Tag: Week

  • Week in review: UCLA and other colleges move to cut costs

    Week in review: UCLA and other colleges move to cut costs

    Most clicked story of the week:

    A federal judge struck down the U.S. Department of Education’s Feb. 14 guidance that threatened to revoke federal funding for colleges and K-12 schools that practiced diversity, equity and inclusion efforts it considers illegal. In her decision, the judge ruled that the guidance unconstitutionally put viewpoint-based restrictions on academic speech and used overly vague language about what was prohibited.

    Number of the week: 6,000+

    The number of international student visas the U.S. Department of State has revoked so far this year. The agency terminated between 200 and 300 of the visas over allegations of support for terrorism, a spokesperson said.

    Staffing and investigations at the Education Department:

    • The Education Department will reinstate over 260 laid-off Office for Civil Rights employees in small groups every other week, following a federal judge’s order. The restoration of staff will take place from Sept. 8 through Nov. 3, according to court filings.
    • Almost three-quarters of financial aid administrators reported “noticeable changes” in the Federal Student Aid office’s communications and processing speed since the massive Education Department layoffs earlier this year, according to a survey from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. 
    • Despite the decrease in staff, the department has continued to open civil rights investigations, announcing one last week at Haverford College. The agency cited allegations that the small Pennsylvania institution hadn’t done enough in response to campus antisemitism. A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against Haverford over similar allegations earlier this year.

    Budget cuts and restructuring: 

    • The University of California, Los Angeles paused faculty hiring through spring 2026 amid increasing attacks from the Trump administration and preexisting budget shortfalls. The public university is also consolidating its information technology teams, though it did not say if the process will include layoffs.
    • The University of Louisiana at Lafayette will cut its operational and auxiliary spending by 5%, a move its interim president cast as proactive rather than reactive, KADN reported. While the university’s revenue is strong, he said, costs exceed it. 
    • Milligan University, in Tennessee, will cut six academic programs this fall to keep pace with a changing college market, the private institution’s president told WJHL. The affected programs enrolled 28 students.

    Source link

  • Week in review: Details emerge on plans to collect new admissions data

    Week in review: Details emerge on plans to collect new admissions data

    Most clicked story of the week:

    Nearly three dozen selective colleges are facing an antitrust lawsuit alleging they used the early decision admissions process to reduce competition and inflate prices. Also named as defendants are application platforms Common App and Scoir, as well as the Consortium on Financing Higher Education, an information-sharing coalition of selective liberal arts colleges.

    By the numbers

     

    740,000

    That’s the estimated number of work hours the higher education sector can expect to add as a result of the U.S. Department of Education’s plan to cull new data from colleges on their applicants’ race and sex. Behind the push is the Trump administration’s hostility toward diversity initiatives and its aggressive approach to enforcing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ban on race-based admissions.

    Anti-DEI push in courts, board rooms and classrooms:

    • A federal judge declined to block Alabama’s governor from enforcing a new law that eliminates diversity, equity and inclusion offices and forbids colleges from requiring students to adopt a long list of “divisive concepts.” The professors and students who sued over the law expressed concerns that it is overly vague and restricts their free speech rights. 
    • The Iowa Board of Regents adopted a new policy requiring public university faculty to present controversial subjects “in a way that reflects the range of scholarly views and ongoing debate in the field.” Before last week’s vote, the board stripped the proposal’s original language around DEI and critical race theory after public pushback. But one regent noted the policy does not define “controversial” and raised questions about who would. 
    • Students for Fair Admissions dropped its lawsuits against the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the U.S. Air Force Academy over race-conscious admissions. Both academies dropped their diversity efforts in admissions earlier this year under a directive from the Trump administration. 

    Quote of the week:

    “Our actions clearly demonstrate our commitment to addressing antisemitic actions and promoting an inclusive campus environment by upholding a safe, respectful, and accountable environment.”

    George Washington University

    The private institution became one of the latest targets of the Trump administration, which claimed the university was indifferent to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its Washington, D.C., campus. As with its accusations against a handful of other colleges, the administration cited a pro-Palestinian protest encampment at GWU in spring 2024. The university asked the local police to clear the encampment shortly after it was formed.

    Source link

  • 60% of Teachers Used AI This Year and Saved up to 6 Hours of Work a Week – The 74

    60% of Teachers Used AI This Year and Saved up to 6 Hours of Work a Week – The 74


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

    Nearly two-thirds of teachers utilized artificial intelligence this past school year, and weekly users saved almost six hours of work per week, according to a recently released Gallup survey. But 28% of teachers still oppose AI tools in the classroom.

    The poll, published by the research firm and the Walton Family Foundation, includes perspectives from 2,232 U.S. public school teachers.

    “[The results] reflect a keen understanding on the part of teachers that this is a technology that is here, and it’s here to stay,” said Zach Hrynowski, a Gallup research director. “It’s never going to mean that students are always going to be taught by artificial intelligence and teachers are going to take a backseat. But I do like that they’re testing the waters and seeing how they can start integrating it and augmenting their teaching activities rather than replacing them.”

    At least once a month, 37% of educators take advantage of tools to prepare to teach, including creating worksheets, modifying materials to meet student needs, doing administrative work and making assessments, the survey found. Less common uses include grading, providing one-on-one instruction and analyzing student data.

    A 2023 study from the RAND Corp. found the most common AI tools used by teachers include virtual learning platforms, like Google Classroom, and adaptive learning systems, like i-Ready or the Khan Academy. Educators also used chatbots, automated grading tools and lesson plan generators.

    Most teachers who use AI tools say they help improve the quality of their work, according to the Gallup survey. About 61% said they receive better insights about student learning or achievement data, while 57% said the tools help improve their grading and student feedback.

    Nearly 60% of teachers agreed that AI improves the accessibility of learning materials for students with disabilities. For example, some kids use text-to-speech devices or translators.

    More teachers in the Gallup survey agreed on AI’s risks for students versus its opportunities. Roughly a third said students using AI tools weekly would increase their grades, motivation, preparation for jobs in the future and engagement in class. But 57% said it would decrease students’ independent thinking, and 52% said it would decrease critical thinking. Nearly half said it would decrease student persistence in solving problems, ability to build meaningful relationships and resilience for overcoming challenges.

    In 2023, the U.S. Department of Education published a report recommending the creation of standards to govern the use of AI.

    “Educators recognize that AI can automatically produce output that is inappropriate or wrong. They are well-aware of ‘teachable moments’ that a human teacher can address but are undetected or misunderstood by AI models,” the report said. “Everyone in education has a responsibility to harness the good to serve educational priorities while also protecting against the dangers that may arise as a result of AI being integrated in ed tech.”

    Researchers have found that AI education tools can be incorrect and biased — even scoring academic assignments lower for Asian students than for classmates of any other race.

    Hrynowski said teachers are seeking guidance from their schools about how they can use AI. While many are getting used to setting boundaries for their students, they don’t know in what capacity they can use AI tools to improve their jobs.

    The survey found that 19% of teachers are employed at schools with an AI policy. During the 2024-25 school year, 68% of those surveyed said they didn’t receive training on how to use AI tools. Roughly half of them taught themselves how to use it.

    “There aren’t very many buildings or districts that are giving really clear instructions, and we kind of see that hindering the adoption and use among both students and teachers,” Hrynowski said. “We probably need to start looking at having a more systematic approach to laying down the ground rules and establishing where you can, can’t, should or should not, use AI In the classroom.”

    Disclosure: Walton Family Foundation provides financial support to The 74.


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

    Source link

  • Week in review: Major universities take steps to rein in budgets

    Week in review: Major universities take steps to rein in budgets

    We’re rounding up recent stories, from Temple University’s plan to address a $60 million deficit to the Senate’s proposal for a lower endowment tax increase.

    Source link

  • Week in review: Major federal policy changes loom over colleges

    Week in review: Major federal policy changes loom over colleges

    The number of university civic centers established through a 2023 Ohio law in a bid to increase “intellectual diversity” at the state’s public colleges. Now, Republican lawmakers have released a budget proposal that would give the centers more influence by having their directors advise policymakers on “curriculum development and standards” at Ohio public colleges. 

    Source link

  • Last Week in Parliament: Three Takeaways

    Last Week in Parliament: Three Takeaways

    It was a busy week in Parliament last week.  The King came to Ottawa to deliver a Speech From the Throne.  His speech – almost exclusively a re-hash of Liberal promises from the April election – was deeply depressing for anyone who thinks the words “knowledge economy” have any meaning.   

    The main feature of the Speech from the Throne was that it spelled out, in excruciating detail, how the Liberals intend to double down on re-creating the Canadian economy of the 1960s.  Oh sure, the King uttered a line in there early on about how his government is committed to “building a new economy.”  But read the document: that sentiment was in no way followed up by anything resembling a commitment to any kind of new economy.  Instead, here are the major economic elements to which the government is committed:

    • Speeding up permits for major construction projects like roads and pipelines and whatnot: because natural resources have to get to the coasts somehow!
    • Building a lot of houses
    • Spending more on defense
    • Breaking down internal trade barriers
    • Er…
    • That’s it.

    Whatever you think of the merits of the various proposals here, this is not a new economy.  It is barely even a warmed-over version of the old economy.  At best, it is about finding new markets for old products, not developing any new products.  I am unsure if it is more that the Liberals have no sweet clue about how to create a new economy, or that they are uninterested in doing so.  But it’s one of those two.

    Now some might argue otherwise because look!  Evan Solomon!  Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation!  How New Economy is that?  All I can say is: please try not to be that person.  Solomon is a Minster without a department with a mandate which is completely undefined.  Is it an internally-facing ministry meant to diffuse digital innovation and AI throughout government?  Or an externally-facing ministry meant to diffuse these things across the economy?  Two weeks after Solomon was named Minister, we still have no clue.   And the Liberal Manifesto and the cabinet’s One Big Mandate Letter give conflicting impressions about the extent to which the Government sees its AI/digital strategy is about skill expansion/diffusion vs. handing money to techbros (the mandate letter reads like the former, the manifesto the latter). One would be forgiven for suspecting the Carney government is making things up as it goes along.

    Anyways, the point here is still: despite Carney’s globe-trotting central banker/Goldman Sachs reputation, this government seems to be staying as far away from a Davos/future industry agenda as humanly possible.  The Liberal “new economy” is all pretty much all construction and primary industries.  This is not a world which requires a lot of higher education.

    Scared yet?  We’re just getting started.  Back on Thursday our new Prime Minister was seen to tweet:

    In other words, this government seems determined to continue in the tradition of both the former government – and the opposition parties for that matter – in framing the country’s ills as problems of costs to be solved by tax cuts and giveaways rather than problems of growth and the institutional investments required to generate it.  This way lies Peronism and perpetual stagnation. 

    And this is from our allegedly “serious” party.

    So, takeaway number one.  Universities need to throw away EVERYTHING in their playbooks for Government Relations.  Selling yourself as “the future” to a government that is desperately trying to reverse our economy into the 1960s is pointless.  This government and this Prime Minster Do. Not. Care.   Until they do, arguing for universities as “crucial” investments is a waste of time.  The real fight is over the shape of the Canadian economy.

    On to a more abstract point about budgeting.  One of the reasons we aren’t getting a budget before fall, despite the government just having been elected with a pretty detailed budget-ready manifesto and the Department of Finance being perfectly capable of putting together a set of Main Estimates for the House of Commons (as it showed on Thursday), is that Carney is trying to introduce a new set of rules with respect to public budgeting.  He spent part of this week insisting that he would balance the “operating budget” within three years, which sparked a lot of incredulity given that i) the economy is about to be in the tank and ii) the Liberals have ring-fenced most of the federal budget by saying they won’t touch transfers to provinces or transfers to institutions.  In theory, that means very significant cuts to program spending.  Like, say, research budgets.

    Except: there is currently no such thing as an “operating budget”.  What Carney wants to do is to exempt from the budget balance requirement anything that can be seen as “capital investment”, which means basically that the main game in Ottawa over the next few years is going to be how to get your favourite piece of spending classed as “capital” instead of “operating”.  And that’s a live issue because the definition the Liberals touted in the election campaign, to wit…

    …anything that builds an asset, held directly on the government’s own balance sheet, a company’s or another order of government’s.  This will include direct investments the government makes in machinery, equipment, land and buildings, as well as new incentives that support the formation of private capital (e.g. patents, plan and technology) or which meaningful raise private sector productivity.

    …is so loose you could drive a truck through it.  Will CFI spending count as capital?  Probably, but not necessarily since universities (in most provinces anyway) are neither a government nor a company.  Will tri-council spending?  Probably not, but that’s not going to stop folks claiming it supports capital formation/raises productivity, so who knows?  So, takeaway number two: get used to arguing distinctions between capital and operating because this might be the only place the sector gets traction in the next little while.

    A final point of importance is something that is not exactly new but has been given fresh salience by being in the Throne Speech, and that is the government’s commitment to limit temporary immigration – that is Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) plus international students – to below five percent of the population by 2027.  Or, to put it another way: every extra TFW is one international student less.  What the government has done here is set up a zero-sum game between institutions of higher education and people like the manager of the Kincardine Tim Horton’s whose business model simply cannot work if they are not allowed to employ foreign nationals at below-market rates. 

    This, my friends, is the fight post-secondary education needs to pick and needs to win.  It won’t be easy, because the captains of Canadian industry are largely clueless about competing on anything other than price, meaning low-wage labour is pretty dear to their hearts and they will fight hard for TFWs.  But it is the dilemma this country faces in a nutshell: should we use our scarce temporary immigration spots to make things cheaper in the short-term?  Or should we use them to develop a skilled workforce and build our scientific and technological talent base for the long term? 

    So, I know this won’t come easy to institutions but: screw Bay Street.  Light the torches.  Find the pitchforks.  Pick up anything you have handy and smash the windows of your local Tim Horton’s.  Fight for international students and against TFWs.  This is an existential contest: it decides whether Canada is going to be a country that gets wealthier based on investments in skills, education and science, or a country that bathes in mediocrity because we go mental if the price of a cruller goes up twenty-five cents. 

    And if the sector ducks this fight because direct confrontation with business is icky and makes some Board members uncomfortable?  Well, then the sector deserves everything it gets.  That’s the third, and most important takeaway of the last week.

    Source link

  • Week in review: Trump administration targets Chinese student visas

    Week in review: Trump administration targets Chinese student visas

    Most clicked-on story from last week: 

    House Republicans passed — by one vote — a massive spending bill backed by President Donald Trump with heavy implications for higher education. Among other proposals, it would raise and expand the endowment tax, introduce a risk-sharing program that would put colleges on the hook for unpaid student debt, nix subsidized loans and narrow eligibility for Pell Grants. Many expect the Senate to make changes to the bill.

    Number of the week

     

    7

    That’s how many regional branch campuses Pennsylvania State University is set to close after a 25-8 vote by its trustee board. The plan will pare down the university’s commonwealth campuses to 13 to cope with demographic declines and budget pressure. Detractors said the decision was made too hastily, ignored some campuses’ recent progress and could hurt the state’s rural areas.

    Trump administration updates:

    • The Trump administration aims to “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students” while ramping up scrutiny and changing criteria for student visa applications from China and Hong Kong, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday. With nearly 278,000 students from China studying in the U.S. during the 2023-24 academic year, the move could have a steep impact on U.S. colleges.
    • Sixteen states sued the National Science Foundation over the agency’s 15% cap on indirect research costs and its mass termination of grants related to diversity, equity and other topics. The states’ colleges “will not be able to maintain essential research infrastructure and will be forced to significantly scale back or halt research, abandon numerous projects, and lay off staff,” plaintiffs said in their complaint. 
    • The Trump administration plans to cut Harvard University’s remaining federal contracts, amounting to about $100 million. An official with the U.S. General Services Administration cited what he alleged was “Harvard’s lack of commitment to nondiscrimination and our national values and priorities.” The salvo is the latest in the federal government’s escalating battle with the Ivy League institution. 

    Texas legislators look to tighten control of colleges:

    • The Texas House approved a bill that would give the state’s regents — who are appointed by the governor — the power to recommend required courses at public colleges and to reject courses deemed too biased or ideological. Regents would also gain approval authority over the hiring of administrators. 
    • Another bill approved by the House would limit where and how students can protest on campuses. The Texas House and Senate are working to resolve their differences over the bill, according to The Texas Tribune. 

    Quote of the week:

    “There’s a bit of anxiousness among accreditors and institutions and state legislators because of the uncertainty. Is it that they are intentionally being vague or general until they can work out all of the nuances of the policies that they want to implement? I can tell you, less is not more in this situation.”

    That’s Cynthia Jackson Hammond, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, on the effects of Trump’s executive order on college accreditation.

    Source link

  • This week in 5 numbers: Trump eyes 15.3% cut for Education Department

    This week in 5 numbers: Trump eyes 15.3% cut for Education Department

    The number of college presidents who testified before the House Committee on Education and Workforce this week about how they’ve handled alleged campus incidents of antisemitism. While Republicans have said they’re trying to combat antisemitism, some Democrats accused GOP lawmakers of using those concerns to quell constitutionally protected speech during the hearing with the leaders of Haverford College, DePaul University and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

    Source link

  • This week in 5 numbers: Sweeping higher ed bill advances

    This week in 5 numbers: Sweeping higher ed bill advances

    The federal funding that the Trump administration suspended to University of Pennsylvania in March, citing the Ivy League institution’s participation policies for transgender athletes. The U.S. Department of Education concluded this week Penn violated Title IX, though university leaders have said the institution is complying with current law and NCAA policies.

    Source link

  • Landmark New Mexico Education Equity Case Heads Back to Court Next Week – The 74

    Landmark New Mexico Education Equity Case Heads Back to Court Next Week – The 74


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

    The parties in the long-running Yazzie-Martinez lawsuit over educational equity in New Mexico will meet in court next week to discuss a motion alleging the state has not complied with previous court orders, along with the plaintiffs’ request for a “remedial plan.”

    The case, originally filed in 2014, led to a finding in 2018 by the late First Judicial District Court Judge Sarah Singleton, who found that the state was not providing equitable educational opportunities to Native students, English language learners, low-income students and students with disabilities. She ordered the state to take steps to address the needs of these at-risk students and ensure schools have the resources to provide them with the education they deserve.

    Attorneys representing Louise Martinez and Wilhelmina Yazzie filed a joint motion of non-compliance in September 2024, arguing that the state has not made significant progress in addressing the needs of at-risk students. Specifically, in their motion, plaintiffs point to ongoing poor student performance; high turnover within the New Mexico Public Education Department; high teacher vacancy rates; and a lack of targeted funding for at-risk students.

    Since Singleton’s decision, the state has increased funding for public education, but students are still being overlooked, Melissa Candelaria, education director for the NM Center on Law and Poverty, which represents the plaintiffs, told Source NM.

    The motion hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday, April 29.

    “We believe the court’s ruling should have been a wakeup call,” Candelaria said. “Our students can’t afford more bureaucratic churn and empty promises from PED. And we believe, the plaintiffs believe, the court must step in to enforce a real community-driven plan that reflects the urgency and the gravity to improve the overall state education system.”

    Candelaria noted that the joint motion was not opposed by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who represents the state in the case. Court documents state that Torrez “agrees” that there has been “insufficient compliance.” However, private counsel for the PED did oppose the motion, particularly the plaintiff’s proposed remedial plan.

    PED had not responded to a request from Source NM for comment prior to publication.

    That plan, as detailed in court documents, includes nine components or goals, including: establishing a multicultural and multilingual educational framework; building an education workforce; increasing access to technology; developing methods of accountability; and strengthening the capacity of the PED.

    “There’s no longer a debate that a statewide education plan is necessary. Now, the decision is who leads that development,” Candelaria said.

    Candelaria also told Source the plaintiffs propose the Legislative Education Study Committee take the lead in developing the remedial plan because the department’s staff have knowledge and expertise in the area of education and have access to data. The department also has a director and permanent staff, as opposed to the PED, which has had multiple cabinet secretaries lead the department in the nearly seven years since Singleton’s decision, she noted.

    “Without a plan, the efforts by the Legislature will still be piecemeal and scattershot and it’s not going to result in what we want to see in a transformed education system that’s equitable and that builds on the strengths and provides for the needs of the four student groups in the case,” Candelaria said.

    The PED opposes the motion on this point, according to court documents, and argues the education department should take the lead in developing the plan. The department also says more time is needed to create and then implement the plan. Plaintiffs suggest that the five-year plan should be developed within six months of this month’s hearing.

    Wilhelmina Yazzie, one of the original plaintiffs, told Source she feels “very optimistic” ahead of the motion hearing and that she hopes the judge agrees a plan is necessary. She added that the inequities in public education were emphasized during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Especially our tribal communities who are really deeply impacted by that, and they still continue to suffer to the present time right now and just by the state not taking the action that we need them to take,” Yazzie said.

    Yazzie’s son, Xavier Nez, 22, was in third grade when the lawsuit started. He is now in his third year studying at the University of New Mexico. Candelaria pointed out that since the 2018 court decision, multiple classes of students have made their way through the state’s educational system and failed to receive a comprehensive education. Yazzie’s youngest child, Kimimila Black Moon, is currently in third grade but attends private school.

    “She’s not in the public school because I still haven’t seen changes,” she said.

    Yazzie told Source that another goal of hers is to get out into communities throughout the state and speak with families because many parents are still unaware of the lawsuit and “they’re the ones that firsthand know what their children need, what they’re lacking, how they’re doing in school.”

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


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

    Source link