Tag: students

  • Math is Out, Cake is In: Introducing Students to Rubrics – Faculty Focus

    Math is Out, Cake is In: Introducing Students to Rubrics – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • In training educators to use AI, we must not outsource the foundational work of teaching

    In training educators to use AI, we must not outsource the foundational work of teaching

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    I was conferencing with a group of students when I heard the excitement building across my third grade classroom. A boy at the back table had been working on his catapult project for over an hour through our science lesson, into recess, and now during personalized learning time. I watched him adjust the wooden arm for what felt like the 20th time, measure another launch distance, and scribble numbers on his increasingly messy data sheet.

    “The longer arm launches farther!” he announced to no one in particular, his voice carrying the matter-of-fact tone of someone who had just uncovered a truth about the universe. I felt that familiar teacher thrill, not because I had successfully delivered a physics lesson, but because I hadn’t taught him anything at all.

    Last year, all of my students chose a topic they wanted to explore and pursued a personal learning project about it. This particular student had discovered the relationship between lever arm length and projectile distance entirely through his own experiments, which involved mathematics, physics, history, and data visualization.

    Other students drifted over to try his longer-armed design, and soon, a cluster of 8-year-olds were debating trajectory angles and comparing medieval siege engines to ancient Chinese catapults.

    They were doing exactly what I dream of as an educator: learning because they wanted to know, not because they had to perform.

    Then, just recently, I read about the American Federation of Teachers’ new $23 million partnership with Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic to train educators how to use AI “wisely, safely and ethically.” The training sessions would teach them how to generate lesson plans and “microwave” routine communications with artificial intelligence.

    My heart sank.

    As an elementary teacher who also conducts independent research on the intersection of AI and education, and writes the ‘Algorithmic Mind’ column about it for Psychology Today, I live in the uncomfortable space between what technology promises and what children actually need. Yes, I use AI, but only for administrative work like drafting parent newsletters, organizing student data, and filling out required curriculum planning documents. It saves me hours on repetitive tasks that have nothing to do with teaching.

    I’m all for showing educators how to use AI to cut down on rote work. But I fear the AFT’s $23 million initiative isn’t about administrative efficiency. According to their press release, they’re training teachers to use AI for “instructional planning” and as a “thought partner” for teaching decisions. One featured teacher describes using AI tools to help her communicate “in the right voice” when she’s burned out. Another says AI can assist with “late-night lesson planning.”

    That sounds more like outsourcing the foundational work of teaching.

    Watching my student discover physics principles through intrinsic curiosity reminded me why this matters so much. When we start relying on AI to plan our lessons and find our teaching voice, we’re replacing human judgment with algorithmic thinking at the very moment students need us most. We’re prioritizing the product of teaching over the process of learning.

    Most teachers I talk to share similar concerns about AI. They focus on cheating and plagiarism. They worry about students outsourcing their thinking and how to assess learning when they can’t tell if students actually understand anything. The uncomfortable truth is that students have always found ways to avoid genuine thinking when we value products over process. I used SparkNotes. Others used Google. Now, students use ChatGPT.

    The problem is not technology; it’s that we continue prioritizing finished products over messy learning processes. And as long as education rewards predetermined answers over curiosity, students will find shortcuts.

    That’s why teachers need professional development that moves in the opposite direction. They need PD that helps them facilitate genuine inquiry and human connection; foster classrooms where confusion is valued as a precursor to understanding; and develop in students an intrinsic motivation.

    When I think about that boy measuring launch distances with handmade tools, I realize he was demonstrating the distinctly human capacity to ask questions that only he wanted to address. He didn’t need me to structure his investigation or discovery. He needed the freedom to explore, materials to experiment with, and time to pursue his curiosity wherever it led.

    The learning happened not because I efficiently delivered content, but because I stepped back and trusted his natural drive to understand.

    Children don’t need teachers who can generate lesson plans faster or give AI-generated feedback, but educators who can inspire questions, model intellectual courage, and create communities where wonder thrives and real-world problems are solved.

    The future belongs to those who can combine computational tools with human wisdom, ethics, and creativity. But this requires us to maintain the cognitive independence to guide AI systems rather than becoming dependent on them.

    Every time I watch my students make unexpected connections, I’m reminded that the most important learning happens in the spaces between subjects, in the questions that emerge from genuine curiosity, in the collaborative thinking that builds knowledge through relationships. We can’t microwave that. And we shouldn’t try.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on AI in education, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Half of college students say their mental health is ‘fair’ to ‘terrible,’ survey finds

    Half of college students say their mental health is ‘fair’ to ‘terrible,’ survey finds

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

    Half of college students rate their mental health as fair, poor, or terrible, according to a recent survey from The Steve Fund, a nonprofit that focused on the mental health of young people of color.

    The survey also found about 40% of students were “very or extremely stressed about maintaining their mental health” while in college. About 1 in 5 students said the same about connecting with other students and finding their niche in college.

    Moreover, about one-third or more of students experienced a range of challenges such as changes in sleeping habits and difficulty concentrating and learning.

    Students struggling with mental health in college isn’t a new phenomena, but “the severity and pervasiveness have clearly worsened,” Annelle Primm, The Steve Fund’s senior medical director, said in an email.

    “We’re not just seeing higher levels of stress — we’re seeing a rising sense of disconnection,” said Primm. “The need for campuses to respond thoughtfully and urgently is more pressing than ever.”

    The mental health issues students face may also impact their graduation trajectory. About half of students considered reducing their classload, 40% considered transferring, and 30% considered dropping out of college altogether due to “negative experiences on campus,” the report stated.

    Steve Fund researchers surveyed about 2,050 college students between ages 18 and 24 who were attending four-year institutions and largely taking in-person classes.The survey was conducted last year between February and April.

    There isn’t a single cause behind the mental health challenges that students are facing, but “several powerful stressors are converging,” said Primm. That includes discrimination on campus, encounters with campus security or a lack of belonging, according to the report.

    Many college students also grew into adulthood during the COVID-19 pandemic, a uniquely disruptive period that had significant impacts on emotional development and social connection, Primm said. Some of those students struggled with isolation caused by remote learning, while others had limited opportunities to meaningfully interact with their peers during their formative years, she said.

    “Layered on top of this are longstanding financial pressures like student loan debt, and broader societal stressors — from political divisiveness to global conflict,” said Primm. 

    Racial differences

    Negative experiences on campus — which were more prevalent among students of color — impacted mental health, the report found.

    About half of Black and Indigenous students reported having a negative experience with cyberbullying on campus, the highest of any racial groups, the report stated. And a higher percentage of students of color reported threats of physical violence on campus and being stopped by campus police and security than their White peers.

    About 60% of Black and Asian students and nearly half of Hispanic students reported negative racial comments on campus, and similar shares said the same about facing different forms of discrimination, the report stated. That’s higher than the 43% of White students who experienced discrimination and 29% who experienced racial comments.

    Among all students, two-thirds pointed to other students as their source of their negative experiences on campus, while 20% identified faculty, the report stated. 

    More than 4 in 5 students also said their institution “helps students from various racial and ethnic backgrounds feel welcome.”

    But Black, Hispanic, and Asian students reported their campus climate as inclusive at lower rates than White students. And about half of Black and Indigenous students said they experienced difficulty being themselves in college.

    Encouraging progress

    Colleges may be making strides in providing better mental health resources to students, the survey suggested.

    Student access to and awareness of college mental health services improved significantly since 2017, when the Steve Fund last surveyed college students about their mental health. That survey drew responses from 1,056 college students between ages 17 and 27 attending both two- and four-year colleges.

    Primm said the two surveys can be considered comparable, as the majority of students who completed the 2017 survey were also attending four-year colleges.

    Source link

  • Racial Discrimination on Campus Where 4 of 5 Students Are White?

    Racial Discrimination on Campus Where 4 of 5 Students Are White?

    Administrators at the University of Missouri told a student organization that it could not proceed with a “Black 2 Class Block Party” because the event qualified as “unlawful discrimination.” Is it possible that students who are not Black complained of being denied access to the annual event in prior years? Probably not. This cancellation is one of numerous examples of how institutions are attempting to comply with the Trump administration’s anti-DEI agenda, as Inside Higher Ed reporter Jessica Blake noted in an article last Friday.

    U.S. Department of Education data shows that during the 2023–24 school year, 79 percent of undergraduates on the University of Missouri’s flagship campus were white. Black students were just 5 percent of the undergraduate student body. Put differently, nearly 19,000 students were white and fewer than 1,200 were Black. Numerically, there are not and have never been enough Black students there to create a climate of exclusion for their white counterparts. The same is true among professors—last school year, only 33 of 1,027 tenure-track faculty members at Mizzou were Black, according to statistics published online by the university’s Office of Institutional Research.

    Given these demographics, it seems implausible that collegians in the minority have enough power to routinely and unlawfully discriminate against their peers who comprise the majority. This could be confirmed via systematic analyses of discrimination complaints submitted to the university in recent years. When disaggregated by race, the data is unlikely to show that it is overwhelmingly white students who most often experience racism. Surely few, if any, complaints are about encounters with discrimination at Black student organization events.

    Activities like Mizzou’s annual welcome-week block party are important for Black students, as most will be expected to successfully navigate spaces where they are the only or one of just a few persons from their racial group in every course they take, sometimes in their entire academic majors. Some will be the lone Black students who live on their residence hall floors. In these and other spaces, too many will be met with racial stereotypes, microaggressions and, at times, explicit racial violence. Black student organization events afford them opportunities to meet others who can affirm their sense of belonging at the institution. They may also meet other Black students who can teach them how to navigate campus environments that are anti-Black and otherwise racist.

    The inclusion of “Black” in its title is what made this year’s block party suddenly and presumably discriminatory. Like historically Black colleges and universities, Black culture centers, and African American studies courses, Black student organization events have neither historically nor contemporarily been proven to be spaces that exclude people from other races. Mizzou and universities like it are considerably more likely to find evidence of racial discrimination in predominantly white sorority and fraternity recruitment and member-selection activities, as well as at parties on frat row, than at a student organization event that amplifies black culture.

    As previously noted, 5 percent of Mizzou undergraduates are Black. Noteworthy is that Black men are 2 percent of the student body, yet NCAA data shows that they comprised 62 percent of the football team and 56 percent of the men’s basketball team there last academic school year. Despite generating millions of dollars in revenue for the university, these student athletes and their same-race peers are not allowed to have events that have “Black” in the title.

    “Black college football and basketball players are the most powerful people of color on campus,” I wrote in a Washington Post article 10 years ago. At that time, Black student athletes at Mizzou threatened to skip a football game that would have resulted in a loss of more than $1 million in revenue. This threat was in response to institutional inaction on racism that Black collegians had long experienced there. Within days, the system president and the chancellor of the Columbia campus both resigned.

    Football and basketball players are as powerful there today as they were a decade ago. They can indeed resist anti-DEI efforts that disadvantage them and other students of color. But should they do so in response to a canceled welcome-week block party? Yes, because that one seemingly insignificant event is emblematic of a more expansive demonstration of anti-Blackness on their and other campuses at this time.

    The elimination of culturally resonant programs, centers and institutes, and offices denies Black students access to valuable relationships and resources that bolster their first-year transition experiences, sense of belonging, classroom and out-of-class engagement, academic performance, and retention. Some of the most enduring and transformative advancements for Black collegians in U.S. higher education emerged from student activism. Student athletes, student organization leaders and everyday students who are Black, along with allies and supporters from other racial groups, ought to refuse to allow anyone to mischaracterize activities and spaces as discriminatory just because “Black” is in the title.

    Source link

  • The resumption of student loan payments means students will need new policies — and our help

    The resumption of student loan payments means students will need new policies — and our help

    After a three-year pause prompted by the pandemic, the clock on student loan repayments suddenly started ticking again in September 2023, and forbearance ended last September. For millions of borrowers like Shauntee Russell, the resumption of payments marked a harsh return to financial reality.  

    Russell, a single mother of three from Chicago, had received $127,000 in student loan forgiveness through the SAVE program, and had experienced profound relief at having that $632 monthly payment lifted from her shoulders. SAVE exemplified both the transformative power of debt relief and the urgent need to continue this fight — but now SAVE has been suspended. 

    Such setbacks cannot be the end of our story, as I document in my forthcoming book. The resumption of loan payments, while painful, must serve as a rallying cry rather than a surrender. We stand at a critical juncture. The Supreme Court’s devastating blow to former President Biden’s initial forgiveness plan and the ongoing legal challenges to programs like SAVE have left 45 million borrowers in a state of financial limbo. The fundamental inequities of our higher education system have never been more apparent.  

    Black students graduate with nearly 50 percent more debt than their white counterparts, while women hold roughly two-thirds of all outstanding student debt — a staggering $1.5 trillion that continues to grow. These aren’t just statistics; they represent systemic barriers that prevent entire communities from achieving economic mobility. 

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    The students I interviewed while reporting on this crisis reveal the human cost of inaction. They include Maria Sanchez, a nursing student in St. Louis who skips meals to save money and can only access textbooks through library loans.  

    Then there is Robert Carroll, who gave up his dorm room in Cleveland and now alternates between friends’ couches just to stay in school.  

    These students represent the millions who are working multiple jobs, sacrificing basic needs and seeing their dreams deferred under the weight of financial pressure. 

    Yet what strikes me most is their resilience and determination. Despite these overwhelming obstacles, these students persist, driven by the same belief that motivated civil rights leaders like Congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. — that education is the pathway to economic empowerment and social justice. 

    The current political landscape, with Donald J. Trump’s return to the presidency and a Republican-controlled Congress, presents unprecedented challenges. Plans to dismantle key borrower protections and efforts to eliminate the Department of Education signal a dark period ahead for student debt relief.  

    But history teaches us that progress often comes through sustained grassroots organizing and innovative policy solutions at multiple levels of government and society. 

    State governments have an opportunity to fill the federal void through programs like Massachusetts’ Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights and Maine’s Student Loan Repayment Tax Credit. 

    Universities must step up with institutional relief programs, as my own institution, Trinity Washington University, did when it settled $1.8 million in student balances during the pandemic. 

    The Black church, which has long understood the connection between education and liberation, continues to provide crucial support through scholarship programs. Organizations like the United Negro College Fund, the Thurgood Marshall College Fund and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education remain vital pillars in making higher education accessible. 

    Still, individual, institutional and state efforts, while necessary, are not sufficient. We need comprehensive federal action that treats student debt as what it truly is: a civil rights issue and a moral imperative. The magnitude of the crisis — it affects Americans across every congressional district — creates unique opportunities for bipartisan coalition building. 

    Smart advocates are already reframing the narrative by replacing partisan talking points with economic arguments that resonate across ideological lines: workforce development, entrepreneurship and American competitiveness on the world stage.  

    When student debt prevents nurses from serving rural communities, teachers from working in underserved schools and young entrepreneurs from starting businesses, it becomes an economic drag that affects everyone.  

    Related: How Trump is changing higher education: The view from 4 campuses 

    The path to federal action may require creative approaches — perhaps through tax policy, regulatory changes or targeted relief for specific professions — but the political mathematics of 45 million impacted voters ultimately makes comprehensive action not just morally necessary, but politically inevitable.  

    Student debt relief is not about handouts — it’s about honoring the promise that education should be a ladder up, not an anchor weighing down entire generations; it’s about ensuring that Shauntee Russell’s relief becomes the norm, not the exception. The fight is far from over.  

    The young activists I met at the March on Washington 60th anniversary understood something profound: Their debt is not their fault, but their fight is their responsibility. They carry forward the legacy of those who came before them who believed that access to education should not depend on one’s family wealth, and that crushing debt should not be the price of pursuing knowledge. 

    The arc of history still bends toward justice — but in this era of political resistance, we must be prepared to bend it ourselves through sustained organizing, innovative policy solutions and an unwavering commitment to the principle that education is a right, not a privilege reserved for the wealthy. 

    The resumption of payments is not the end of this story. It’s the beginning of the next chapter in our fight for educational equity and economic justice. And this chapter, like those before it, will be written by the voices of the millions who refuse to let debt define their destiny. 

    Jamal Watson is a professor and associate dean of graduate studies at Trinity Washington University and an editor at Diverse Issues In Higher Education. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about student loan payments was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Most Students Affected by OBBBA Student Loan Changes

    Most Students Affected by OBBBA Student Loan Changes

    Thirty-five percent of those surveyed don’t think they’ll be able to finish college because of the changes.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Feverpitched/iStock/Getty Images

    The majority of current college students—61 percent—surveyed recently say that several changes to the federal student loan system that became law earlier this summer will directly impact them, according to a new poll from U.S. News & World Report.

    The key changes that students expect to affect them include caps on how much students can borrow, the elimination of some income-based repayment plans and the end of Grad PLUS loans.

    The poll, which surveyed 1,190 graduate and undergraduate students earlier this month, asked students about what various provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would mean for them. Many respondents (38 percent) said they would have to take out private loans to balance the effects of the law, while others (35 percent) said they may not be able to finish college at all. About a quarter said they were even considering joining the military to help pay for college.

    “I wanted to go to medical school, but now I won’t,” one student wrote, according to U.S. News.

    At the same time, one in five students said they were unaware of the changes to students loans, while another 39 percent said they were “fuzzy on the details” of the OBBBA. Twenty-two percent said they understood the law but not how they will personally be affected.

    Some students also reported supporting the bill’s provisions; about one in five students said they approved, respectively, of loan caps for graduate students, caps for medical and law students, and the elimination of certain income-based repayment plans. Slightly fewer, 17 percent, approve of eliminating Grad PLUS loans.

    About 63 percent of students said they reached out to their financial aid offices for help navigating the bill’s effects, and three-quarters of those students found their financial aid offices helpful. About half of students (51 percent) also reported that their universities had been transparent about the effects of the OBBBA.

    Source link

  • TRIO helps low-income students get to and through college. Trump wants to end it

    TRIO helps low-income students get to and through college. Trump wants to end it

    MOREHEAD, Ky. — The summer after ninth grade, Zoey Griffith found herself in an unfamiliar setting: a dorm on the Morehead State University campus.

    There, she’d spend the months before her sophomore year taking classes in core subjects including math and biology and electives like oil painting. 

    For Griffith, it was an opportunity, but a scary one. “It was a big deal for me to live on campus at the age of 14,” she said. Morehead State is about an hour from her hometown of Maysville. “I was nervous, and I remember that I cried the first time that my dad left me on move-in day.”

    Her mother became a parent as a teenager and urged her daughter to avoid the same experience. Griffith’s father works as a mechanic, and he frowns upon the idea of higher education, she said. 

    And so college back then seemed a distant and unlikely idea.

    But Griffith’s stepsister had introduced her to a federal program called Upward Bound. It places high school students in college dorms during the summer, where they can take classes and participate in workshops on preparing for the SAT and financial literacy. During the school year, students get tutoring and work on what are called individual success plans.

    Upward Bound students test the robots they built in their robotics class – evaluating for programming and mechanical issues. Credit: Photo courtesy of the Upward Bound Programs

    It’s part of a group of federal programs, known as TRIO, aimed at helping low-income and first-generation students earn a college degree, often becoming the first in their families to do so. 

    So, thanks to that advice from her stepsister, Kirsty Beckett, who’s now 27 and pursuing a doctorate in psychology, Griffith signed up and found herself in that summer program at Morehead State. Now, Griffith is enrolled at Maysville Community and Technical College, with plans to become an ultrasound technician.

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    TRIO, once a group of three programs — giving it a name that stuck — is now the umbrella over eight some dating back to 1965. Together, they serve roughly 870,000 students nationwide a year.

    It has worked with millions of students and has bipartisan support in Congress. Some in this part of the Appalachian region of Kentucky, and across the country, worry about students who won’t get the same assistance if President Donald Trump ends federal spending on the program. 

    Students Zoey Griffith, left, and Aniyah Caldwell, right, say the Upward Bound program has been life-changing for them. Upward Bound is one of eight federal programs under the TRIO umbrella. Credit: Michael Vasquez for The Hechinger Report

    A White House budget proposal would eliminate spending on TRIO. The document says “access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means” and puts the onus on colleges to recruit and support students.

    Advocates note that the programs, which cost roughly $1.2 billion each year, have a proven track record. Students in Upward Bound, for example, are more than twice as likely to earn a bachelor’s degree by age 24 than other students from some of the nation’s poorest households, according to the Council for Opportunity in Education. COE is a nonprofit that represents TRIO programs nationwide and advocates for expanded opportunities for first-generation, low-income students.

    For the high school class of 2022, 74 percent of Upward Bound students enrolled immediately in college — compared with only 56 percent of high school graduates in the bottom income quartile. 

    Upward Bound is for high school students, like Griffith. Another TRIO program, Talent Search, helps middle and high school students, without the residential component. One called Student Support Services (SSS) provides tutoring, advising and other assistance to at-risk college students. Another program prepares students for graduate school and doctoral degrees, and yet another trains TRIO staff.

    A 2019 study found that after four years of college, students in SSS were 48 percent more likely to complete an associate’s degree or certificate, or transfer to a four-year institution, than a comparable group of students with similar backgrounds and similar levels of high school achievement who were not in the program. 

    “TRIO has been around for 60 years,” said Kimberly Jones, the president of COE. “We’ve produced millions of college graduates. We know it works.”

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    Yet Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the White House refer to the programs as a “relic of the past.” 

    Jones countered that census data shows that “students from the poorest families still earn college degrees at rates far below that of students from the highest-income families,” demonstrating continued need for TRIO.

    McMahon is challenging that and pushing for further study of those TRIO success rates. In 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that even though the Education Department collects data on TRIO participants, “the agency has gaps in its evidence on program effectiveness.” The GAO criticized the Education Department for having “outdated” studies on some TRIO programs, and no studies at all for others. Since then, the department has expanded its evaluations of TRIO. 

    East Main Street in Morehead, Kentucky, just outside of Morehead State’s campus. Credit: Michael Vasquez for The Hechinger Report

    During a Senate subcommittee hearing in June, McMahon acknowledged “there is some effectiveness of the programs, in many circumstances.”

    Still, she said there is not enough research to justify TRIO’s total cost. “That’s a real drawback in these programs,” McMahon said. 

    Now, she is asking lawmakers to eliminate TRIO spending after this year and has already canceled some previously approved TRIO grants. 

    Related: A big reason rural students never go to college: No one recruits them 

    “What are we supposed to do, especially here in eastern Kentucky?” asked David Green, a former Upward Bound participant who is now marketing director for a pair of Kentucky hospitals.

    Green lives in a region that has some of the nation’s highest rates of unemployment, cancer and opioid addiction. “I mean, these people have big hearts, they want to grow,” he added. Cutting these programs amounts to “stifling us even more than we’re already stifled.”

    Green described his experience with TRIO at Morehead State in the mid-1980s as “one of the best things that ever happened to me.” 

    He grew up in a home without running water in Maysville, a city of about 8,000 people. It was on a TRIO trip to Washington, D.C., he recalled, that he stayed in a hotel for the first time. Green remembers bringing two suitcases so he could pack a pillow, sheets and comforter — unaware the hotel room would have its own.

    He met students from other towns and with different backgrounds. Some became lifelong friends. Green learned table manners, the kind of thing often required in business settings. After college, he was so grateful for TRIO that he became one of its tutors, working with the next generation of students. 

    TRIO’s all-encompassing nature makes it unique among college access programs, said Tom Stritikus, the president of Occidental College, a private liberal arts college in Los Angeles. He was previously president of Fort Lewis College, a public liberal arts school in Colorado with a large Native American student population. At both institutions, Stritikus said, he witnessed the effectiveness of TRIO’s methods, which he described as a “soup to nuts” menu of services for at-risk students trying to be the first in their families to earn degrees.

    After participating in the Upward Bound program, David Green has had a successful career, becoming a community leader in his hometown of Maysville, Kentucky. Credit: Michael Vasquez for The Hechinger Report

    Jones, of the Council for Opportunity in Education, said she is cautiously optimistic that Congress will continue funding TRIO, despite the Trump administration’s request. The programs serve students in all 50 states. According to the COE, about 34 percent are white, 32 percent are Black, 23 percent are Hispanic, 5 percent are Asian, and 3 percent are Native American. TRIO’s guidelines require that a majority of participants come from families making less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four living in the contiguous United States, that’s a max of $48,225 a year.

    Related: How Trump is changing higher education: The view from 4 campuses

    In May, Rep. Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, called TRIO “one of the most effective programs in the federal government,” which, he said, is supported by “many, many members of Congress.” 

    In June, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia and a former TRIO employee, spoke about its importance to her state. TRIO helps “a student that really needs the extra push, the camaraderie, the community,” she said. “I’ve gone to their graduations, and been their speaker, and it’s really quite delightful to see how far they’ve come, in a short period of time.”

    TRIO survived, with its funding intact, when the Senate appropriations committee approved its budget last month. The House is expected to take up its version of the annual appropriations bill for education in early September. Both chambers ultimately have to agree on federal spending, a process that could drag on until December, leaving TRIO’s fate in Congress uncertain. 

    While lawmakers debate its future, the Trump administration could also delay or halt TRIO funding on its own. Earlier this year, the administration took the unprecedented step of unilaterally canceling about 20 previously approved new and continuing TRIO grants.

    At Morehead State, leaders say the university — and the region it serves — need the boost it receives from TRIO: While roughly 38 percent of American adults have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, in Kentucky, that figure is only 16 percent. And, locally, it’s 7 percent, according to Summer Fawn Bryant, the director of TRIO’s Talent Search programs at the university. 

    Summer Fawn Bryant, center, is director of TRIO’s Talent Search programs at Morehead State University in Kentucky. She stands with former TRIO students Alexandria Daniel, left, and Blake Thayer, right. Credit: Photo courtesy of Summer Fawn Bryant

    TRIO works to counter the stigma of attending college that still exists in parts of eastern Kentucky, Bryant said. A student from a humble background who is considering college, she said, might be scolded with the phrase: Don’t get above your raisin’.

    “A parent may say it,” Bryant said. “A teacher may say it.” 

    She added that she’s seen time and again how these programs can turn around the lives of young students facing adversity. 

    Students like Beth Cockrell, an Upward Bound alum from Pineville, Ky., who said her mom struggled with parenting. “Upward Bound stepped in as that kind of co-parent and helped me decide what my major was going to be.” 

    Cockrell went on to earn three degrees at Morehead State and has worked as a teacher for the past 19 years. She now works with students at her alma mater and teaches third grade at Conkwright Elementary School, about an hour away.

    In a few years, 17-year-old Upward Bound student Isaac Bocook plans to join the teaching ranks too — as a middle school social studies teacher. Bocook said he was indecisive about what to study after high school, but he finally figured it out after attending a career fair at Morehead State’s historic Button Auditorium. 

    Upward Bound students visit the Great Lake Science Center in Cleveland for the end-of-summer educational trip. Credit: Photo courtesy of the Upward Bound Programs

    Bocook lives in Lewis County, with just under 13,000 residents and a single public high school. At Morehead State’s TRIO program, Bocook met teenagers from across the entire region, which he said improved his social skills. TRIO also helped him with all kinds of paperwork on the pathway to adulthood. Filling out financial aid forms. Writing scholarship applications. Crafting a resume.

    “I’m just truly grateful to have TRIO, as sort of like a hand to hold,” Bocook said.

    His need for guidance is similar to what students at Morgan County High School in West Liberty, Kentucky, experience, said Lori Keeton, the school guidance counselor. The challenge facing these first-generation students, she said, is that “you just simply don’t know what you don’t know.”

    As the sole counselor for 550 students, Keeton doesn’t have time to help each student navigate the complex college-application process and said she worries that some of her students will apply to fewer colleges, or no colleges at all, if TRIO disappears. 

    TRIO’s Talent Search program serves about 100 students at her high school, and roughly another dozen are part of Upward Bound. Each program has a dedicated counselor who visits regularly to guide and assist students.

    Related: From gangs to college

    Sherry Adkins, an eastern Kentucky native who attended TRIO more than 50 years ago and went on to become a registered nurse, said efforts to cut TRIO spending ignore the long-term benefits. “Do you want all of these people that are disadvantaged to continue like that? Where they’re taking money from society? Or do you want to help prepare us to become successful people who pay lots of taxes?”

    As Washington considers TRIO’s future, program directors like Bryant, at Morehead State, press forward. She has preserved a text message a former student sent her two years ago to remind her of what’s at stake.

    After finishing college, the student was attending a conference on child abuse when a presenter showed a slide that included the quote: “Every child who winds up doing well has had at least one stable and committed relationship with a supportive adult.”

    “Forever thankful,” the student texted Bryant, “that you were that supportive adult for me.”

    Contact editor Nirvi Shah at 212-678-3445, securely on Signal at NirviShah.14 or via email at [email protected]. 

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

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • OfS pushes ahead with two tier fairness for students

    OfS pushes ahead with two tier fairness for students

    Good news for students in England. Providers will soon be subject to tough new rules that ensure they’re treated fairly. But only if they’re in a new provider. Elsewhere, it seems, the unfairness can reign on!

    Just a few days before applications to join its register reopen, the Office for Students (OfS) has published consultation outcomes and final decisions on reforms to its registration requirements.

    It sets out the regulator’s decisions following its February 2025 consultation on changes to the entry conditions that higher education providers have to meet to register with OfS, and therefore access student loan funding. It covers:

    • A new initial condition C5 (treating students fairly), replacing the old consumer protection and student protection plan conditions (C1 and C3).
    • New governance conditions E7, E8 and E9, replacing the old governance requirements (E1 and E2).
    • Tighter application requirements, including more detailed financial planning, declarations about investigations, and restrictions on resubmitting applications after refusal.

    Conusingly, the changes interact closely with two separate consultations on subcontracting.

    First, in January 2025 the Department for Education consulted on requiring delivery providers in franchised or subcontractual arrangements to register directly with OfS for their students to be eligible for student support.

    Then, in June 2025 OfS ran its own consultation on the regulation of subcontracted provision, focusing on how such providers would be assessed, overseen, and held accountable if brought into the system.

    These reforms don’t themselves impose registration on subcontracted delivery providers, but they prepare the ground – the new conditions clarify how subcontracted applicants could meet C5 and related requirements, and OfS signals that it is ready to align with whatever the government decides on the January DfE proposals.

    Chin plasters

    We’re several months on now from the initial jaw on the floor moment, but by way of reminder – the main proposals on treating students fairly are justified as follows:

    Providers are facing increasing financial challenges. They must have effective management and governance to navigate those challenges in a way that delivers good student outcomes. Where providers are making tough financial decisions, they must continue to meet the commitments they have made to students. Our engagement with students shows that being treated fairly is very important to them and suggests that too often this does not happen.

    Against that backdrop, and repeated never-met promises to act to address student protection issues, you’d have thought that there would be progress on what is happening inside the 429 providers already on the register. Alas not – its centrepiece proposals on treating students fairly are only to apply to new providers, with a vague commitment to consult on what might be applied to everyone else (closing the stable door) at some point down the line (one the horse has bolted).

    But worse than that, in its infinite wisdom OfS has somehow managed to concoct a situation where for this tiny group of new providers, it will:

    • Remix lots of existing consumer protection law so that instead of talking about consumer rights, it talks about treating students fairly
    • In some areas go further than consumer protection law, because OfS can and has decided to in the student interest
    • In some areas not go as far as consumer protection law, because…. reasons?

    On the topline, what’s now being introduced is a new initial registration condition – C5, “treating students fairly” – that will replace the old consumer protection entry tests for providers seeking to join the OfS register.

    Instead of simply requiring a university or college to show that it has “had due regard” to CMA guidance, applicants will have to demonstrate that they treat students fairly in practice.

    To do that, OfS will review the policies and contracts they intend to use with students, and judge them against a new “prohibited behaviours” list, a detriment test, and any track record of adverse findings under consumer or company law. In effect, OfS is shifting from a box-ticking exercise about compliance to an upfront regulatory judgement about fairness.

    Providers will have to publish a suite of student-facing documents – terms and conditions, course change policies, refund and compensation policies, and complaints processes – which together will constitute their student protection plan.

    And the scope of the new condition is deliberately broad – it covers current, prospective, and former students, higher education and ancillary services like accommodation, libraries, or disability support, and information issued to attract or recruit students, including advertising and online material. In short, C5 sets a new standard of fairness at the point of entry to the system, at least for those providers trying to join it.

    Students aren’t consumers, but they are, or are they

    The problem is the relationship with consumer law. OfS is at pains to stress that new Condition C5 sits comfortably alongside consumer law, drawing on concepts that will be familiar to anyone who has worked with CMA guidance.

    It makes use of the same building blocks – unfair terms, misleading practices, clarity of information – and even names the same statutes.

    But we’re also reminded that C5 is not consumer law – it’s a regulatory condition of registration, judged and enforced by OfS as a matter of regulatory discretion. That means satisfying C5 doesn’t guarantee compliance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 or the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, and conversely, complying with the Act doesn’t automatically secure a pass on C5. The frameworks overlap, but they don’t align.

    In some respects C5 goes further. By creating its own “prohibited behaviours list”, OfS has declared that certain contractual terms – which the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would only treat as “grey list” risks – will always be unfair in the student context. Examples include terms that allow a provider to unilaterally withdraw an offer once it has been accepted, clauses that limit liability for disruptions within the university’s own control (like industrial action), or refund policies that impose unreasonable hurdles or delays.

    The list also bans misleading representations such as claiming “degree” or “university” status without proper authority, omitting key information about additional compulsory costs, or publishing fake or cherry-picked student reviews. It even extends to the legibility and clarity of terms and policies, requiring that documents be accessible and understandable to students.

    C5 also sweeps in documents that may not ordinarily have contractual force, like course change policies or compensation arrangements, and makes them part of the fairness test. In that sense, the regulator is demanding a higher standard than the law itself, rooted in its view of the student interest.

    But in other senses, C5 lags behind. Where DMCC now treats omissions of “material information” as unlawful if they’re likely to influence a student’s decision, C5 only bites when omissions cause demonstrable detriment, judged against whether the detriment was “reasonable.”

    DMCC introduces explicit protections for situational vulnerability, and a statutory duty of professional diligence in overseeing agents and subcontractors – neither concept is reflected in C5. DMCC makes universities liable for what their agents say on TikTok about visas or jobs – C5 says providers are accountable too, but stops short of importing the full professional diligence duty that the law now demands. DMCC makes clear that the full price of a degree needs to be set out in advance – including anything you have to buy on an optional module. C5 not so much.

    We will protect you

    The problem with all of that from a student point of view is that the Competition and Markets Authority is going to take one look at all of this and think “that means we don’t have to busy ourselves with universities” – despite the rights being different, and despite no such regulation kicking in in the rest of the UK.

    And worse, it makes the chances of students understanding their rights even thinner than they are now. On that, some respondents asked for wider duties to ensure students actively understand their rights – but OfS’ response is that its focus is on whether documents are fair, clear, and not misleading, and that if issues arise in practice (like if notifications flag that students aren’t being given fair or accurate information), OfS can require further information from the provider and take action.

    How on earth students would know that their rights had been breached, and that they can email an obscure OfS inbox is never explained. Even if students find the webpage, students are told that OfS “will not be able to update you on the progress or outcome of the issue that you have raised”.

    They’d likely make a complaint instead – but even if they got as far as the OIA, unless I’ve missed it I’ve never seen a single instance of OfS taking action (either at strategic/collective level or individual) off the back of the information I’m sure it gets regularly from its friends in Reading.

    I suspect this all means that OfS will now not publish two lots of information for students on their rights, depending on whether they’re new or existing members of the register – because like pretty much every other OfS strategy on the student interest, students are framed as people to be protected by a stretched mothership rather than by giving them some actual power themselves.

    I can make an argument, by the way, that sending complaints to lawyers to be assessed for legal risk to the provider, routinely ignoring the OIA Good Practice Framework, refusing to implement an OIA recommendation, not compensating a group when an individual’s complaint obviously applies to others who didn’t complain, using NDAs on complaints that don’t concern harassment and sexual misconduct, deploying “academic judgment” excuses on any appeal where the student is let down, or the practice of dragging out resolutions and making “deal or no deal” “goodwill” offers to coax exhausted students into settling are all pretty important fairness issues – but the relationship with the OIA in a whole document on fairness is barely mentioned.

    As usual, almost nothing has changed between proposals and outcome – but there’s a few nuggets in there. “Information for students” has been replaced with “information about the provider” – to make clear the duty extends beyond enrolled students and covers all marketing/info materials. The problem is that under DMCC stuff like, for example, misleading information on the cost of living in a given city is material, but under OfS “treating students fairly” doesn’t appear to be “about” the provider.

    OfS has clarified that its concerns about “ancillary services” only applies where there is a contract between student and provider (not with third parties), but has added that providers are responsible for information they publish about third-party services and expects universities to exercise “due diligence” on them and their contracts.

    Some language has been more closely aligned with the DMCCA on things like omissions and fake reviews), and in its “detriment” test providers now must do “everything reasonable” rather than “everything possible” to limit it.

    Banned practices

    In some ways, it would have been helpful to translate consumer law and then go further if necessary. But looking at the overlap between the CMA’s unfair commercial practices regime and OfS’s prohibited behaviours list reveals some odd gaps.

    OfS has borrowed much of the language around misleading marketing, fake reviews, false urgency, and misused endorsements, but it has not imported the full consumer protection arsenal. The result is that students don’t seem to be guaranteed the same protections they would enjoy if they were buying a car, a washing machine, or even a mobile phone contract.

    General CMA guidance prevents companies from mimicking the look of competitors to confuse buyers – but the practice is not explicitly barred by OfS. The CMA bans direct appeals to children – no mention of the vulnerable consumer / due diligence duties in OfS’ stuff. Under DMCC, a practice that requires a consumer to take onerous or disproportionate action in order to exercise rights that they have in relation to a product or service is banned – but there’s little on that from OfS.

    Fee increases

    One note on fees and increases – in the response, OfS points to a “statement” that anyone with an Access and Participation Plan has to submit on whether it will increase fees. It supposedly has to specify the “objective verifiable index” that would be used (for example, the Retail Price Index or the Consumer Price Index), in all cases the amount must not exceed the maximum amount prescribed by the Secretary of State for Education, and under consumer protection law, all students must have a right to cancel a contract in the event of a price increase, even where that price increase is provided for in the contact.

    Here’s the first five I found in approved Access and Participation Plans on Google:

    • “Our intention is to charge the maximum fee, subject to the fee limits set out in Regulations” (the doesn’t seem compliant to me)
    • “We will not raise fees annually for 2024-25 new entrants” (that one from a provider that has announced that it will after all)
    • “We will not raise fees annually for 2024-25 new entrants” (that from a provider who now says that for those who started before 1 August 2025, the continuing fee will be £9,535)
    • “We will not raise fees annually for new entrants” (that from a provider that now says “the fee information and inflation statement provided on page 69 of our 2025/26 to 2028/29 Access and Participation Plan are no longer current)
    • “Subject to the maximum fee limits set out in Regulations we will increase fees each year using RPI-X” (what it’s actually doing is increasing its fees by RPI-X as projected by the OBR, which is a very different figure, and no way would pass muster as an “objective verifiable index”

    I’d add here to this utterly laughable situation that the CMA is very clear that the right to cancel in the event of a material change or price increase has to be exercisable in practice:

    In the HE sector, switching course or, in some cases, withdrawing and switching HE provider, is likely to be difficult or impractical in practice, bearing in mind that in many cases the student will not be able simply to transfer their credits to another HE provider, and so saying the student can switch may not improve matters for them, or alleviate the potential unfairness of a variation.

    I’m not sure there’s a provider in the country that’s compliant with that.

    Wider changes

    On its reforms to registration requirements, the exciting news is that rather than introduce one new Condition of Registration, there’s going to be three – E7 (governing documents and business plan), E8 (fraud and inappropriate use of public funds) and E9 (on fit and proper persons, knowledge and expertise).

    In the future, providers will have to submit a defined set of governing documents at registration – replacing the previous reliance on self-assessment against public interest governance principles. Providers will also have to submit a clear and comprehensive five-year business plan showing objectives, risks, compliance with ongoing conditions, and consideration of students’ interests.

    Specific senior roles (chair of governing body, accountable officer, finance lead, and an independent governor) will have to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and expertise, usually tested through interviews. And a new fit and proper persons test will mean that those in senior governance and management roles will be subject to checks on past conduct (e.g. fraud, misconduct, behaviour undermining public trust).

    Providers will also have to have comprehensive and effective arrangements to prevent, detect, and stop fraud and the inappropriate use of public funds. A “track record” test also applies, the upshot of which is that relevant convictions or regulatory sanctions within the past 60 months could bar registration unless exceptional circumstances apply.

    You’ll not be surprised to learn that in the consultation, some worried that the changes would increase bureaucracy, slow down registration, and impose disproportionate burdens on smaller providers. Others objected to the removal of self-assessment against the Public Interest Governance Principles (PIGPs) at the point of registration, fearing this would dilute student protection or cause confusion given that PIGPs still apply on an ongoing basis.

    Concerns were also raised about creating a two-tier system where new entrants face tougher entry requirements than established providers, and about the practicality of requiring a five-year business plan when forecasting beyond two or three years is often unrealistic. Many also questioned a new interview requirement for key individuals, seeing it as costly, stressful, open to coaching, and potentially inconsistent. Just like student assessment!

    OfS was right all along, of course – arguing that the new conditions give stronger protection for students and taxpayers, that the five-year planning horizon is essential to test medium-term sustainability, and maintains that fit and proper person interviews are the most effective way to test leadership capacity.

    If you were one of the handful of respondents, it wasn’t all in vain – the phrase “policies and procedures” is now “policies and processes”, OfS has clarified the level of knowledge required (the chair and independent governor only need “sufficient awareness” of student cohorts rather than detailed operational knowledge) and a minimum requirement for fraud prevention arrangements is now in the actual condition (rather than just in guidance).

    Registering with OfS

    Much of that is now reflected in a tightening of the registration process itself. Applicants will now be required to submit a defined set of final, governing-body-approved documents at the point of application – including governing documents, financial forecasts, business plans, and information on ownership and corporate structure.

    The idea is to eliminate the previous piecemeal approach, under which providers often submitted partial or draft materials, and to ensure that applications arrive complete, coherent, and capable of demonstrating that a provider has the resources and arrangements necessary to comply with the ongoing conditions of registration.

    Some argued that the shift makes the process more rigid and burdensome, particularly for smaller or specialist providers, and warned that requiring fully approved documents could create practical difficulties or delay applications. Others were worried about duplication with other regulators and barriers to entry for innovative providers.

    Again, OfS is pressing on regardless, arguing that a standardised approach will improve efficiency and consistency, while promising proportionate application of the rules, detailed guidance on the required documents, and limited flexibility where a final document cannot yet exist.

    To the extent to which some might argue that a heavy and complex burden is a tough ask for small new providers – and runs counter to the original Jo Johnson “Byron Burgers” vision, the message seems to be that it turns out that scale and complexity is required to protect public money and the student interest. It would arguably be a lot easier (on both OfS and Independent HE’s members) if DfE was to just say so.

    Defeat from the jaws of victory

    Sometimes, OfS gets close to getting it – finally, an education regulator properly thinking through the ways in which students are treated unfairly – only to go and spoil it and say something stupid like “this will only apply to new providers”.

    As I noted when the consultation came out, what we now have is one set of rights for students in a new(ly registering) provider that they’ll never be proactively told about, and another set of much weaker ones for everyone else that they’re not told about either, all in the name of “fairness”, at exactly the point that the regulator itself admits is one where providers are under pressure to not deliver on some of the promises they made to students.

    The lack of justification or explanation for that remains alarming – and while cock up is often a better explanation than conspiracy, it’s hard to conclude anything other than OfS has proactively decided to turn a blind eye (while blindfolding students) to existing unfairness while everyone gets their cuts done. What a time to be a student.

    Source link

  • Helping College Students Emotionally Before They Turn to AI

    Helping College Students Emotionally Before They Turn to AI

    Some ChatGPT users ask the chat bot for emotional support.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Kirillm/iStock/Getty Images

    As more students engage with generative artificial intelligence and chat bots, the ways they use AI are changing. A 2025 report published by the Harvard Business Review found that, according to the discourse on social media, “therapy/companionship” is the No. 1 use case for generative AI chat bots.

    For college counseling centers, this change reflects students’ desire for immediate support. “This is not a generation that would call a counseling center and get an appointment two weeks, four weeks later,” said Joy Himmell, director of counseling services for Old Dominion University. “They want help when they want it.”

    But it’s important for counseling centers to educate students on the risks of using generative AI tools for well-being support, Himmell said.

    The research: While ChatGPT and similar text-generating chat bots are touted as productivity tools that can expedite learning and workflow, some people turn to them for personal and emotional support.

    According to a 2024 safety report, OpenAI found that some users experience anthropomorphization—attributing humanlike behaviors and characteristics to nonhuman entities—and form social relationships with the AI. Researchers hypothesized that humanlike socialization with an AI model could affect how individuals interact with other people and hamper building healthy relationship skills.

    A 2025 study from MIT Media Lab and Open AI found that high usage of ChatGPT correlates with increased dependency on the AI tool, with heavy users more likely to consider ChatGPT a “friend” and to consider messaging with ChatGPT more comfortable than face-to-face interactions. However, researchers noted that only a small share of ChatGPT users are affected to that extent or report emotional distress from excessive use.

    Another study from the same groups found that higher daily usage of ChatGPT correlated with increased loneliness, dependence and problematic use of the tool, as well as lower socialization with other humans.

    In extreme cases, individuals have created entirely fabricated lives and romantic relationships with AI, which can result in deep feelings and real hurt when the technology is updated.

    This research shows that most people, even heavy users of ChatGPT, are not seeking emotional support from the chat bot and do not become dependent on it. Among college students, a minority want AI to provide well-being support, according to a different survey. A study from WGU Labs found that 41 percent of online learners would be comfortable with AI suggesting mental health strategies based on a student’s data, compared to 38 percent who said they would be somewhat or very uncomfortable with such use.

    In higher education: On campus, Himmell has seen a growing number of students start counseling for anxiety disorders, depression and a history of trauma. Students are also notably lonelier, she said, and less likely to engage with peers on campus or attend events.

    Student mental health is a top retention concern, but few counseling centers have capacity to provide one-on-one support to everyone who needs it. At her center, more students prefer in-person counseling sessions, which Himmell attributes to them wanting to feel more grounded and connected. But many still engage with online or digital interventions as well.

    A significant number of colleges have established partnerships with digital mental health service providers to complement in-person services, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote instruction. Such services could include counseling support or skill-building education to reduce the need for intensive in-person counseling.

    Digital mental health resources cannot replace some forms of therapy or risk assessment, Himmell said, but they can augment counseling sessions. “Having automated AI systems with emotional intelligence to be able to convey some of those concepts and work with students, in some ways, it actually frees the counselor in terms of doing that kind of [skill building], so that we can get more into the nitty-gritty of what we need to talk about,” she explained.

    AI counseling or online engagement with ChatGPT is not a solution to all problems, Himmell said. For those who use chat bots as companions, “it sets up a system that is not based in reality; it’s a facade,” Himmell said. “Even though that can serve a purpose, in the long run, it really doesn’t bode well for emotional or social skill development.”

    Faculty and staff need to learn how to identify students at risk of developing AI dependency. Compared to anxiety or depression, which have more visible cues in the classroom, “the symptomology related to that inner world of AI and not engaging with others in ways that are helpful is much more benign,” Himmell said. Campus stakeholders can watch out for students who are disengaged socially or reluctant to engage in group work to help identify social isolation and possible digital dependency.

    AI in the counseling center: Part of addressing student AI dependency is becoming familiar with the tools and helping students learn to use them appropriately, Himmell said. “We need to be able to harness it and use it, not be afraid of it, and embrace it,” she said. She also sees a role for counseling centers and others in higher education to provide additional education on AI in different formats and venues.

    Old Dominion partners with TalkCampus, which offers 24-7 peer-based support. The counseling service is not automated, but the platform uses AI to mine the data and identify risk factors that may come up in conversation and provide support if needed.

    Source link

  • What’s happened since Texas killed in-state tuition for undocumented students

    What’s happened since Texas killed in-state tuition for undocumented students

    SAN ANTONIO — Ximena had a plan. 

    The 18-year-old from Houston was going to start college in the fall at the University of Texas at Tyler, where she had been awarded $10,000 a year in scholarships. That, she hoped, would set her up for her dream: a Ph.D. in chemistry, followed by a career as a professor or researcher.

    “And then the change to in-state tuition happened, and that’s when I knew for sure that I had to pivot,” said Ximena, who was born in Mexico but attended schools stateside since kindergarten. (The Hechinger Report is referring to her by only her first name because she fears retaliation for her immigration status.) 

    In June, the Texas attorney general’s office and the Trump administration worked together to end the provisions in a state law that had offered thousands of undocumented students like her lower in-state tuition rates at Texas public colleges. State and federal officials successfully argued in court that the long-standing policy discriminated against U.S. citizens from other states who paid a higher rate. That rationale has now been replicated in similar lawsuits against Kentucky, Oklahoma and Minnesota — part of a broader offensive against immigrants’ access to public education. 

    At UT Tyler, in-state tuition and fees for the upcoming academic year total $9,736, compared to more than $25,000 for out-of-state students. Ximena and her family couldn’t afford the higher tuition bill, so she withdrew. Instead, she enrolled at Houston Community College, where out-of-state costs are $227 per semester hour, nearly three times the in-district rate. The school offers only basic college-level chemistry classes, so to set herself up for a doctorate or original research, Ximena will still need to find a way to pay for a four-year university down the line. 

    Her predicament is exactly what state lawmakers from both political parties had hoped to avoid when they passed the Texas Dream Act, 2001 legislation that not only opened doors to higher education for undocumented students but was also meant to bolster Texas’s economy and its workforce long-term. With that law, Texas became the first of more than two dozen states to implement in-state tuition for undocumented students, and for nearly 24 years, the landmark policy remained intact. Conservative lawmakers repeatedly proposed to repeal it, but despite years of single-party control in the state legislature, not enough Republicans embraced repeal even as recently as this spring, days before the Texas attorney general’s office and the federal Department of Justice moved to end it. 

    Now, as the fall semester approaches, immigrant students are weighing whether to disenroll from their courses or await clarity on how the consent agreement entered into by the state and DOJ affects them.

    Immigration advocates are worried that Texas colleges and universities are boxing out potential attendees who are lawfully present and still qualify for in-state tuition despite the court ruling — including recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, asylum applicants and Temporary Protected Status holders — because university personnel lack immigration expertise and haven’t been given clear guidelines on exactly who needs to pay the higher tuition rate. 

    At Austin Community College, which serves an area as large as Connecticut, members of the board of trustees are unsure how to accurately implement the ruling. As they await answers, they’ve so far decided against sending letters asking their students for sensitive information in order to determine tuition rates. 

    “This confusion will inevitably harm students because what we find is that in the absence of information and in the presence of fear and anxiety, students will opt to not continue higher education,” said Manuel Gonzalez, vice chair of the ACC board of trustees.

    A billboard promoting Austin Community College in Spanish sits on a highway that leads to Lockhart, Texas. Credit: Sergio Flores for The Hechinger Report

    Policy experts, meanwhile, warn that Texas’s workforce could suffer as talented young people, many of whom have spent their entire education in the state’s public school system, will no longer be able to afford the associate’s and bachelor’s degrees that would allow them to pursue careers that would help propel their local economies. Under the Texas Dream Act, beneficiaries were required to commit to applying for lawful permanent residence as soon as possible, giving them the opportunity to hold down jobs related to their degrees. Without resident status, it’s likely they’ll still work — just more in lower-paying, under-the-radar jobs.  

    “It’s so short-sighted in terms of the welfare of the state of Texas,” said Barbara Hines, a former law school professor who helped legislators craft the Texas Dream Act. 

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    By the turn of the century, almost two decades after undocumented children won the right to attend public school in the U.S., immigrant students and their champions remained frustrated that college remained out of reach. 

    For retired Army National Guard Maj. Gen. Rick Noriega, a Democrat who served in the Texas Legislature at the time, that reality hit close to home when he learned of a young yard worker in his district who wanted to enroll at the local community college for aviation mechanics but couldn’t afford out-of-state tuition. 

    Noriega called the school chancellor’s office, which was able to provide funding for the student to attend. But that experience led him to wonder: How many more kids in his district were running up against the same barriers to higher education? 

    So he worked with a sociologist to poll students at local high schools about the problem, which turned out to be widespread. And Noriega’s district wasn’t an outlier. In a state that has long had one of the nation’s largest unauthorized immigrant populations, politicians across the partisan divide knew affected constituents, friends or family members and wanted to help. Once Noriega decided to propose legislation, a Republican, Fred Hill, asked to serve as a joint author on the bill. 

    To proponents of the Texas Dream Act, the best argument in support of in-state tuition for undocumented students was an economic one. After the state had already invested in these students during K-12 public schooling, it made sense to continue developing them so they could eventually help meet Texas’ workforce needs. 

    “We’d spent all this money on these kids, and they’d done everything that we asked them to do — in many instances superstars and valedictorians and the like — and then they hit this wall, which was higher education that was cost prohibitive,” said Noriega. 

    The legislation easily passed the Texas House of Representatives, which was Democratic-controlled at the time, but the Republican-led Senate was less accommodating. 

    “I couldn’t even get a hearing,’” said Leticia Van de Putte, the then-state senator who sponsored the legislation in her chamber. 

    To persuade her Republican colleagues, she added several restrictions, including requiring undocumented students to live in Texas for three years before finishing high school or receiving a GED. (Three years was estimated as the average time it would take a family to pay enough in state taxes to make up the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition.) She also included the clause mandating that undocumented students who accessed in-state tuition sign an affidavit pledging to pursue green cards as soon as they were able.   

    Van de Putte also turned to Texas business groups to hammer home the economic case for the bill. And she convinced the business community to pay for buses to bring Latino evangelical conservative pastors from Dallas, San Antonio, Houston and other areas of the state to Austin, so they could knock on doors in support of the legislation and pray with Republican senators and their staff. 

    After that, the Texas Dream Act overwhelmingly passed the state Senate in May 2001, and then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, signed it into law the following month.

    Related: How Trump is changing higher education: The view from four campuses

    Yet by 2007, even as immigrant rights advocates, faith-based groups and business associations formed a coalition to defend immigrants against harmful state policies, the Texas legislature was starting to introduce a wave of generally anti-immigrant proposals. In 2010, polling suggested Texans overwhelmingly opposed allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates. 

    By 2012, a new slew of right-wing politicians was elected to office, many philosophically opposed to the law — and loud about it. Perry’s defense of the policy had come back to haunt him during the 2012 Republican presidential primary, when his campaign was dogged by criticism after he told opponents of tuition equity during a debate, “I don’t think you have a heart.” 

    Still, none of the many bills introduced over the years to repeal the Texas Dream Act were successful. And even Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican border hawk, at times equivocated on the policy, with his spokesperson saying in 2013 that Abbott believed “the objective” of in-state tuition regardless of immigration status was “noble.”

    Legislative observers say that some Republicans in the state continue to support the policy. “It’s a bipartisan issue. There are Republicans in support of in-state tuition,” said Luis Figueroa, senior director of legislative affairs at the public policy research and advocacy nonprofit Every Texan. “They cannot publicly state it.”

    Meanwhile, as the topic became more politically charged in Texas, the Texas Dream Act ended up amplifying a larger conversation that eventually led to the creation of DACA, the Obama-era program that has given some undocumented immigrants access to deportation protections and work permits. 

    Even before DACA, many immigrants worked, and those who remain undocumented often still do, either as independent contractors for employers that turn a blind eye to their immigration status or by starting their own businesses. A study from May 2020 found that unauthorized residents make up 8.2 percent of the state’s workforce, and for every dollar spent toward public services for them, the state of Texas recouped $1.21 in revenue. 

    But without the immediate legal permission to work, undocumented college graduates who had benefited from the Texas Dream Act found themselves limited despite their degrees. As the fight for tuition equity spread to other states, so did the fight for a legal solution to support the students it benefited. 

    When these young people — affectionately dubbed Dreamers — took center stage to more publicly advocate for themselves, their plight proved sympathetic. By 2017, the same year Trump began his first term, polling had flipped to show a plurality of Texans in support of in-state tuition for undocumented students. More recently, research has indicated time and time again that Americans support a pathway to legal status for undocumented residents brought to the U.S. as children. 

    But arguments against in-state tuition regardless of immigration status also grew in popularity: Critics contended that the policy is unfair to U.S. citizens from other states who have to pay higher rates, or that undocumented students are taking spots at competitive schools that could be filled by documented Americans. 

    The DOJ leaned on similar rhetoric in the lawsuit that killed tuition equity in Texas, saying the state law is superseded by 1996 federal legislation banning undocumented immigrants from getting in-state tuition based on residency. That argument has become a template as the Trump administration has sued to dismantle other states’ in-state tuition policies for undocumented residents.

    In Kentucky, state Attorney General Russell Coleman, a Republican, has followed in Texas’ footsteps, recommending that the state council overseeing higher education withdraw its regulation allowing for access to in-state tuition instead of fighting to defend it in court. 

    At the same time, the Trump administration has found other ways to cut back on higher education opportunities for undocumented students, rescinding a policy that had helped them participate in career, technical and adult education programs and investigating universities for offering them scholarships. 

    Related: Which schools and colleges are being investigated by the Trump administration? 

    Back in Texas, the sudden policy change regarding in-state tuition is causing chaos. Even the state’s two largest universities, Texas A&M and the University of Texas, are using different guidelines to decide which students must pay out-of-state rates. 

    Clouds fill the sky behind the tower at the University of Texas. Credit: Sergio Flores for The Washington Post via Getty Images

    “Universities, I think, are the ones that are put in this really difficult position,” Figueroa said. “They are not immigration experts. They’ve received very little guidance about how to interpret the consent decree.” 

    Amid so much confusion, Figueroa predicted, future lawsuits will likely crop up. Already, affected students and organizations have filed motions in court seeking to belatedly defend the Texas Dream Act against the DOJ.

    In the meantime, young scholars are facing difficult choices. One student, who asked to remain anonymous because of her undocumented immigration status, was scrolling through the news on her phone before bed when she saw a headline about the outcome of the DOJ court case. 

    “I burst in tears because, you know, as someone who’s been fighting to get ahead in their education, right now that I’m in higher education, it’s been a complete blessing,” she said. “So the first thing that I just thought of is ‘What am I going to do now? Where is my future heading?’ The plans that I have had going for me, are they going to have to come to a complete halt?’” 

    The young woman, who has lived in San Antonio since she was 9 months old, had enrolled in six courses for the fall at Texas A&M-San Antonio and wasn’t sure whether to drop them. It would be her final semester before earning her psychology and sociology degrees, but she couldn’t fathom paying for out-of-state tuition. 

    “I’m in the unknown,” she said, like “many students in this moment.”

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected].

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

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

    Join us today.

    Source link