Tag: Student

  • Making a sustained case for international student mobility

    Making a sustained case for international student mobility

    Today on the HEPI blog, Professor David Phoenix OBE and Dr. Katerina Kolyva explore how England’s post-16 education system can move beyond competition to create a more integrated, collaborative approach that benefits learners, local economies, and national prosperity. You can read the blog here.

    Below, colleagues at the University of Surrey explore the evolving landscape of global student mobility, highlighting innovative programmes and making the case for a new approach to student placements.

    • Professor Amelia Hadfield is Associate Vice-President for External Engagement and Founding Director of the Centre for Britain in Europe, and Liz Lynch is International Mobility Manager, both at the University of Surrey.

    In recent years, the UK’s governments have developed new initiatives such as the Turing Scheme, the Taith Scheme in Wales, and the Scottish Government’s Scottish Education Exchange Programme (SEEP). These mobility programmes aim to support students’ global experiences. While they have undoubtedly provided valuable opportunities for students – particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds – what is truly needed is a longer-term commitment from government to sustain and expand these life-changing opportunities.

    At the end of February, the annual Global Mobility conference hosted by Universities UK International (UUKi) brought together higher education professionals and thought leaders to explore the latest developments in global student mobility and what the future looks like. The conference showcased how universities are leveraging these funding opportunities to create meaningful and impactful programmes. However, it also highlighted the significant challenges faced by UK institutions, particularly in the aftermath of Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus+ and the ongoing financial pressures on both universities and students. These factors have created a complex landscape, making investment in international mobility more crucial than ever.

    The Impact of Mobility on Student Outcomes: Insights from UUKi Research

    During the conference, UUKi presented early-stage findings from their latest research, Gone International: A New Generation, conducted in collaboration with Jisc and the Northern Consortium. While the data revealed a significant decline in the number of students going abroad, perhaps reflecting the impact of recent global challenges, there remains strong evidence of the benefits to students. Reaffirming 2019 findings, the data continues to show students participating in mobility programmes not only attain higher degrees but are also more likely to earn higher salaries, secure professional-level jobs and experience lower unemployment rates. The research underscores the important role of global mobility in fostering social mobility.

    Nevertheless, while those of us working in the sector already understand the intrinsic value of international experiences, having concrete data to back up these claims strengthens the case for continued support and expansion of such opportunities. The University of Manchester, for example, has been evaluating the impact of its international mobility programmes on student outcomes, and the findings have helped raise the profile and importance of these opportunities across their institution. This kind of evidence-based approach is essential for ensuring that the sector – and governments – remain committed to facilitating global mobility for students.

    The Broader Benefits of International Mobility

    The British Council highlights the broader societal benefits of international student mobility, particularly in fostering cross-cultural understanding and long-term relationships between nations. By participating in mobility programmes, students develop cross-cultural competence, language proficiency, and global perspectives – all vital skills for success in today’s interconnected world. Inbound mobility, in particular, contributes significantly to the UK economy, with international students bringing cultural diversity, innovation, and fresh perspectives to campuses. These exchanges also build cross-cultural networks, which can endure long after students return to their home countries, fostering greater trust and understanding between nations and supporting the UK’s soft power overseas.

    All of this is in addition to the economic benefit that stems from the UK’s ability to attract international students, as discussed recently on the HEPI blog.

    Blended Mobility: Enabling flexibility and accessibility

    Blended mobility programmes represent a forward-thinking solution for making global education more accessible and flexible. Cardiff Metropolitan University, for example, has embraced a hybrid model supported by the Taith funding, combining one week of virtual learning with one week of physical mobility. This approach not only maintains the essence of cultural exchange but also offers students the flexibility to engage in international experiences that might otherwise be logistically or financially out of reach. The combination of virtual, blended, and physical mobility opens doors for students who might not be able to commit to a full-term study abroad programme, making global learning more inclusive and scalable.

    Whilst the Turing Scheme in its current form does not include blended mobility, the recent reduction in minimum duration to 14 days is a positive step towards providing greater accessibility for students. Hopefully, in future years, blended mobilities and shorter 7-day mobilities could be incorporated into future Turing projects, taking the impactful examples from both Taith and Erasmus+ as evidence of the value and enabling engagement from the most disadvantaged and underrepresented groups.  This, along with funding for staff mobility (offered by both Taith and Erasmus+), will only serve to enhance Turing overall.

    Surrey’s Approach: Empowering Students through International Mobility

    At the University of Surrey, we are committed to increasing the participation of our students in a range of international opportunities, whilst simultaneously expanding the international dimension of the student experience at our Guildford campus. In this respect, placement training options, study abroad opportunities, enhanced ‘global and cultural intelligence’ and ‘collaborative online international learning’ (COIL) content in degree pathways, as well as our Global Graduate Awards, ‘international’ is necessarily widely defined, and ‘mobility’ can take place intellectually, culturally, and socially, as well as just physically,

    Mobility also brings together traditional approaches to cross-border opportunities with enhanced approaches to supporting new demographics. A key strategic objective at Surrey, therefore, is focusing on access for underrepresented groups. We target Turing funding and additional grant funds to students who meet Surrey’s widening participation criteria to address inequality amongst underrepresented groups who may wish to experience international mobility but are unable to do so without grants. The portfolio of both longer-term and shorter mobility options we have developed facilitates equal access for all. As previous placements have illustrated, longer-term mobility provides deeper cultural experiences and learning opportunities for those able to commit to a full semester/year abroad. Shorter options can widen access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and underrepresented groups.

    Through their international experiences, our students build global academic and professional networks and improve their job prospects. They return to Surrey as confident, resilient, and globally minded individuals, prepared to tackle the challenges of tomorrow’s world. Feedback from students who participated in Surrey’s Turing 2023 project shows the impact mobility has on their personal and professional development. 94% reported an increase in intercultural awareness, and 93% felt the experience enhanced their employability and professional skills.

    Looking Ahead: The Future of Global Mobility

    The global mobility landscape is changing, with rapid technological advancements and a growing emphasis on inclusivity and sustainability. At Surrey, we are embracing technological innovations that will enhance both the student experience and the efficiency of mobility programme management. Process automation, for example, is helping streamline administrative tasks, freeing up resources to better support students. We are also starting to use virtual reality (VR) to promote international opportunities, allowing students to virtually explore campus life abroad. Future opportunities for blended learning, as well as the incorporation of COIL projects within the curriculum, will nurture the skills necessary for students to engage with the world and develop the confidence and curiosity needed to thrive in an interconnected society.

    By incorporating data-driven approaches, we will continue to assess the impact of our mobility programmes, identifying areas for improvement and ensuring that our offerings align with both institutional and student goals. As the sector evolves, collaboration and innovation will be key in ensuring that all students can access transformative international experiences.

    Source link

  • Student experience is becoming more transactional – but that doesn’t make it less meaningful

    Student experience is becoming more transactional – but that doesn’t make it less meaningful

    It seems that few can agree about what the future student experience will look like but there is a growing consensus that for the majority of higher education institutions (bar a few outliers) it will – and probably should – look different from today.

    For your institution, that might look like a question of curriculum – addressing student demand for practical skills, career competencies and civic values to be more robustly embedded in academic courses. It might be about the structure of delivery – with the Lifelong Learning Entitlement funding per credit model due to roll out in the next few years and the associated opportunity to flex how students access programmes of study and accrue credit. It might be a question of modality and responding to demands for flexibility in accessing learning materials remotely using technology.

    When you combine all these changes and trends you potentially arrive at a more fragmented and transient model of higher education, with students passing through campus or logging in remotely to pick up their higher education work alongside their other commitments. Academic community – at least in the traditional sense of the campus being the locus of daily activity for students and academics – already appears at risk, and some worry that there is a version of the future in which it is much-reduced or disappears altogether.

    Flexibility, not fragmentation

    With most higher education institutions facing difficult financial circumstances without any immediate prospect of external relief, the likelihood is that cost-saving measures reduce both the institutional capacity to provide wraparound services and the opportunities for the kind of human-to-human contact that shows up organically when everyone is co-located. Sam Sanders

    One of the challenges for higher education in the decade ahead will be how to sustain motivation and engagement, build connection and belonging, and support students’ wellbeing, while responding to that shifting pattern of how students practically encounter learning.

    The current model still relies on high-quality person to person interaction in classrooms, labs, on placement, in accessing services, and in extra-curricular activities. When you have enough of that kind of rich human interaction it’s possible to some extent to tolerate a degree of (for want of a better word) shonky-ness in students’ functional and administrative interactions with their institution.

    That’s not a reflection of the skills and professionalism of the staff who manage those interactions; it’s testament to the messiness of decades of technology systems procurement that has not kept up with the changing demands of higher education operational management. The amount of institutional resource devoted to maintaining and updating these systems, setting up workarounds when they don’t serve desired institutional processes, and extracting and translating data from them is no longer justifiable in the current environment.

    Lots of institutional leaders accept that change is coming. Many are leading significant transformation and reform programmes that respond to one or more of the changes noted above. But they are often trying – at some expense – to build a change agenda on top of a fragile foundational infrastructure. And this is where a change in mindset and culture will be needed to allow institutions to build the kind of student experiences that we think are likely to become dominant within the next decade.

    Don’t fear the transactional

    Maintaining quality when resources are constrained requires a deep appreciation of the “moments that matter” in student experience – those that will have lasting impact on students’ sense of academic identity and connection, and by association their success – and those that can be, essentially, transactional. Pete Moss

    If, as seems to be the case, the sector is moving towards a world in which students need a greater bulk of their interaction with their institution to be in that “transactional” bucket two things follow:

    One is that the meaningful bits of learning, teaching, academic support and student development have to be REALLY meaningful, enriching encounters for both students and the staff who are educating them – because it’s these moments that will bring the education experience to life and have a transformative effect on students. To some degree how each institution creates that sense of meaningfulness and where it chooses to focus its pedagogical efforts may act as a differentiator to guide student choice.

    The second is that the transactional bits have to REALLY work – at a baseline be low-friction, designed with the user in mind, and make the best possible use of technologies to support a more grab-and-go, self-service, accessible-anywhere model that can be scaled for a diverse student body with complicated lives.

    Transactional should not mean ‘one-size-fits-all’ – in fact careful investment in technology should mean that it is possible to build a more inclusive experience through adapting to students’ needs, whether that’s about deploying translation software, integrating assistive technologies, or natural language search functionality. Lizzie Falkowska

    Optimally, institutions will be seeking to get to the point where it is possible to track a student right from their first interaction with the institution all the way through becoming an alumnus – and be able to accommodate a student being several things at once, or moving “backwards” along that critical path as well as “forwards.” Having the data foundations in place to understand where a student is now, as well as where they have come from, and even where they want to get to, makes it possible to build a genuinely personalised experience.

    In this “transactional” domain, there is much less opportunity for strategic differentiation with competitor institutions – though there is a lot of opportunity for hygiene failure, if students who find their institution difficult to deal with decide to take their credits and port them elsewhere. Institutional staff, too, need to be able to quickly and easily conduct transactional business with the institution, so that their time is devoted as much as possible to the knowledge and student engagement work that is simply more important.

    Critically, the more that institutions adopt common core frameworks and processes in that transactional bucket of activity, the more efficient the whole sector can be, and the more value can be realised in the “meaningful” bucket. That means resisting the urge to tinker and adapt, letting go of the myth of exceptionalism, and embracing an “adopt not adapt” mindset.

    Fixing the foundations

    To get there, institutions need to go back to basics in the engine-room of the student experience – the student record system. The student system of 15-20 years ago was a completely internally focused statutory engine, existing for award board grids and HESA returns. Student records is now seen as a student-centric platform that happens to support other outputs and outcomes, both student-facing interactions, and management information that can drive decision-making about where resource input is generating the best returns.

    The breadth of things in the student experience that need to be supported has expanded rapidly, and will continue to need to be adapted. Right now, institutions need their student record system to be able to cope with feeding data into other platforms to allow (within institutional data ethics frameworks) useful reporting on things like usage and engagement patterns. Increasingly ubiquitous AI functionality in information search, student support, and analytics needs to be underpinned by high quality data or it will not realise any value when rolled out.

    Going further, as institutions start to explore opportunities for strategic collaboration, co-design of qualifications and pathways in response to regional skills demands, or start to diversify their portfolio to capture the benefits of the LLE funding model, moving toward a common data framework and standards will be a key enabler for new opportunities to emerge.

    The extent to which the sector is able to adopt a common set of standards and interoperability expectations for student records is the extent to which it can move forward collectively with establishing a high quality baseline for managing the bit of student experience that might be “transactional” in their function, but that will matter greatly as creating the foundations for the bits that really do create lasting value.

    This article is published in association with KPMG.

    Source link

  • Understanding Incoming College Student Demographics

    Understanding Incoming College Student Demographics

    Anecdotally, higher education practitioners frequently share challenges and changes with today’s college students, but how unique are the incoming learners of the Class of 2029?

    A February report published by the American Council on Education and the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, found the incoming class of college students is more diverse than past classes in terms of race, sexuality and socioeconomic standing.  

    According to the CIRP Freshman Survey 2024, some demographic groups are less likely to say they’re confident in their academic abilities and that they encounter mental health struggles, highlighting ongoing need to support students with their personal and academic development in higher education.

    “This report gives institutional leaders a clear view of today’s first-year students—their backgrounds, aspirations, and challenges—so they can better support learner success,” said Hironao Okahana, vice president and executive director of ACE’s Education Futures Lab, in a February press release. “Centering student experiences in higher education policy and practice is essential, and these findings help colleges and universities create environments where all students can thrive.”

    Methodology

    The survey, conducted between April 14 and Oct. 10, 2024, includes data from 24,367 incoming students across 55 colleges and universities.

    Demographics: Over half of respondents (50.8 percent) identify as white, but significant portions are students of color, including more than one race (14.8 percent), Asian and Pacific Islander (14.6 percent), Hispanic or Latino (11.0 percent), or Black and African American (7.7 percent). Around 1 percent of respondents are American Indian or Alaska Native.

    Nearly 10 percent of surveyed students reported English was not their primary language, and almost half of those learners are U.S. citizens.

    A majority of respondents indicated they are heterosexual (82.3 percent), but the next-greatest share identify as bisexual (8.5 percent).

    Nineteen percent of respondents were classified as low-income, defined in this study as having a family income of less than $60,000. First-generation students (those whose parents or guardians had no college experience) made up 12.4 percent of all students and one-third of the low-income group.

    Eight percent of respondents were military-affiliated, and these learners made up 3 percent of the low-income group.

    College prep: Nearly all students took three years of math in high school, but those from higher-income backgrounds were more likely to have completed advanced mathematics courses and Advanced Placement courses.

    Women (66.8 percent) were less likely than men to see themselves as having strong academic ability, compared to their male peers (75.8 percent) and those who indicated another gender identity (72.3 percent). Similarly, female students were less likely to say they have above-average intellect, compared to men and others.

    Despite that lack of self-confidence, women were more likely to report earning A’s in high school (78 percent) compared to men (72 percent) and other gender minorities (72 percent). Women and nonbinary students were also more likely to say they felt challenged by their coursework frequently (34.9 percent and 36.2 percent, respectively).

    Over half of students studied at least six hours per week, but first-generation students were less likely to study for six hours per week, compared to their continuing-generation peers. First-generation college students were also slightly more likely to work for pay at least six hours per week at 41.3 percent versus 38.6 percent.

    Around one-third of students socialized with their friends for at least six hours per week, on trend with national data that suggests Gen Z spends less time with friends compared to previous generations.

    Personal struggles: Mental health concerns have risen among young people nationally, and many incoming college students indicate feelings of being overwhelmed or depressed. Nonbinary students were most likely to report feeling anxious, stressed or depressed, and women were slightly more likely than men to share mental health concerns.

    “When asked how they compare with their peers on emotional health, men showed the most confidence; 48.5 percent rated themselves as above average or in the top 10 percent,” according to the report. “By contrast, only 35.2 percent of women and just 16.6 percent of students who identified outside of the gender binary rated themselves as above average or in the top 10 percent.”

    Around half of students indicated they had at least some chance of using mental health services offered at their institution.

    Financial stress continues to weigh on students, with over half (56.4 percent) expressing some or major concern about paying for college. Latino (81.4 percent) and Black students (69.6 percent) were more likely to say this was true. Sixty percent of Latino students, over half of American Indian or Alaska Native, and half of Black students utilize Pell Grants to fund their education, and each of these groups also relied on work-study funding for their education costs at higher rates than their peers.

    However, many students believe in the economic value of a college education, despite the financial barriers to access.

    Politics: For the first time, the survey asked students if they considered state policies and legislation to be important to their college decision. One-third of men and almost 40 percent of women considered politics and legislation to be at least somewhat important of where to go to college, compared to 56 percent of their nonbinary peers. LGBTQ students (48 percent) also weighed this factor as important more than their peers.

    The Class of 2029 is also civically engaged, with one-quarter of respondents indicating that they frequently or occasionally have demonstrated for a cause and one-third of respondents having publicly communicate their opinion about a cause. LGBTQ students were more likely to agree with these statements.

    Military-affiliated students also reported high levels of community engagement, such as volunteering and voting.

    Across the U.S., diversity, equity and inclusion work has become more controversial, but respondents still indicate a care for social equity. A majority of college students believe racial discrimination is still a major problem in the U.S., with students of color more likely than their white peers to share this opinion. Many students expressed an interest in correcting social inequalities and gender equity.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • Essay on Immigration Law and Student Activism (Opinion)

    Essay on Immigration Law and Student Activism (Opinion)

    On Sept. 23, 1952, Mugo Gatheru had just finished English class when an American official approached him and flashed a United States Immigration Services badge. Gatheru, a young Kenyan student at Lincoln University, quickly realized that his education was not the officer’s concern. His politics were. The officer interrogated him about his role as an editor of the Kenya African Union’s newspaper, The African Voice, and about whether he had ever engaged in political agitation against government officials in Kenya, India, England or the United States.

    In the 1950s, the Cold War logic of American immigration enforcement sought to place Gatheru into a rigid political binary: communist or anticommunist, agitator or ally. But Gatheru challenged these political borders. When accused of being an agitator, the young Kenyan student reframed the terms of the interrogation. Agitation, he argued, was a matter of perspective. British colonial authorities may have seen him as disruptive, but what he was doing was simply a continuation of the democratic ideals he had learned in America. “After all,” he told the immigration officer, “even George Washington was an agitator here in your country.”

    Seventy-three years later, it’s old wine in a new bottle.

    The same Immigration and Nationality Act that was used to justify deportation proceedings against Mugo Gatheru in the 1950s is now being wielded against Mahmoud Khalil. In Gatheru’s time, the target was anticolonial activists suspected of communist ties; today, it’s Palestinian advocates accused of supporting terrorism. The global politics are different, but the playbook remains the same: Silence dissent, rebrand it as a security threat and use immigration law to make it disappear.

    These cases are not just about two individuals. They are part of a much longer history of using immigration enforcement as a tool of political suppression on college campuses. Gatheru was one of many African, Latin America, Asian and Caribbean students in the mid-20th century whose presence in U.S. universities became politically suspect. Fueled by Cold War anxieties, U.S. authorities from across the political spectrum saw anticolonial activism as inherently subversive to American geopolitical interests. In the late 1970s, the Carter administration, which professed a strong commitment to human rights, employed the same tools of immigration enforcement to investigate and silence Iranian students who denounced U.S. complicity in the shah’s regime. And in the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration also utilized those same tools to prosecute young Palestinian activists in Los Angeles.

    The history of immigration and student activism is thus also a history of global racial politics. White European students were welcomed into American universities while Black and brown international students from the Global South were scrutinized for their political beliefs. In effect, academic freedom was never truly universal for international students. It was selectively granted and shaped by a racialized global hierarchy that mirrored U.S. Cold War priorities. Ultimately, an uncomfortable truth might be this: American universities are deeply entangled in America’s geopolitical agenda, and their commitment to academic freedom rarely extended to those who challenged U.S. hegemony.

    Today, the U.S. government is deploying a similar logic. In addition to Khalil’s arrest, the government has trumpeted the arrest of another international student tied to the Columbia protests, Leqaa Kordia, and the visa revocation and “self-deportation” of Ranjani Srinivasan, who says she got mistakenly swept up in arrests of protesters during the occupation of Columbia’s Hamilton Hall last spring. A Georgetown University postdoctoral scholar from India, Badar Khan Suri, was also arrested last week, targeted, according to his lawyer, for his wife’s “identity as a Palestinian and her constitutionally protected speech.”

    In other words, these are not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate policy effort to criminalize Palestinian advocacy and antiwar protest.

    In the past two years alone, we have seen student groups labeled as extremist, faculty members investigated for their political speech and foreign nationals facing heightened scrutiny for their views on the ongoing war in Israel-Palestine. The arrest of Khalil, even if dropped, has had its intended effect: It sends a chilling message that political dissent, particularly when voiced by students from politically fraught regions, comes at a cost.

    The echoes between these cases should prompt us to reflect on the historical legacies at play. Both Gatheru’s and Khalil’s experiences show how governments, fearing the power of certain ideas, attempt to control the discourse by criminalizing student activists. Both demonstrate how racialized and colonialist logics shape the policing of dissent, whether in the 1950s, under the specter of communism, or in 2025, under the guise of counterterrorism. And, most significantly for those in higher education, both reveal the ways in which universities serve as battlegrounds for global political struggles.

    Yet both cases also highlight the potential role of academic communities and activist networks in resisting such overt suppression of political activism. When Gatheru faced deportation, university allies and civil rights leaders and groups, including Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP, mobilized on his behalf. Faculty and students at Lincoln University established the Friends of Mugo Gatheru Fund. They reframed his case as a fight for both racial justice and academic freedom. Their efforts eventually led to the U.S. government dropping its case.

    Khalil’s arrest has likewise sparked widespread resistance. Student organizations and faculty at Columbia have mobilized swiftly, with Jewish faculty members holding a campus rally under the banner “Jews say no to deportations.” Meanwhile, an online petition demanding Khalil’s release has amassed more than three million signatures. These responses underscore the broader stakes of Khalil’s case: It is not just about one student but about the right to dissent in an era in which protest is again being reframed as a national security threat.

    Gatheru’s case, once seen as a national security risk, is now remembered as an example of state overreach. Will we look back on Khalil’s case the same way? If so, it will be because students, faculty and advocates refused to allow immigration enforcement to dictate the terms of political activism. As Gatheru reminded his interrogator, George Washington was an agitator, too. The question is whether we will continue to punish today’s agitators for following in that tradition.

    David S. Busch is the author of Disciplining Democracy: How the Modern American University Transformed Student Activism (Cornell University Press).

    Source link

  • From Feedback to Feedforward: Using AI-Powered Assessment Flywheel to Drive Student Competency – Faculty Focus

    From Feedback to Feedforward: Using AI-Powered Assessment Flywheel to Drive Student Competency – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Former Kansas City School Police Officer Fights for Student Safety Via Nonprofit – The 74

    Former Kansas City School Police Officer Fights for Student Safety Via Nonprofit – The 74

    KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Marialexa Sanoja publicly quit her job as a Kansas City, Kansas, Public Schools police officer over concerns with the district’s handling of student safety needs and founded a nonprofit to help kids escape the challenges in Wyandotte County.

    In the three-and-a-half months Sanoja was stationed at Wyandotte High School, the district’s largest school with 1900 students, Sanoja said she filed 140 incident reports and that in most instances the district failed to take action. The district, through its YouTube channel, disputed her figures and asserted it handled concerns responsibly.

    “It didn’t take long for me to find out that the students were not in the best interest of anybody,” Sanoja said. “When the police officer becomes a safe space for students, there is something wrong with that.”

    After her resignation in December 2023, Sanoja founded Missión Despegue, translated to “mission takeoff,” a nonprofit that helps parents and students document their grievances with the school district to hold the district accountable for its handling of safety issues.

    Sanoja saw the district’s response to a sexual assault case and its communication as inadequate, and experts echo her concerns. Now, Sanoja works with current and former students to get their GED certificates, drivers licenses, mental health care and prevent substance abuse.

    Sanoja’s concerns

    Sanoja said much of the Latino community, which makes up 72% of Wyandotte High School, is afraid to complain or make a scene because many of them are new to the country. She aims to empower them, and help them achieve the “American dream.”

    One reason Sanoja resigned — and a former student dropped out — was because of the district’s response to the former student’s experience of being sexually assaulted at school. Kansas Reflector doesn’t identify minors who have been sexually assaulted.

    According to an incident report filed by Sanoja, the former student was a freshman and alone in the Wyandotte High School stairwell when a group of older boys groped her and made sexual remarks. She began recording the boys with her phone, which prompted them to leave, the report said.

    Sanoja was off duty that day. The former student asked the on-duty officer to file a report, which Sanoja says she never saw. The day after, Sanoja and the former student said they filed an incident, criminal, and Title IX report. The former student wanted to press charges.

    “After that, I just stopped going to school, because I didn’t feel safe,” the former student said in an interview with Kansas Reflector.

    Sanoja said security camera footage and the former student’s video showed the boys’ faces. The former student said the district told her that because the boys never returned to school, it could not suspend them. However, the former student said she continued to see the boys on campus.

    “Ultimately, the district didn’t do anything about it. We were asking, at least, for suspension. That didn’t happen,” Sanoja said.

    A spokesperson from the district told Kansas Reflector it was unable to provide comment on the former student’s case, or the district’s responsibility to handle reports of sexual assault.

    Sanoja publicly resigned with a letter that accused the district of failing to communicate with parents. She wrote that she was worried about instances where students brought guns to school property and all parents weren’t notified.

    In a response video to Sanoja’s resignation, district superintendent Anna Stubblefield said “those incidents are not always relayed to all families. Not because we’re hiding anything, but because the impact is low and to protect the privacy of our students.”

    A district spokesperson told Kansas Reflector the “administration is required to contact parents regarding student issues — such as absences, drug-related concerns, or fights — in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct.”

    Expert opinions

    Ken Trump, an expert in school safety communications who is not related to the president, said parental anxiety over school safety is rising nationwide.

    “It’s very easy to get caught up if you’ve got a couple thousand kids in a school, dealing with incidents and other things. But you need to take a tactical pause in this, and go back to looking at the communications,” Trump said. “You can’t go back to the old-school mindset of if someone finds out about it we’ll talk. That doesn’t work anymore.”

    Sanoja said that after a student overdosed at school and she contacted the parents directly, the high school principal told Sanoja to route all communication with parents through administration.

    Sanoja said that she continues to receive videos of physical fights in the schools, totaling in the hundreds, since her resignation.

    Michael Dorn, a school safety expert who assists schools after major acts of violence, said  Sanoja’s allegations were concerning. He said he would have responded to her concerns differently than the school district did.

    “I was a school district police chief for 10 years,” Dorn said. “If an officer in my department wrote that kind of resignation letter, I would request a state police investigation. I would ask for a polygraph test, and I would ask that she be polygraphed. I wouldn’t do anything like that, but if someone alleged that I did and I didn’t do it, I would request that to clear my name.”

    Sanoja worked as a police officer in Lenexa before transitioning to the school district and said Wyandotte High School presented the most significant challenges she’s seen. She believes the problems are “within the culture” of the school.

    “Everybody’s tired of the way the district is handling things,” Sanoja said. “They’ve been failing these kids for years.”

    Fixing root causes

    Through her nonprofit, Sanoja helps students who leave the district, like the former student who was sexually assaulted, earn their GED certificate.

    When they’re out of the school environment, Sanoja said, they thrive.

    Sanoja said most of the families she works with are immigrants, and the parents do not speak English.

    “We face the daunting task of ending the stigma, shame and judgement that come with our culture,” Sanoja said.

    Missión Despegue seeks to fix the root causes of the problems seen in school — like substance abuse, violence, bullying, and mental health issues. Sanoja said she sees these problems reflected in things like the graduation rate of the district. For the 2023-2024 school year it was 78.1%, which is 11.4 percentage points lower than the state average.

    Through donations, Sanoja covers the cost of mental health appointments, DMV license and GED class registrations, and laptop purchases for students pursuing their GED certificate without one. In February, she began converting first-time offenders’ court fees, in hopes of reducing recidivism.

    With the help of more than 100 volunteers, Sanoja has hosted events where she provides Narcan and educates parents about the dangers of substance abuse. She also guides volunteers to further training, like drug prevention and compassion fatigue workshops.

    Sanoja said she doesn’t get paid for her work with Missión Despegue. She said she needs an assistant, because she has “a long list of people that need help.”

    “I see something in them. I know they’re going to be successful,” Sanoja said. “I want that opportunity for every kid I have.”

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


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

    Source link

  • AFT sues Dept. of Education for denying borrowers’ rights (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    AFT sues Dept. of Education for denying borrowers’ rights (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order ordering the shutdown of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The order claims to ensure the “uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” yet Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon have gutted the arms of ED that make those functions possible. Read our statement on yesterday’s executive order here. Last week, Trump announced a 50 percent reduction in the workforce at the Department. Now he plans to move student loans to the Small Business Administration?!?!

    The Trump Administration is intentionally breaking the student loan system and attacking borrowers and working families with student debt. But we’ve been fighting back.

    On Tuesday night, the 1.8 million-member AFT sued ED for denying borrowers’ access to affordable loan payments and blocking progress towards Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)—in violation of federal law.

    Three weeks ago, federal education officials eliminated access to Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans by removing the application from ED’s website and secretly ordering student loan servicers to halt processing all applications. These IDR plans provide millions of borrowers the right to tie their monthly payment to their income and family size, giving them the option to make loan payments they can afford.

    IDR plans are also the only way for public service workers to benefit from PSLF—a critical lifeline for teachers, nurses, first responders, and millions of other public service workers across the country.

    SBPC Executive Director Mike Pierce’s statement:

    Source link

  • In Bid to Close Education Department, President Trump Looks to Rehouse Student Loans, Special Education Programs – The 74

    In Bid to Close Education Department, President Trump Looks to Rehouse Student Loans, Special Education Programs – The 74

    President Donald Trump said Friday that the U.S. Small Business Administration would handle the student loan portfolio for the slated-for-elimination Education Department, and that the Department of Health and Human Services would handle special education services and nutrition programs.

    The announcement — which raises myriad questions over the logistics to carry out these transfers of authority — came a day after Trump signed a sweeping executive order that directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department to the extent she is permitted to by law.

    “I do want to say that I’ve decided that the SBA, the Small Business Administration, headed by Kelly Loeffler — terrific person — will handle all of the student loan portfolio,” Trump said Friday morning.

    The White House did not provide advance notice of the announcement, which Trump made at the opening of an Oval Office appearance with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

    The Education Department manages student loans for millions of Americans, with a portfolio of more than $1.6 trillion, according to the White House.

    In his executive order, Trump said the federal student aid program is “roughly the size of one of the Nation’s largest banks, Wells Fargo,” adding that “although Wells Fargo has more than 200,000 employees, the Department of Education has fewer than 1,500 in its Office of Federal Student Aid.”

    ‘Everything else’ to HHS

    Meanwhile, Trump also said that the Department of Health and Human Services “will be handling special needs and all of the nutrition programs and everything else.”

    It is unclear what nutrition programs Trump was referencing, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture manages school meal and other major nutrition programs.

    One of the Education Department’s core functions includes supporting students with special needs. The department is also tasked with carrying out the federal guarantee of a free public education for children with disabilities Congress approved in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.

    Trump added that the transfers will “work out very well.”

    “Those two elements will be taken out of the Department of Education,” he said Friday. “And then all we have to do is get the students to get guidance from the people that love them and cherish them, including their parents, by the way, who will be totally involved in their education, along with the boards and the governors and the states.”

    Trump’s Thursday order also directs McMahon to “return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

    SBA, HHS heads welcome extra programs

    Asked for clarification on the announcement, a White House spokesperson on Friday referred States Newsroom to comments from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and heads of the Small Business Administration and Health and Human Services Department.

    Leavitt noted the move was consistent with Trump’s promise to return education policy decisions to states.

    “President Trump is doing everything within his executive authority to dismantle the Department of Education and return education back to the states while safeguarding critical functions for students and families such as student loans, special needs programs, and nutrition programs,” Leavitt said. “The President has always said Congress has a role to play in this effort, and we expect them to help the President deliver.”

    Loeffler and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said their agencies were prepared to take on the Education Department programs.

    “As the government’s largest guarantor of business loans, the SBA stands ready to deploy its resources and expertise on behalf of America’s taxpayers and students,” Loeffler said.

    Kennedy, on the social media platform X, said his department was “fully prepared to take on the responsibility of supporting individuals with special needs and overseeing nutrition programs that were run by @usedgov.”

    The Education Department directed States Newsroom to McMahon’s remarks on Fox News on Friday, where she said the department was discussing with other federal agencies where its programs may end up, noting she had a “good conversation” with Loeffler and that the two are “going to work on the strategic plan together.” 

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


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

    Source link

  • Small Business Administration to Take Over Student Loans

    Small Business Administration to Take Over Student Loans

    A day after White House officials said the Education Department would administer the student loan program, President Donald Trump announced that the Small Business Administration would be taking over the $1.7 trillion portfolio.

    He told White House reporters that the move would happen “immediately,” though he didn’t say how that process would work. Currently, federal law requires the Education Department to manage student loans, so the president doesn’t have the authority for the move, several experts and advocates said Friday.

    Neither the White House nor the Small Business Administration responded to requests for more information or details about the plan.

    In response to questions about how moving loans to SBA would work, the Education Department referred Inside Higher Ed to an interview that Education Secretary Linda McMahon did Friday with Fox News. McMahon said she’s working with the SBA on a strategic plan.

    The announcement follows Trump’s executive order, signed Thursday, directing McMahon to close her department “to the maximum extent of the law.” McMahon and others have said a smaller version of the department would focus on core functions, which many experts presumed to include the student loan program. (Trump also said Friday that the Department of Health and Human Services would take over programs that support students with disabilities.)

    Kelly Loeffler, who leads the SBA, wrote on social media that her agency “stands ready to take the lead on restoring accountability and integrity to America’s student loan portfolio.” Whether the department has the capacity to take on the program is an open question; Loeffler is planning to cut 43 percent of the staff, Politico and other news outlets have reported. The SBA runs several programs to support small businesses, including providing loans and helping with disaster recovery.

    The Education Department issues about $100 billion in student loans each year and disburses $30 billion in Pell Grants. That funding is crucial to students who rely on the government to help pay for college.

    But borrowers have struggled over the years to navigate the cumbersome student loan system and often have faced difficulty in repaying their loans. Meanwhile, the federal government’s growing loan portfolio has become a key issue for lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle. Former president Joe Biden’s fix was in part to make student loan forgiveness more accessible and make loan payments more affordable.

    Trump said Friday that the loan system “will be serviced much better than it has in the past,” adding, “it’s been a mess.”

    Agency Blindsided

    It wasn’t clear Friday afternoon whether SBA would also take over the Pell Grant program and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid—a form that millions of students rely on to access federal, student and institutional aid. Currently, the Office of Federal Student Aid, which is part of the Education Department, administers those programs. That office was hit hard by recent mass layoffs at the department, and experts have questioned whether it will be able to fulfill its many responsibilities, which also include overseeing colleges and rooting out fraud in the federal student aid system.

    Trump’s executive order pointed out that the Education Department manages a portfolio the size of Wells Fargo but with significantly fewer employees. “The Department of Education is not a bank, and it must return bank functions to an entity equipped to serve America’s students,” the order said.

    An official high up at Federal Student Aid said Friday that the office was blindsided by the announcement. Just a day before, the official said, the plan was to move the loans to the Treasury Department. Agency officials have yet to receive any plans or communication about handing over the reins to SBA or what that would entail, the official said.

    ‘Clear Violation’

    The federal statute that created FSA specifically gives that office authority to administer student financial assistance programs. Additionally, laws dictating how federal funding is allocated explicitly send money to the Education Department for the student aid programs. A former department staffer told Inside Higher Ed that the administration is “clearly circumventing the spirit and intent of the law if you were to move to functions.”

    Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, agreed, writing on social media that the announcement “is a clear violation of education [and] appropriations law.”

    Beth Maglione, interim president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, added in a statement that only Congress can move the student loan portfolio to a different agency; if the legislative branch agreed, doing so would take time.

    “The administration would first need to articulate a definitive strategy outlining how the work of administering student aid programs would be allocated within the SBA, determine the necessary staffing and resources, and build the requisite infrastructure to facilitate the transition of these programs to another federal agency,” she said. “In the absence of any comprehensive plan, a serious concern remains: how will this restructuring be executed without disruption to students and institutions?”

    Not a ‘Crazy Idea’

    Some conservative policy experts who support shutting down the department cheered the move. Lindsey Burke, director for the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation, wrote on social media that “without student loans at ED, there will be little left at the agency. Just a few programs—certainly not enough to justify a cabinet-level agency.”

    Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, like the Heritage Foundation a conservative think tank, acknowledged in an email to Inside Higher Ed that there are a lot of open questions about how the SBA move would work. But she said the announcement shows that the Trump administration understands that the recent staffing cuts “will likely make it too difficult to keep these programs properly administered otherwise,” she wrote.

    Akers noted that since SBA currently manages its own loans, “it isn’t a crazy idea that they could pull this off.”

    “Frankly, the department has handled student loan administration poorly, so the bar is pretty low on what would constitute an improvement,” she added. “I expect that the existing student loan infrastructure (and remaining staff) will likely move over to SBA, and there won’t be immediate changes in how these programs are run. That’s my hope. Because if things change too quickly, I expect that students will see disruptions that could affect their enrollments and personal finances.”

    Liam Knox contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • The Right Way to Use Student Loans to Pay for College

    The Right Way to Use Student Loans to Pay for College

    Chris Jennings’ daughter Alessandra is a freshman at a private college in the Northeast. He was surprised by how quickly tuition payments were due. “My daughter said the payment was due in July,” he says. “It was already June.”

    Jennings started researching loans on the internet and found CommonBond, a financial services company that prides itself on offering competitive interest rates, advanced technology and award-winning customer service. He applied online and is a co-signer on his daughter’s loan.

    “I’m setting up my child to succeed,” says Jennings, who’s happy to help pay for his daughter’s education and build her credit at the same time.

    “Don’t panic,” Jennings advises other parents. “College isn’t as expensive as you think it is.”

    Getting started

    The College Board says this year students at a four-year public college are paying an average price of $20,770 for tuition and fees, plus room and board.

    “It doesn’t have to be an overwhelming process,” says Pete Wylie, CommonBond’s vice president of in-school lending.

    Some students apply for and receive grants or merit-based scholarships, both of which don’t have to be paid back. The rest of the expenses are typically covered by loans, which do need to be repaid. Loans can cover the full cost of college including classes, books, room and board. Or students can get a loan to cover just the basics: tuition only.

    Loans are financed year by year. The bills are paid after the student graduates.

    Better standing

    CommonBond was started by students based on their experiences getting student loans. They wanted better customer service and guidance during the process so they created an alternative to traditional lenders.

    “We offer a lot of flexibility,” says Wylie. “We offer 5, 10, 15-year rates and multiple payment options.”

    CommonBond offers loans for undergraduate students enrolled at least half-time for any bachelor’s degree, at more than 2,000 not-for-profit schools. They require students to apply with a cosigner, such as a parent. The cosigner promises to pay the loan balance if the student doesn’t pay.

    After two years of payments after graduation, a student can apply to release the cosigner from the loan. The lender’s loans have up to a 2 percent origination fee, depending on state of residency. There are no prepayment penalties and they offer forbearance to students who encounter economic hardship after graduation.

    Financing a child’s education can benefit others too. CommonBond makes a “Social Promise” that for every loan they fund, they’ll also pay for the education of a child in need in the developing world. Already, almost 10,000 students — many of whom are in Ghana — have had their educations funded through that promise. The company also invites borrowers on an annual trip to Ghana to see its Social Promise in action.

    Planning ahead

    Bruce Dooley has been saving for his son Jordan’s college education since the incoming University of California San Diego freshman was a baby.

    “We wanted to make sure our son is coming out of school debt-free,” says Dooley.

    However, as the cost of college increased, Dooley realized he would need to take out loans to cover the tuition. He plans to pay off the loans in four years.

    Not all parents are as prepared as Dooley but there’s still time to figure out financing.

    “People don’t look at this as a multi-year process,” says Kalman Chany, author of “Paying for College Without Going Broke” and president of Campus Consultants, a financial aid advisory firm.

    He cautions parents that the first year of a student loan — based on family income and qualifying rates — becomes the template for the next few years’ loans.

    “Plan ahead so there’ll be no surprises,” says Chany.

    Research and planning can help families gain a clearer picture of their student loan needs. Then finding the right student loan and loan provider may be easier than initially thought.

    Kristen Castillo, [email protected]

    Source link