Tag: step

  • 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 That hand has now been withdrawn.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

  • Northwestern President to Step Down

    Northwestern President to Step Down

    Schill has led the university since 2022.

    Michael A. McCoy/Getty Images

    Following more than a year of scrutiny from Republicans over how Northwestern University handled pro-Palestinian campus protests last year as well as a months-long federal funding freeze, President Michael Schill plans to step down.

    Schill, who has been president since 2022, announced his departure Thursday.

    “Over the past three years, it has been my profound honor to serve as president of Northwestern University,” Schill wrote in a message to the campus community. “In that time, our community has made significant progress while simultaneously facing extraordinary challenges. Together, we have made decisions that strengthened the institution and helped safeguard its future.”

    Schill’s exit marks an end to a tumultuous tenure at Northwestern.

    The wealthy private institution in Illinois has weathered attacks from congressional Republicans over a deal Schill struck with pro-Palestinian campus protesters who set up an encampment on university grounds. Congress hauled Schill in for a hearing on antisemitism in May 2024 over his agreement with the protesters. Schill agreed to provide more insight and input into university investment decisions, amid demands to divest from companies attached to the Israeli war effort. He also promised more support for Palestinian students and faculty, among other concessions.

    (However, Northwestern has not provided the level of endowment transparency it promised.)

    The president defended the deal before Congress. Schill, who appeared alongside the leaders of Rutgers University and the University of California, Los Angeles, was the main target for congressional Republicans, but he stood his ground—batting away hypothetical questions and refusing to discuss the conduct of individual faculty members.

    Still, accusations that Northwestern mishandled antisemitism have continued to dog Schill since, and the Trump administration launched an investigation into alleged civil rights violations and later froze $790 million in federal research funding at the university, which led to deep job cuts this summer.

    Schill and other Northwestern leaders said in July that they were working to restore the research funding and were “hopeful it will happen soon.”

    Faculty members and other critics also raised concerns about actions taken by Northwestern under his leadership. Steven Thrasher, a journalism professor involved in pro-Palestinian protests on campus, alleged in March that Northwestern denied him tenure for his activism.

    Schill also navigated turmoil in athletics when a whistleblower alleged in late 2002 that hazing was allowed to run unchecked in the football program. Schill briefly suspended and later fired Northwestern football coach Pat Fitzgerald and a subordinate. The coach sued Northwestern for wrongful termination in 2023; the two parties reached an undisclosed settlement last month.

    “As I reflect on the progress we have made and what lies ahead, I believe now is the right time for new leadership to guide Northwestern into its next chapter,” Schill said Wednesday.

    Schill will remain in his role until an interim president steps into the job.

    Schill’s pending exit now means only one of seven campus leaders who were called to testify in congressional hearings on campus antisemitism in late 2023 and 2024 still has her job. Leaders at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, UCLA, Rutgers and now Northwestern stepped down within a year of the hearings. (Then–UCLA chancellor Gene Block was already set to retire.) Only Sally Kornbluth at Massachusetts Institute of Technology remains in her job.

    Rep. Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican, who emerged as one of the more aggressive inquisitors in prior campus antisemitism hearings, celebrated the news on social media.

    “LONG overdue!” she wrote on X. “@NorthwesternUni President Michael Schill finally resigned today after he failed protect Jewish students, caved to the demands of the antisemitic, pro-Hamas mob on Northwestern’s campus, and failed to hold students who perpetuate antisemitic attacks accountable at an Education and the Workforce Committee hearing.”

    The White House also welcomed Schill’s resignation in an emailed statement.

    “The Trump Administration looks forward to working with the new leadership, and we hope they seize this opportunity to Make Northwestern Great Again,” spokesperson Liz Huston wrote.

    Source link

  • No More One-Trick Ponies: Adapt, Evolve, or Step Aside

    No More One-Trick Ponies: Adapt, Evolve, or Step Aside


    Dr. Mordecai Ian Brownlee     The year 2025 has been marked by numerous legislative changes, resulting in a state of legislative whiplash that has directly impacted institutions of higher education nationwide. From executive orders, to the dismantling of the Department of Education, to call of regional accreditation reform, to the discontinuance of federal funds, to the national erosion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs (and anything that remotely resembles it), higher education have been conditioned to brace daily for the next social media post or breaking news update that can send our colleges and universities into a frenzy. With the passage of H.R.1 by the 119th Congress, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the higher education sector will need to work quickly to fully understand the Act’s impact on our institutions, students, and communities as the 2025-2026 school year begins. As we seek understanding, it is essential to distinguish fact from fiction, separate narratives from actualities, and prioritize responsibility over fear.

    Leadership in the next era of higher education

    Now is the time for leaders serving in this evolving era to make an explicit declaration that, regardless of the circumstances, their respective institutional missions must not and will not fail. The dreams of our students, as well as the livelihoods of our faculty and staff, are at stake. Not to mention, in such a disruptive era, higher education must normalize the assessment of its academic and student support services to determine the relevance and impact of colleges and universities on the broader communities they serve. Far gone are the days of piddling the same old student experiences and academic programs that fail to lead students to livable wages, let alone failing to provide social care for learners seeking to realize brighter futures. Far gone should be the days when institutional legacies prevent institutions from making necessary changes to ensure institutional vitality and sustainability. In addition to addressing wasteful processes and systems that continue to strain the institution’s ability to serve its enrolled students responsibly.

    Equitable student success reimagined

    It is essential to note that this work must be envisioned, designed, and implemented differently, given the internal and external political realities prevailing within the respective states of our institution. How we lead this work in the state of Colorado, where I serve as a college president, will undoubtedly differ from how it is led in other states. From coast to coast, from metro to rural, from public to private, and from four-year to two-year institutions, the real power for equitable student success lies in our ability to bring our institutional missions to life in new ways that build bridges to fulfill academic rigor and provide opportunities for the disenfranchised. Regardless of the environment, I encourage us, as educators, to recognize the dynamic shift that must occur within our perspectives and approaches.

    Our profession doesn’t need any more one-trick ponies – people who can only serve and have an impact if the conditions are ideal or to their liking. What we need are those who deeply understand that the failure of our students and the missions of our institutions is not an option. We need those who understand the power of environmental scanning and program assessment, as well as the ethical responsibility we have to those we serve, to provide transformative and meaningful learning experiences that account for the political and cultural differences present in each community.

    It is this educational versatility paired with agility that will ensure our ability to do “the work” despite the times. Yes, our job titles may change, our departments may be reorganized, and our funding may be discontinued. However, I challenge every college president and their respective institutional boards not to become distracted. Instead, cultivate your awareness of the times, re-center yourself around your respective missions, and embrace the changes that our institutions must implement, recognizing that through disruption, genuine innovation can emerge. And while that change may not be ideal, it is indeed necessary.

    Dr. Mordecai Ian Brownlee is President of Community College of Aurora.

     

    Source link