer review of research proposals was canceled so new ideas cannot be properly vetted. The staff that remains is trying to make annual disbursements for older multi-year studies that haven’t been canceled. 

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

    With all these changes, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to figure out the status of federally funded education research. One potential source of clarity is a new project launched by two researchers from George Washington University and Johns Hopkins University. Rob Olsen and Betsy Wolf, who was an IES researcher until March, are tracking cancellations and keeping a record of research results for policymakers. 

    If it’s successful, it will be a much-needed light through the chaos.

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

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

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

    Join us today.

    Source link