Tag: Student

  • How a Northwestern Program Tackles Student Stress

    How a Northwestern Program Tackles Student Stress

    The stress of managing her engineering classes at Northwestern University didn’t just weigh on Fiona Letsinger mentally—it began to take a toll on her academic performance.

    In her second year, Letsinger’s dean introduced her to PATH, a peer mentor–led program housed in the engineering school that helps students manage stress, perfectionism and personal growth.

    “From the second he described it, my jaw was on the floor,” said Letsinger, a fourth-year civil engineering major. “I was like, ‘Yep—that’s exactly what I need.’”

    Launched in 2016, PATH—short for Personal Advancement Through Habits—is an eight-week program that guides students through reflection and personal development using a mix of online coursework and small-group discussions.

    During the 2024–25 school year, 88 students completed the program. About 90 percent reported a positive personal change, and more than 60 percent said they experienced growth in self-awareness; roughly half said it improved their motivation and goal-setting skills.

    Letsinger said the program gave her the language to recognize and name the ways stress and perfectionism were shaping her college experience.

    “I thought I couldn’t be a perfectionist because I wasn’t performing highly enough,” Letsinger said. “It wasn’t until PATH when I was able to get the vocabulary to identify how stress showed up in my life.”

    Impact on students: Joe Holtgrieve, assistant dean for undergraduate engineering, said his experience supporting students in both short-term and systemic crises inspired him to start the PATH program nearly 10 years ago.

    At the time, Holtgrieve said, Northwestern was reassessing its withdrawal policies and considering making it easier for students to drop courses later in the term. That prompted him to engage in difficult conversations with students about whether withdrawing was the best option—or whether they were experiencing what he calls an MOI, or “moment of intensity.”

    “How you respond is going to be really important for your future success and resilience,” said Holtgrieve, who remains a PATH faculty member. He added that students would later reach out to thank him because they performed better academically than they thought they would.

    Liz Daly, assistant director of academic advising and PATH faculty, said the program was originally intended for engineering students on academic probation but later expanded to include anyone feeling overwhelmed.

    “We had students who would request to take it again because they appreciated the community and the conversations that weren’t happening elsewhere on campus,” Daly said.

    That emphasis on reflection and peer support continued among students who participated in PATH during the 2024–25 school year.

    To better understand students’ experiences, Holtgrieve and Daly surveyed participants, asking them to reflect on their academic challenges and select three goals from a list of seven. More than half chose “shift mindset to embrace challenges, persist and learn from feedback.”

    Participants also completed surveys at the start and end of the program, rating which behaviors they found most challenging.

    Before starting PATH, more than half said they “dwelled on inadequacy after failure” and were “avoidant and/or withdrawn when things were going poorly.” By the program’s end, that number had dropped to about 15 percent.

    Daly said students often cite Holtgrieve’s “flashlight of attention” lesson as particularly helpful.

    “Our attention is like a flashlight … and whatever is illuminated by that light represents our awareness,” Holtgrieve said. “Where we shine that light represents our intention,” he added, noting that students’ intentions are often “yanked back and forth by crises, breaking news or self-critical narratives.”

    “If we can tune in to what’s present in the moment through our awareness and decide whether something is helpful or productive, then we can step back, understand the intention behind the attention that’s creating this awareness and adjust it,” he said.

    Letsinger agreed with Daly, saying this lesson was a game-changer in how she understood her own thinking.

    “I remember hearing that and immediately being like, ‘Yep, I need and want more of that kind of thinking,’” Letsinger said, adding that she not only enrolled in the program again the following quarter but later became a PATH mentor herself.

    What’s next: Holtgrieve and Daly said the program became so popular that other institutions have adapted it, including Smith College, which launched its own PATH-inspired program in fall 2020.

    Daly noted that in conversations about PATH’s impact, faculty and staff often asked whether they could participate as well. As a result, Holtgrieve and Daly now hold multiple sessions each year for Northwestern employees interested in learning strategies to manage stress in their own lives.

    Holtgrieve said that response suggests that many of the conversations happening among students also resonate with faculty and staff.

    “It’s an empathetic bridge, and it helps them to recognize that they’re struggling with some of the same things that their students are struggling with,” Holtgrieve said.

    Ultimately, Holtgrieve said, PATH is meant to help anyone practice responding to moments of uncertainty instead of trying to make them disappear.

    “When you’re feeling or confronting a moment where it’s not clear what to do, it’s human nature to say, ‘I want that to go away,’” Holtgrieve said. “But being able to practice living through and responding to those moments is how you build the skills to be a better person.”

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • Doing the “Data Work” in Student Success

    Doing the “Data Work” in Student Success

    The latest episode of The Key, Inside Higher Ed’s news and analysis podcast, features a discussion between higher ed leaders and IHE editor in chief Sara Custer on how colleges can harness data to better support students. 

    Speaking at the Student Success 2025 event in November, Courtney Brown, vice president of strategic impact and planning at the Lumina Foundation; Elliot Felix, higher education advisory practice lead at Buro Happold; and Mark Milliron, president of National University, offered unique perspectives to the question of how institutions can be data-driven and student-centered.

    “You are not going to serve a student population well unless you do your data work,” said Milliron. The “data work” includes establishing good data governance and data mapping, building a data warehouse, and facilitating data integration across support platforms such as a learning management system and student information systems, he said. 

    Putting processes and best practice in place is what allowed National to expand its capacity, he said. “I don’t think we could’ve scaled some of the strategies we’ve done unless we did the plumbing work upfront.”

    On the question of scale, Felix encouraged institutions to combine their resources to serve more students. “How many institutions are creating their own, bespoke AI policy when they can do [it] as a group or borrow from Educause? There are so many ways to work together to go farther, to go faster.”

    While colleges might be teeming with data, Felix encouraged institutions to look at external sources to gain a clearer picture of students’ learning journeys. “I do think more data beyond the walls—employer data, labor market data, employment outcomes—would be really helpful.”

    Meanwhile, Brown argued that the needs of the modern-day student are varied and institutions must adapt to their students, rather than students adapting to colleges. Institutions that use data to understand whom today’s students are will be better placed to support their success, she said. “[Students] are parents, they are working, they are financially independent from their own parents. But most policymakers and others don’t think about that. So we need to understand who they are and then transform the system to better serve [them].”

    Listen to the full episode here. 

    Source link

  • What school leaders need to know

    What school leaders need to know

    Key points:

    Special education is at a breaking point. Across the country, more children than ever are being referred for evaluations to determine whether they qualify for special education services. But there aren’t enough school psychologists or specialists on staff to help schools meet the demand, leaving some families with lengthy wait times for answers and children missing critical support. 

    The growing gap between need and capacity has inspired districts to get creative. One of the most debated solutions? Remote psychoeducational testing, or conducting evaluations virtually rather than face-to-face. 

    Can a remote evaluation accurately capture what a child needs? Will the results hold up if challenged in a legal dispute? Is remote assessment equivalent to in-person? 

    As a school psychologist and educational consultant, I hear these questions every week. And now, thanks to research and data released this summer, I can answer with confidence: Remote psychoeducational testing can produce equivalent results to traditional in-person assessment. 

    What the research shows

    In July 2025, a large-scale national study compared in-person and remote administration of the Woodcock-Johnson V Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Achievement (WJ V), the latest version of one of the most widely-used and comprehensive assessment systems for evaluating students’ intellectual abilities, academic achievement, and oral language skills. Using a matched case-control design with 300 participants and 44 licensed school psychologists from across the U.S., the study found no statistically or practically significant difference in student scores between in-person and remote formats. 

    In other words: When conducted with fidelity, remote WJ V testing produces equivalent results to traditional in-person assessment.

    This study builds on nearly a decade of prior research that also found score equivalency for remote administrations of the most widely used evaluations including WJ IV COG and ACH, RIAS-2, and WISC-V assessments, respectively. 

    The findings of the newest study are as important as they are urgent. They show remote testing isn’t just a novelty–it’s a practical, scalable solution that is rooted in evidence. 

    Why it matters now

    School psychology has been facing a workforce shortage for over a decade. A 2014 national study predicted this crunch, and today districts are relying on contracting agencies and remote service providers to stay afloat. At the same time, referrals for evaluations are climbing, driven by pandemic-related learning loss, growing behavioral challenges, and increased awareness of neurodiversity. 

    The result: More children and families waiting longer for answers, while school psychologists are facing mounting caseloads and experiencing burnout. 

    Remote testing offers a way out of this cycle and embraces changes. It allows districts to bring in licensed psychologists from outside their area, without relocating staff or asking families to travel. It helps schools move through backlogs more efficiently, ensuring students get the services they need sooner. And it gives on-site staff space to do the broader preventative work that too often gets sidelined. Additionally, it offers a way to support those students who are choosing alternate educational settings, such as virtual schools. 

    Addressing the concerns

    Skepticism remains, and that’s healthy. Leaders wonder: Will a hearing officer accept remote scores in a due process case? Are students disadvantaged by the digital format? Can we trust the results to guide placement and services?

    These are valid questions, but research shows that when remote testing is done right, the results are valid and reliable. 

    Key phrase: Done right. Remote assessment isn’t just a Zoom call with a stopwatch. In the most recent study, the setup included specific safeguards:

    • Touchscreen laptops with screens 13” or larger; 
    • A secure platform with embedded digital materials;
    • Dual cameras to capture the student’s face and workspace;
    • A guided proctor in-room with the student; and
    • Standardized examiner and proctor training protocols.

    This carefully structured environment replicates traditional testing conditions as closely as possible. All four of the existing equivalency studies utilized the Presence Platform, as it already meets with established criteria.

    When those fidelity conditions are met, the results hold up. Findings showed p-values above .05 and effect sizes below .03 across all tested subtests, indicating statistical equivalence. This means schools can confidently use WJ V scores from remote testing, provided the setup adheres to best practices.

    What district leaders can do

    For remote testing to succeed, schools need to take a thoughtful, structured approach. Here are three steps districts can take now.

    1. Vet providers carefully. Ask about their platform, equipment, training, and how they align with published research standards. 
    2. Clarify device requirements. Ensure schools have the right technology in place before testing begins.
    3. Build clear policies. Set district-wide expectations for how remote testing should be conducted so everyone–staff and contractors alike–are on the same page. 

    A path forward

    Remote assessment won’t solve every challenge in special education, but it can close one critical gap: timely, accurate evaluations. For students in rural districts, schools with unfilled psychologist positions, virtual school settings, or families tired of waiting for answers, it can be a lifeline.

    The research is clear. Remote psychoeducational testing works when we treat it with the same care and rigor as in-person assessment. The opportunity now is to use this tool strategically–not as a last resort, but as part of a smarter, more sustainable approach to serving students. 

    At its best, remote testing is not a compromise; it’s a path toward expanded access and stronger support for the students who need it most.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Increased Sense of Belonging Boosts Student Graduation Rates

    Increased Sense of Belonging Boosts Student Graduation Rates

    New research from Wake Forest University shows that boosting a student’s sense of belonging in college can significantly increase their likelihood of earning a degree.

    The findings draw on nationally representative survey data from more than 21,000 undergraduates enrolled in two- and four-year colleges across the country.

    The survey measured belonging by asking students to rate their agreement with the statement “I feel that I am a part of [school]” on a five-point scale, where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree.

    Students who rated their sense of belonging in their second year one step higher on the five-point scale than they did in their first year—such as moving from neutral to agree—were 3.4 percentage points more likely to graduate within four years.

    That pattern held over time: Each one-step increase in a student’s reported sense of belonging was linked to a 2.7-percentage-point higher likelihood of earning a degree within six years.

    “What stood out to me was just how consistent the findings were,” said Shannon Brady, a Wake Forest University psychology professor and the study’s author. “We’re seeing this relationship hold across different kinds of students and institutions.”

    Students in the study began college during the 2011–12 academic year, and their graduation outcomes were measured four and six years later. That’s the most recent nationally representative data available, Brady explained.

    She said the findings send a clear message that fostering a sense of belonging is vital on campus, and that its impact on persistence and graduation rivals the effect of thousands of dollars in additional financial aid.

    “One of the things that’s nice about belonging is that it doesn’t have to cost a lot,” Brady said, adding that intentional support—such as structuring first-year seminars or addressing hurdles in registering for classes—can make a meaningful difference in creating a sense of belonging with relatively few resources.

    “It takes attention, and it takes people doing the work to make it happen,” she said.

    The findings: The study identified two statistically significant differences in how belonging related to graduation outcomes for specific student groups.

    The link between belonging and four-year graduation rates was stronger for students whose parents had attended college than for first-generation students. The report suggests this gap may be due to first-generation students being more likely to “face structural and psychological challenges that may, at times, weaken the benefits of belonging.”

    “These challenges can take many forms,” the report said, including limited guidance in navigating college systems, financial pressures that compete with academic engagement and systemic cultural mismatches between institutional and home environments.

    Belonging also had a weaker connection to six-year graduation rates for Asian students compared to non-Asian students. The report attributes this, in part, to the fact that Asian students are more likely to have “alternative supports that promote academic persistence.”

    Those supports can include family expectations that emphasize educational achievement, peer networks with strong academic norms and cultural orientations that prioritize sustained effort over socio-emotional connection to an institution.

    The authors caution that the broad “Asian” category includes considerable diversity across countries and regions of origin, generation status, and socioeconomic background; such diversity shapes both students’ access to support and their experiences of belonging and credential attainment.

    The implications: Brady pointed to the City University of New York’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs as a “fantastic” model for fostering student belonging.

    The ASAP program works to remove everyday barriers, such as transportation costs, complicated scheduling and limited advising, and has been shown to improve graduation rates while also helping students feel connected to their campus.

    “If you can’t get the classes you need, it’s hard to feel connected to school,” Brady said. “And if transportation is complicated—if you’re dependent on buses or rides from friends because you can’t afford a bus pass—it’s hard to build the relationships you want.”

    Beyond individual programs, Brady recommended institutions adopt a standardized measure of student belonging across campuses.

    “Almost no cross-institution conversation happens on this because the measures that schools are using are different,” she said. “You can’t aggregate knowledge as well as we might if we had a more standardized measure.”

    Ultimately, Brady said, colleges have a responsibility to create environments where students feel they belong.

    “I don’t want to suggest that belonging is always inherently a good thing, but we want to create institutions where it is reasonable and positive to build a connection to them,” she said.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • How Demographics Could Elevate the Political Stakes of Student Loan Debt in 2028 and Beyond

    How Demographics Could Elevate the Political Stakes of Student Loan Debt in 2028 and Beyond

    Student loan debt has been a defining economic and political issue in the United States for over a decade. As of 2025, Americans owe nearly $1.8 trillion in student loans, with roughly 42–45 million borrowers carrying federal debt and average balances exceeding $39,000 per borrower. Delinquency rates have surged since repayment reporting resumed, with more than one in five borrowers behind on payments, and millions at risk of default. These financial pressures are now rippling through credit markets and household budgets, especially for younger, middle-aged, and lower-income borrowers. While student debt already garners public attention, shifting demographic trends and mounting economic pressures promise to reshape its political weight in the coming years unless comprehensive changes are enacted.

    The largest cohort of student borrowers today consists of Millennials and older members of Generation Z, many aged between 25 and 45. These are prime years for political engagement, as individuals are more likely to vote, form households, buy homes, and shape community priorities. In 2028, this group will be even more politically active, navigating careers, families, and fiscal pressures that student debt directly influences. As borrowers age into life stages where financial stability becomes paramount, their appetite for political solutions — including forgiveness, refinancing, and more manageable repayment structures — is likely to intensify.

    Student loan debt also affects communities differently. Black and Latinx borrowers are disproportionately burdened, with Black borrowers often owing more and struggling with repayment longer due to structural inequities in income and wealth. These disparities will continue to grow unless systemic reforms address not just debt levels but the economic systems that compound them over time. Communities of color are projected to constitute a larger share of the eligible electorate by 2030, and when a disproportionate share of voters in a given demographic faces an issue like unsustainable debt, it naturally becomes central to their political priorities and shapes the platforms of candidates seeking their support.

    Older Americans are impacted by student loan dynamics not necessarily as borrowers themselves, but as co-signers, parents, or caregivers helping children or grandchildren manage debt. With the U.S. population aging, the 65+ age group is expected to grow as a portion of the electorate, and those over 80 will increasingly drive Medicaid and healthcare costs, adding strain to federal and state budgets. Older voters tend to vote at higher rates than younger voters, and as more families find multigenerational debt obligations weighing on retirement savings, caregiving responsibilities, and healthcare needs, the political urgency around student loan reform may expand beyond traditional “student” demographics and into older voters’ policy concerns.

    Geographic and economic shifts also shape the political significance of student debt. States with high education costs, and correspondingly high average debt loads, may see student loan issues become central to local and statewide elections. Migration patterns bringing younger, more diverse populations to new regions — including parts of the South and Midwest — will likely influence electoral alignments and policy debates in competitive districts. Meanwhile, national concerns such as the growing federal debt, ongoing military engagements abroad, and rising costs associated with healthcare for an aging population amplify the stakes, creating competing pressures on policymakers who must balance debt relief against broader fiscal challenges.

    Economic inequality further complicates the picture. The concentration of wealth among the richest Americans continues to grow, giving this group greater political influence and shaping policy priorities in ways that often conflict with the needs of student borrowers and middle-class families. As wealth and power accumulate at the top, voters carrying student debt may increasingly perceive systemic unfairness, heightening the political salience of debt relief and broader structural reforms. The interaction of these factors — persistent debt, rising national obligations, ongoing conflict, and economic inequality — suggests that student loans will remain intertwined with larger national debates over fiscal responsibility, social safety nets, and the distribution of economic power.

    Student loan debt has already become a wedge issue in national politics, especially within Democratic primaries. The demographic shifts of the late 2020s, rising diversity, coupled economic pressures, and growing awareness of wealth inequality could make it a central concern for a broader slice of the electorate. Policymakers who ignore student debt risk alienating key voter blocs: younger voters whose turnout matters in swing states, communities of color with growing electoral influence, and middle-class families navigating financial strain alongside broader economic and geopolitical uncertainties.

    The economic impact of outstanding student loan debt, from delayed homeownership to depressed small business formation, carries demographic implications that feed back into the political sphere. If current trends continue, the cost of inaction will not just be political but economic, affecting national growth rates, tax revenue, social programs, and inequality metrics that in turn shape voter sentiment and policy priorities.

    Student Debt and the Shifting Political Landscape

    By 2028 and into the 2030s, demographic change is poised to elevate student loan debt from a pressing public concern to a core political battleground unless policymakers act proactively. With more borrowers entering key voting blocs, disproportionate impacts across racial and economic lines, and economic consequences rippling through communities of all ages, student loan debt is more than a financial issue: it is a demographic reality shaping the future of American politics.

    Sadly, the Higher Education Inquirer will not be around to cover these developments as they unfold. HEI has made predictions about student debt and its political consequences in the past, and while nothing is set in stone, the combination of rising demographics, persistent economic inequality, the mounting national debt, ongoing war-related obligations, and pressures from an aging population does not paint a promising picture. Without major policy reforms — such as targeted debt relief, changes to repayment systems, or broader higher education financing reforms — the political salience of student debt is likely to intensify, influencing campaigns, elections, and national discourse for years to come.

    Sources

    Education Data Initiative, “Student Loan Debt Statistics 2025,” educationdata.org
    TransUnion, “May 2025 Student Loan Update,” newsroom.transunion.com
    Forbes, “Student Loans for 64 Million Borrowers Are Heading Toward a Dangerous Cliff,” forbes.com
    College Board, “Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2025,” research.collegeboard.org
    LendingTree, “Student Loan Debt Statistics by State,” lendingtree.com
    NerdWallet, “Student Loan Debt Statistics 2025,” nerdwallet.com

    Source link

  • What Student Loan Borrowers in the SAVE Plan Should Know for 2026

    What Student Loan Borrowers in the SAVE Plan Should Know for 2026

    Lender and Bonus disclosure

    THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS OFFER.

    Earnest: $1,000 for $100K or more, $200 for $50K to $99.999.99. For Earnest, if you refinance $100,000 or more through this site, $500 of the $1,000 cash bonus is provided directly by Student Loan Planner. Rate range above includes optional 0.25% Auto Pay discount.

    Earnest Bonus Offer Disclosure:

    Terms and conditions apply. To qualify for this Earnest Bonus offer: 1) you must not currently be an Earnest client, or have received the bonus in the past, 2) you must submit a completed student loan refinancing application through the designated Student Loan Planner® link; 3) you must provide a valid email address and a valid checking account number during the application process; and 4) your loan must be fully disbursed.

    You will receive a $1,000 bonus if you refinance $100,000 or more, or a $200 bonus if you refinance an amount from $50,000 to $99,999.99. For the $1,000 Welcome Bonus offer, $500 will be paid directly by Student Loan Planner® via Giftly. Earnest will automatically transmit $500 to your checking account after the final disbursement. For the $200 Welcome Bonus offer, Earnest will automatically transmit the $200 bonus to your checking account after the final disbursement. There is a limit of one bonus per borrower. This offer is not valid for current Earnest clients who refinance their existing Earnest loans, clients who have previously received a bonus, or with any other bonus offers received from Earnest via this or any other channel. Bonus cannot be issued to residents in KY, MA, or MI.

    Student Loan Refinance Interest Rate Disclosure 

    Actual rate will vary based on your financial profile. Fixed annual percentage rates (APR) range from 3.97% APR to 10.24% APR (3.72% – 9.99% with .25% auto pay discount). Variable annual percentage rates (APR) range from 6.13% APR to 10.24% APR (5.88% – 9.99% with .25% auto pay discount). Earnest variable interest rate student loan refinance loans are based on a publicly available index, the 30-day Average Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The variable rate is based on the rate published on the 25th day, or the next business day, of the preceding calendar month, rounded to the nearest hundredth of a percent. The rate will not increase more than once a month, but there is no limit on the amount that the rate could increase at one time. Please note, we are not able to offer variable rate loans in AK, IL, MN, MS, NH, OH, TN, and TX. Our lowest rates are only available for our most credit qualified borrowers and requires selection of our shortest term offered and enrollment in our .25% auto pay discount from a checking or savings account. Enrolling in autopay is not required as a condition for approval.

    Auto Pay Discount Disclosure

    You can take advantage of the Auto Pay interest rate reduction by setting up and maintaining active and automatic ACH withdrawal of your loan payment. The interest rate reduction for Auto Pay will be available only while your loan is enrolled in Auto Pay. Interest rate incentives for utilizing Auto Pay may not be combined with certain private student loan repayment programs that also offer an interest rate reduction. For multi-party loans, only one party may enroll in Auto Pay.

    Skip a Payment Disclosure

    Earnest clients may skip one payment every 12 months. Your first request to skip a payment can be made once you’ve made at least 6 months of consecutive on-time payments, and your loan is in good standing. The interest accrued during the skipped month will result in an increase in your remaining minimum payment. The final payoff date on your loan will be extended by the length of the skipped payment periods. Please be aware that a skipped payment does count toward the forbearance limits. Please note that skipping a payment is not guaranteed and is at Earnest’s discretion. Your monthly payment and total loan cost may increase as a result of postponing your payment and extending your term.

    Student Loan Refinancing Loan Cost Examples

    These examples provide estimates based on payments beginning immediately upon loan disbursement. Variable APR: A $10,000 loan with a 20-year term (240 monthly payments of $72) and a 5.89% APR would result in a total estimated payment amount of $17,042.39. For a variable loan, after your starting rate is set, your rate will then vary with the market. Fixed APR: A $10,000 loan with a 20-year term (240 monthly payments of $72) and a 6.04% APR would result in a total estimated payment amount of $17,249.77. Your actual repayment terms may vary.Terms and Conditions apply. Visit https://www.earnest. com/terms-of-service, e-mail us at [email protected], or call 888-601-2801 for more information on our student loan refinance product.

    Student Loan Origination Loan Cost Examples

    These examples provide estimates based on the Deferred Repayment option, meaning you make no payments while enrolled in school and during the separation period of 9 billing periods thereafter. Variable APR: A $10,000 loan with a 15-year term (180 monthly payments of $157.12) and an 11.69% APR would result in a total estimated payment amount of $21,290.40. For a variable loan, after your starting rate is set, your rate will then vary with the market. Fixed APR: A $10,000 loan with a 15-year term (180 monthly payments of $173.51) and an 13.03% APR would result in a total estimated payment amount of $22,827.79. Your actual repayment terms may vary.

    Earnest Loans are made by Earnest Operations LLC or One American Bank, Member FDIC. Earnest Operations LLC, NMLS #1204917. 535 Mission St., Suite 1663, San Francisco, CA 94105. California Financing Law License 6054788. Visit earnest.com/licenses for a full list of licensed states. For California residents (Student Loan Refinance Only): Loans will be arranged or made pursuant to a California Financing Law License.

    One American Bank, 515 S. Minnesota Ave, Sioux Falls, SD 57104. Earnest loans are serviced by Earnest Operations LLC, 535 Mission St., Suite 1663 San Francisco, CA 94105, NMLS #1204917, with support from Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA) (NMLS# 1442770). One American Bank, FinWise Bank, and Earnest LLC and its subsidiaries, including Earnest Operations LLC, are not sponsored by agencies of the United States of America.

    © 2025 Earnest LLC. All rights reserved.

    Student Loan Planner® Bonus Disclosure:

    Upon disbursement of a qualifying loan, the borrower must notify Student Loan Planner® that a qualifying loan was refinanced through the site, as the lender does not share the names or contact information of borrowers. Borrowers must complete the Refinance Bonus Request form to claim a bonus offer. Student Loan Planner® will confirm loan eligibility and, upon confirmation of a qualifying refinance, will send via email a $500 e-gift card within 14 business days following the last day of the month in which the qualifying loan was confirmed eligible by Student Loan Planner®. If a borrower does not claim the Student Loan Planner® bonus within six months of the loan disbursement, the borrower forfeits their right to claim said bonus. The bonus amount will depend on the total loan amount disbursed. This offer is not valid for borrowers who have previously received a bonus from Student Loan Planner®.

    Source link

  • Support for student parents at risk due to proposed funding cuts

    Support for student parents at risk due to proposed funding cuts

    UCLA Bruin Parenting Scholars (BPS) board at their winter warmth basic needs drive for students with dependents.

    Credit: Photo courtesy of Trina Rodriguez

    As students across the country wrap up their final exams, academic pressure is front and center. For many, this season is stressful. For student parents, however, the stakes are even higher.

    Alongside exams and essay deadlines, student caregivers balance jobs, household responsibilities, and the constant demands of raising children and other family members — often with little institutional support. For them, success in college is not just about grades; it is about securing stability for their families and breaking cycles of economic insecurity.

    More than one in four undergraduate students in the United States are raising children, and 54% are doing so without a partner. Despite this widespread need for support, the programs that make higher education possible for student parents are threatened. Chief among them is the federal Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) initiative, the only national program that provides campus-based childcare subsidies for low-income student parents so they can stay enrolled and complete their degrees.

    Across the University of California (UC) system, survey data shows nearly 1,000 undergraduate students and 1,500 graduate students are caregivers. These students, often older, first-generation, and low-income, face challenges that traditional student support systems were never designed to meet. Parenting students also experience food and housing insecurity at disproportionately higher rates than their non-parenting peers. Add the cost of childcare, and the financial burden becomes nearly impossible to bear.

    Despite this clear need, support is shrinking. Although Congress allocated $75 million for CCAMPIS in fiscal year (FY) 2025, and there have been previous bipartisan proposals to increase funding to $200 million annually, President Trump’s budget request and the House education spending bill for FY 2026 proposed cutting the program entirely.

    Eliminating this funding would put thousands of families under severe financial strain, intensifying the challenges for caregivers already facing heightened food or housing insecurity and making it much harder to balance school and parenting responsibilities.

    “As a CCAMPIS recipient, I know that without federally supported childcare, I would never have been able to care for my late mother while returning to school, nor would I have completed undergrad with dual degrees,” Schinal Harrington, a masters of social work (MSW) candidate at UCLA, wrote in an email to us. “As a first-generation, system-impacted woman of color, mother, and graduate student, I have spent my academic journey navigating red tape, institutional neglect, and the loss of [fellow] peers whose struggles were shaped by the same barriers student parents face today.”

    Harrington chairs Bruin Parenting Scholars (BPS), a UCLA student advocacy organization that provides resources, mentorship, and community for students with dependents. Every day, she sees how childcare access, trauma-informed services, and flexible policies support not just parenting students, but their families.

    Trina Rodriguez, another UCLA MSW student and student parent advocate, describes this reality with raw clarity: “My lived experience carries many identities, but the first thing I am when I wake up, before anything else, is ‘Mommy.’ When universities do not acknowledge the existence of this marginalized community through institutional supports — like flexible scheduling, affordable childcare, and family-friendly policies — student parents face systemic barriers to completing their education. Universities are, therefore, perpetuating harm on this community.”

    Yet despite systemic gaps, student parents demonstrate extraordinary resilience. UC survey data show that parenting graduate students feel more upbeat about their career prospects and better prepared for the job search than their non-parenting peers. Their determination is evident — even when given modest support.

    “As a parenting scholar [myself], I’ve witnessed how student parents embody perseverance, compassion, and leadership, yet must navigate systems that were never built with their lives in mind,” said Sonya Brooks, the 2025-26 UC student regent. “Supporting student parents means recognizing that higher education is not one-size-fits-all: it must evolve to meet the realities of those raising families while pursuing their dreams. The success of student parents ripples across generations, shaping stronger families, communities, and universities.”

    Other resources for student parents

    BrightLife Kids is a free virtual behavioral health coaching program for families in California with children ages 0–12.

    Part of the CalHOPE initiative, BrightLife Kids offers 1:1 video coaching and secure chat services at no cost, with no insurance or referral required, providing caregivers with helpful tools.

    When Congress passed a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, longer-term funding questions — including CCAMPIS funding for 2026 — remained unresolved. House and Senate appropriators are now deciding whether to follow the president’s proposal or save the program when the continuing resolution expires in January.

    Congress must restore full funding for CCAMPIS and reject cuts that threaten the educational futures of thousands of student parents nationwide. Undermining these supports jeopardizes not only individual students but entire families.

    Colleges and universities must also do their part by expanding childcare access, adopting family-friendly policies, and offering flexible learning options with integrated advising. Higher education cannot credibly claim to value its students while ignoring the realities faced by the many on campus who are raising dependents.

    Parenting students have shown up for their families. Now it is time for our institutions to show up for them.

    •••

    Duke Dela Rosa is the director, and Amrit Dhillon, Arianna Li, and Sue Jung are associates, of the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) federal government relations department at UC Berkeley.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

    Source link

  • OPMs, Student Loan Servicers, Deregulation, Robocolleges, AI, and the Collapse of Accountability

    OPMs, Student Loan Servicers, Deregulation, Robocolleges, AI, and the Collapse of Accountability

    Across the United States, higher education is undergoing a dramatic and dangerous transformation. Corporate contractors, private equity firms, automated learning systems, and predatory loan servicers increasingly dictate how the system operates—while regulators remain absent and the media rarely reports the scale of the crisis. The result is a university system that serves investors and advertisers far more effectively than it serves students.

    This evolution reflects a broader pattern documented by Harriet A. Washington, Alondra Nelson, Elisabeth Rosenthal, and Rebecca Skloot: institutions extracting value from vulnerable populations under the guise of public service. Today, many universities—especially those driven by online expansion—operate as financial instruments more than educational institutions.

    The OPM Machine and Private Equity Consolidation

    Online Program Managers (OPMs) remain central to this shift. Companies like Academic Partnerships—now Risepoint—and the restructured remnants of Wiley’s OPM division continue expanding into public universities hungry for tuition revenue. Revenue-sharing deals, often hidden from the public, let these companies keep up to 60% of tuition in exchange for aggressive online recruitment and mass-production of courses.

    Much of this expansion is fueled by private equity, including Vistria Group, Apollo Global Management, and others that have poured billions into online contractors, publishing houses, test prep firms, and for-profit colleges. Their model prioritizes rapid enrollment growth, relentless marketing, and cost-cutting—regardless of educational quality.

    Hyper-Deregulation and the Dismantling of ED

    Under the Trump Administration, the federal government dismantled core student protections—Gainful Employment, Borrower Defense, incentive-compensation safeguards, and accreditation oversight. This “hyper-deregulation” created enormous loopholes that OPMs and for-profit companies exploited immediately.

    Today, the Department of Education itself is being dismantled, leaving oversight fragmented, understaffed, and in some cases non-functional. With the cat away, the mice will play: predatory companies are accelerating recruitment and acquisition strategies faster than regulators can respond.

    Servicers, Contractors, and Tech Platforms Feeding on Borrowers

    A constellation of companies profit from the student loan system regardless of borrower outcomes:

    • Maximus (AidVantage), which manages huge portfolios of federal student loans under opaque contracts.

    • Navient, a longtime servicer repeatedly accused of steering borrowers into costly options.

    • Sallie Mae, the original student loan giant, still profiting from private loans to risky borrowers.

    • Chegg, which transitioned from textbook rental to an AI-driven homework-and-test assistance platform, driving new forms of academic dependency.

    Each benefits from weak oversight and an increasingly automated, fragmented educational landscape.

    Robocolleges, Robostudents, Roboworkers: The AI Cascade

    AI has magnified the crisis. Universities, under financial pressure, increasingly rely on automated instruction, chatbot advising, and algorithmic grading—what can be called robocolleges. Students, overwhelmed and unsupported, turn to AI tools for essays, homework, and exams—creating robostudents whose learning is outsourced to software rather than internalized.

    Meanwhile, employers—especially those influenced by PE-backed workforce platforms—prioritize automation, making human workers interchangeable components in roboworker environments. This raises existential questions about whether higher education prepares people for stable futures or simply feeds them into unstable, algorithm-driven labor markets.

    FAFSA Meltdowns, Fraud, and Academic Cheating

    The collapse of the new FAFSA system, combined with widespread fraudulent applications, has destabilized enrollment nationwide. Colleges desperate for students have turned to risky recruitment pipelines that enable identity fraud, ghost students, and financial manipulation of aid systems.

    Academic cheating, now industrialized through generative AI and contract-cheating platforms, further erodes the integrity of degrees while institutions look away to protect revenue.

    Advertising and the Manufacture of “College Mania”

    For decades, advertising has propped up the myth that a college degree—any degree, from any institution—guarantees social mobility. Universities, OPMs, lenders, test-prep companies, and ed-tech platforms spend billions on marketing annually. This relentless messaging drives families to take on debt and enroll in programs regardless of cost or quality.

    College mania is not organic—it is manufactured. Advertising convinces the public to ignore warning signs that would be obvious in any other consumer market.

    A Media Coverage Vacuum

    Despite the scale of the crisis, mainstream media offers shockingly little coverage. Investigative journalism units have shrunk, education reporters are overstretched, and major outlets rely heavily on university advertising revenue. The result is a structural conflict of interest: the same companies responsible for predatory practices often fund the media organizations tasked with reporting on them.

    When scandals surface—FAFSA failures, servicer misconduct, OPM exploitation—they often disappear within a day’s news cycle. The public remains unaware of how deeply corporate interests now shape higher education.

    The Emerging Picture

    The U.S. higher education system is no longer simply under strain—it is undergoing a corporate and technological takeover. Private equity owns the pipelines. OPMs run the online infrastructure. Tech companies moderate academic integrity. Servicers profit whether borrowers succeed or fail. Advertisers manufacture demand. Regulators are missing. The media is silent.

    In contrast, many other countries maintain strong limits on privatization, enforce strict quality standards, and protect students as consumers. As Washington and Rosenthal argue, exploitation persists not because it is inevitable but because institutions allow—and profit from—it.

    Unless the U.S. restores meaningful oversight, reins in private equity, ends predatory revenue-sharing models, rebuilds the Department of Education, and demands transparency across all contractors, the system will continue to deteriorate. And students, especially those already marginalized, will pay the price.

    Sources (Selection)

    Harriet A. Washington – Medical Apartheid; Carte Blanche

    Rebecca Skloot – The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

    Elisabeth Rosenthal – An American Sickness

    Alondra Nelson – Body and Soul

    Stephanie Hall & The Century Foundation – work on OPMs and revenue sharing

    Robert Shireman – analyses of for-profit colleges and PE ownership

    GAO (Government Accountability Office) reports on OPMs and student loan servicing

    ED OIG and FTC public reports on oversight failures (various years)

    National Student Legal Defense Network investigations

    Federal Student Aid servicer audits and public documentation

    Source link

  • Tips for Making a Student Interest Survey

    Tips for Making a Student Interest Survey

    Understanding what motivates and excites students is at the heart of teaching. Whether it’s discovering their favorite hobbies, their goals, or the way they prefer to learn, gathering this kind of data helps educators tailor lessons that truly connect with their students. One of the best ways to gather this information is through student interest surveys. 

    With interest surveys for students, you can collect actionable information to use throughout the school year. You can make a student survey that is super simple and offers insights that can enhance classroom engagement, strengthen relationships, and support differentiated instruction, too.

    What is a Student Interest Survey?

    A student interest survey is a tool designed to gather information about students’ preferences, hobbies, goals, and ways they like to learn. These surveys help educators better understand what motivates their students. You can use the information you gather to connect with students on a personal level and create lessons that resonate.

    For example:

    • In an elementary classroom, surveys might ask about favorite books, hobbies, or after-school activities.
    • In middle school, they might explore topics students are curious about within a subject area, like what parts of history or science excite them most.
    • For high school students, surveys can include questions about career interests or their preferred methods of learning, such as videos, group work, or hands-on activities.

    By tailoring the questions to the grade level and classroom context, you can design surveys that give you valuable insights about students.

    Why is Making a Student Interest Survey Important?

    Student interest surveys play a critical role in creating a positive and engaging learning environment. 

    Building Relationships

    Surveys show students that their opinions and interests are valued. This can foster trust and create a more inclusive and welcoming classroom culture. For example, if a student shares their passion for basketball, incorporating that into lessons can help them feel seen and appreciated. 

    Enhancing Engagement

    When lessons connect with students’ interests, their engagement can increase. A math problem involving sports statistics or a science experiment about underwater habitats can make abstract concepts more relatable and exciting.

    If you’ve joined me for a webinar or workshop this year, you might have seen the example I often share about using a chatbot to generate activity ideas based on student interest. I often demo the prompt, “I’m teaching [topic] to [grade], and they love [interests]. Make a list of connections that can help them stay engaged and retain knowledge.”

    Supporting Differentiation

    Surveys can help educators adapt teaching strategies to address the different ways kids like to learn. For instance, if a student prefers independent work over group activities, you can use this information to guide project assignments or seating arrangements.

    What to Include When Making a Student Interest Survey

    A well-designed survey gathers a mix of personal, academic, and classroom-specific information. Here are a few things to include:

    1. General Information: Start with basics like name, class period, and favorite subjects.
    2. Personal Interests: Ask about hobbies, favorite books or movies, and extracurricular activities. Open-ended questions work well here, but younger students might benefit from multiple-choice options.
    3. Learning Preferences: Include questions about group work versus individual tasks, preferred classroom activities, and how students like to receive information (e.g., videos, reading, hands-on projects).
    4. Goals and Aspirations: These could range from short-term academic goals to long-term career interests. For example, high schoolers might share their dream jobs, while elementary students could talk about a skill they hope to master.
    5. Classroom-Specific Questions:
      • Elementary: “What’s your favorite part of the school day?”
      • Middle School: “If you could learn about anything, what would it be?”
      • High School: “What skills do you hope to gain this year?”
    6. Optional Questions: Questions like “What’s something you wish your teacher knew about you?” can provide deeper insights and open doors for meaningful conversations.

    Using Digital Tools for Efficiency

    Digital tools make creating and analyzing surveys faster and more efficient. Platforms like Google Forms, Jotform, and Microsoft Forms offer features like multiple-choice questions, dropdowns, and Likert scales. All of these can simplify the data collection process. These tools, and others like them, also automatically organize responses (like a Google Sheet), saving time for educators. 

    For younger students, tools like Padlet can be used to gather video or audio responses. You might also ask students to make a collage of their favorite things.

    4 Tips for Creating Effective Surveys

    To make sure your surveys give you actionable information, here are a few best practices to take into consideration.

    • Keep It Short: Limit surveys to 5–10 questions to avoid overwhelming students.
    • Use Clear Language: Adapt the wording to the age group. For younger students, you might want to provide examples or visuals to clarify questions.
    • Review the Data: Use visual charts or spreadsheets to identify trends and personalize your approach.
    • Follow Up: Let students know how their input will be used. Share how their responses are shaping lessons, group projects, or classroom routines.

    Making a Student Interest Survey

    Student interest surveys are a powerful tool for building connections, fostering engagement, and personalizing learning. By taking the time to understand what excites and motivates your students, you can create a classroom environment where every learner feels valued and inspired.

    Whether you’re designing your first survey or refining an existing one, remember that the ultimate goal is to use the insights gained to make meaningful changes. Start small, experiment with different formats, and, most importantly, show students that their voices matter!

    Do you have a student interest survey success story? Reply to my weekly newsletter (sign up here) and let me know all about it.

    Find more posts featuring personalized learning tips & resources:

    Source link

  • DEI in education: Pros and cons

    DEI in education: Pros and cons

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #6 focuses on DEI in education.

    Key points:

    Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become integral to educational institutions across the United States. DEI aims to foster environments where all students can thrive regardless of their backgrounds. The programs are designed to address systemic inequalities, promote representation, and create inclusive spaces for learning. However, as DEI becomes more prevalent, it also faces scrutiny and debate regarding its effectiveness, implementation, and impact on educational outcomes.

    One of the main advantages of DEI in education is the promotion of a more inclusive and representative curriculum. Students gain a broader understanding of the world by integrating diverse perspectives into course materials. This enhances critical thinking and empathy. Furthermore, the approach prepares students to navigate and contribute to our increasingly globalized society. Moreover, exposure to diverse viewpoints encourages students to challenge their assumptions and develop a more nuanced perspective on complex issues.

    DEI initiatives also contribute to improved academic outcomes by fostering a sense of belongingness amongst students. When students see themselves reflected in their educators and curricula, they are more likely to feel valued and supported. This leads to increased engagement and motivation. This sense of inclusion can result in higher retention and graduation rates (particularly among historically marginalized groups). Furthermore, diverse learning environments encourage collaboration and communication skills because students learn to work effectively with peers from different backgrounds.

    In addition to benefiting students, DEI programs can enhance faculty satisfaction and retention. Institutions that prioritize diversity in hiring and promotion practices create more equitable workplaces. This can lead to increased job satisfaction among faculty members. Mentorship programs and professional development opportunities focused on DEI can also support faculty in creating inclusive classroom environments, which further benefits students.

    Despite these benefits, DEI initiatives are not without challenges. One significant concern is the potential for resistance and backlash from individuals who perceive DEI efforts as a threat to traditional values (in other words, a form of reverse discrimination). This resistance can manifest in various ways (opposition to DEI policies, legal challenges, and political pressure). Such opposition can hinder the implementation and effectiveness of DEI programs, thereby creating a contentious atmosphere within educational institutions.

    Another challenge is the difficulty in measuring the success of DEI initiatives. Without clear metrics, it can be challenging to assess the impact of these programs on student outcomes, faculty satisfaction, or institutional culture. The lack of quantifiable data can lead to skepticism about the efficiency of DEI efforts, thus resulting in reduced support or funding for such programs. Additionally, the absence of standardized definitions and goals for DEI can lead to inconsistent implementation across institutions.

    Resource allocation is also a critical issue in the execution of DEI initiatives. Implementing comprehensive DEI programs often requires significant financial investment (funding for specialized staff, training, and support services). In times of budget constraints, institutions may struggle to prioritize DEI efforts. This may lead to inadequate support for students and faculty. Without sufficient resources, DEI programs may fail to achieve their intended outcomes thus further fueling criticism and skepticism.

    The potential for tokenism is another concern associated with DEI initiatives. When institutions focus on meeting diversity quotas without fostering genuine inclusion, individuals from underrepresented groups may feel marginalized or exploited. Tokenism may undermine the goals of DEI by creating superficial diversity that does not translate into meaningful change or equity. To avoid this, institutions must commit to creating inclusive environments where all individuals feel valued and empowered to contribute fully.

    Furthermore, DEI programs can sometimes inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or create division among student populations. For example, emphasizing differences without promoting commonalities may lead to increased social fragmentation or feelings of isolation among certain groups. Educators must carefully balance the celebration of diversity with the promotion of unity and shared values to foster cohesive learning communities.

    In summary, DEI initiatives in education offer numerous benefits, but these programs also face significant challenges. To maximize the positive impact of DEI efforts, educational institutions must commit to thoughtful, well-resourced, and inclusive implementation strategies that promote genuine equity and inclusion for all members.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link