Archives for category: Higher Education
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Yale Drops No-Test Admissions Policy

By dianeravitch
November 24, 2024 //
12

Yale University, one of the nation’s most elite institutions, has dropped its policy of no-test scores for admissions. Instead, it will require students to submit one of four standardized tests when they apply. The elite universities were flooded with applicants last year, and some were able to accept only 3-5% of applicants. Last year, 57,465 students applied for admission; only 3.7% were accepted.

My guess is that the re-introduction of standardized test scores will discourage some from applying and will immediately disqualify those with very low scores.

The Yale Daily News reported:

After four years of a test-optional policy allowing applicants to decide whether to submit test scores, applicants to Yale’s class of 2029 must submit standardized test scores.

Under Yale’s text-flexible admissions policy, applicants may select one or more types of tests from a list of four options — SAT, ACT, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate. Those who choose to send AP or IB scores are required to include results from all subject exams that they have taken…

Among peer institutions, Yale stands out for its test-flexible admissions policy for the class of 2029. Of the other seven Ivy League institutions, Harvard, Brown and Dartmouth require the SAT or ACT.  Princeton, Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell are still test-optional for the current admissions cycle…

John Yi ’13, associate director of the Office of Undergraduate Admissions, believes the test-flexible policy helps the University communicate that “academic preparation is a core component of our admissions process, but that there is not a one-size-fits-all exam that communicates that strength.” Whichever tests applicants choose to send, they are only part of a “much broader puzzle” among other components of applications….

Yale College received 6,754 early applications to the class of 2029, a 14 percent decrease from early applications from the previous year. This group of applicants will be the first to be evaluated under Yale’s test-flexible policy. ..

Yi wrote to the News that under test-optional admissions, Yale saw a “large increase” in applications from students without test scores whose other application elements — transcript, recommendations and personal essays — also “lacked evidence” that they were prepared to succeed at Yale.

On the other hand, he emphasized that the test-required policy prompted applicants to view testing as the “single most important factor” because everyone had to submit the same tests, discouraging applicants with lower test scores who would be great Yale students. With a test-optional policy, it is “easy” for applicants to imagine that test scores are “completely extraneous” to the review, he wrote. 

“I would reassure students that the standardized testing piece is far less interesting to us than all the other components of the application,” Yi wrote. “Each student’s context is unique, and the test-flexible policy is designed to help them shine their brightest in the admissions process — not to trick or trap them.”

Categories Accountability, Higher Education, Standardized Testing

How Democracies Become Autocracies, By Burrowing from Within

By dianeravitch
October 10, 2024 //
9

In an opinion piece in Scientific American, Cecilia Menjívar of UCLA and Deisy Del Real of the University of Southern California contend that the United States and other nations are sliding toward autocracy. They believe we can learn from the experience of other nations.

They write:

An autocratic wave has crept up on us in the U.S. and over the world in the last decade. Democracy and autocracy were once seen as two separate and distant worlds with little in common, and that the triumph of one weakened the other. Now, however, autocrats across the globe, in poor and wealthy nations, in established and nascent democracies, and from the right and left, are using the same tactics to dismantle democracies from within.

As of 2021, of the 104 countries classified as democracies worldwide, 37 had experienced moderate to severe deterioration in key elements of democracy, such as open and free elections, fundamental rights and liberties, civic engagement, the rule of law, and checks-and-balances between government branches. This democratic backsliding wave has accelerated since 2016 and infiltrated all corners of the world.

With the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November, questions about the future of American democracy take on urgency. As the American public seems increasingly receptive to autocratic tactics, these questions become even more pressing. Will the U.S. slide into autocracy, faced with a presidential candidate in Donald Trump who promises to be a dictator on his first day in office? Can lessons from autocracies elsewhere help us detect democratic backsliding in the U.S.?

To answer these questions, we first need to identify how the new breed of autocrats attains and retains power: their hallmark strategy is deception. How does a roll call of modern autocrats, and wannabe autocrats, like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, India’s Narendra Modi, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro implement this modus operandi for the latest model of autocracy? They twist information and create confusion within a façade of democracy as they seize power. They do not overthrow democracy through military coups d’état but by undoing core democratic principles, weakening the rule of law, and eliminating checks and balances between branches of government.

Rather than eradicating democratic institutions as leaders like Chile’s Augusto Pinochet or Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko did in the past, today’s established and emergent autocrats (as is the case of Maduro or Orbán, for instance) corrupt the courts, sabotage elections and distort information to attain and remain in power. They are elected through ostensibly free elections and connect with a public already primed to be fearful of a fabricated enemy. Critically, they use these democratic tools to attain power; once there, they dismantle those processes. Autocratic tactics creep into the political life of a country slowly and embed themselves deeply in the democratic apparatus they corrupt. Modern autocracy, one may say, is a tyranny of gaslighting.

We gathered a group of scholars who have looked at successful and failed autocracies worldwide in a special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, to identify common denominators of autocratic rulers worldwide. This research shows that modern autocrats uniformly apply key building blocks to cement their illiberal agenda and undermine democracies before taking them over. Those include manipulating the legal system, rewriting electoral laws and constitutions, and dividing the population into “us” versus “them” blocs. Autocrats routinely present themselves as the only presumed savior of the country while silencing, criminalizing and disparaging critics or any oppositional voice. They distort information and fabricate “facts” through the media, claim fraud if they lose an election, persuade the population that they can “cleanse” the country of crime and, finally, empower a repressive nationalistic diaspora and fund satellite political movements and hate groups that amplify the autocrats’ illiberal agenda to distort democracy.

In February, Bukele, the popular Salvadoran autocrat and self-described “world’s coolest dictator,” spoke at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual convention for U.S. right-wing elected officials and activists. There he received a standing ovation after he flaunted his crackdown on crime in his country and suggested the U.S. should follow his tactics. His speech demonstrates how, regardless of political history and ideology, or their nation’s wealth and place on the global stage, autocrats today deploy a similar “toolbox of tricks” aimed at legalizing their rule. That’s because they copy from one another and learn from one another’s successes and failures. Vast interconnected networks enable autocrats to cooperate, share strategies and know-how, and visit one another in public shows of friendship and solidarity to create an international united front. Just ask Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister and autocrat, who received a warm reception when he spoke at the CPAC in 2022, reminding the crowd of the reason for his visit: “I’m here to tell you that we should unite our forces.”

Global networks of autocratic regimes also provide economic resources to other autocrats and invest in their economies, share security services to squash popular dissent, and sometimes interfere in each other’s elections.

Modern autocrats do not act alone; their connections with one another are complemented and sustained by a varied cadre of legal specialists, political strategists and academics who tend to be economically secure, well-educated and cosmopolitan. These individuals, like Michael Anton and those tied to the Trump-defending Claremont Institute, the over 400 scholars and policy experts who collaborated on Project 2025— the extreme-right game plan for a Trump presidency—and Stephen K. Bannon, who called for the “deconstruction of the administrative state” by filling government jobs with partisans and loyalists, move in and out of government positions and the limelight. They are nimble and, moreover, fundamental to the autocrats’ strategies, as they create videos and podcasts and write books to fabricate good images of the autocrats, write detailed blueprints for an autocratic form of government, and consult aspiring autocrats on best practices.

Evidence indicates that we are in a critical moment in U.S. democracy. Will the U.S. inevitably descend into autocracy? No, not with an alert and well-informed electorate. Recognizing the strategies that autocrats use and share, veiled behind a façade of democratic elections and wrapped in fearmongering, equips us to understand the harmful consequences of these strategies for democracy, and perhaps to stop the wave in time.

Juan Sebastián Chamorro, a Nicaraguan opposition politician and prospective presidential candidate, was accused of treason, arrested and banished simply for running as an opposition candidate by the regime of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo (who is also first lady). In exile, Chamorro has described a danger countries face: autocrats who come to power through democratic systems are “like a silent disease—the early symptoms of this silent disease are usually dismissed, but once it begins to consume the body, it is usually too late to stop it.”

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Civil Rights, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Read, Higher Education, International, Lies

UPenn Imposes Major Sanctions on Law Professor Amy Wax

By dianeravitch
September 24, 2024 //
36

Eighteen months ago, I described the case of law professor Amy Wax at the University of Pennsylvania. She had made statements that were deemed bigoted. I defended her speech, even though it was vile. That post began:

The New York Times published an article about a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Amy Wax, who has frequently made statements that are racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, the whole range of prejudices, not what you expect of someone who supposedly teaches students that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

The question I posed to readers was whether they thought that her statements were protected speech or should be sanctioned. A lively discussion ensued.

The University of Pennsylvania just announced sanctions against Professor Wax but did not fire her or strip her of tenure. The student newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, reported the decision:

Penn has upheld sanctions against University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Amy Wax following her history of discriminatory remarks and two years of disciplinary proceedings with little precedent.

“These findings are now final, following a determination by the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility that the proper process was followed,” a University spokesperson wrote in a statement to The Daily Pennsylvanian.

The new ruling, first reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer, comes after the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility upheld sanctions that were initially recommended by a Faculty Senate hearing board on June 21, 2023 and strikes down an appeal filed by Wax and her lawyer, David Shapiro, this past February.

The sanctions mark the first time in recent history that a tenured University professor has been sanctioned through Faculty Senate procedures. Neither Wax nor her lawyer responded to requests for comment in time for the publishing of this article. 

The DP previously reported that the recommended sanctions against Wax included a one-year suspension at half pay, the removal of her named chair and summer pay, and a requirement for Wax to note in public appearances that she is not speaking on behalf or as a member of Penn Carey Law. 

Penn will announce the decision in Tuesday’s edition of the Penn Almanac. The decision will include a letter of reprimand from Provost John Jackson Jr.

“Academic freedom is and should be very broad. Teachers, however, must conduct themselves in a manner that conveys a willingness to assess all students fairly,” Jackson wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by the DP. “They may not engage in unprofessional conduct that creates an unequal educational environment.”

Interim Penn President Larry Jameson added that Wax must refrain from “flagrantly unprofessional and targeted disparagement of any individual or group in the University community … for so long as [she is] a member of the University’s standing faculty.”

In a June 2023 letter to former Penn President Liz Magill, the hearing board noted that they “do not dispute the protection” that Wax holds over her views, but said that the way she presents these views violate widely acknowledged “behavioral professional norms” when presented as “uncontroverted.”

The hearing board “unanimously” found that the facts presented throughout the hearing “constitute serious violations of University norms and policies,” according to the letter. The hearing board also concluded that Wax’s behavior “has created a hostile campus environment and a hostile learning atmosphere.” 

When determining sanctions, the hearing board decided that the University should issue a public reprimand, but it did not suggest that Wax should be fired or stripped of tenure. Separate from the sanctions, the hearing board suggested that the University and Penn Carey Law should consider having Wax co-teach her classes with another faculty member, and that Wax teach her classes outside of Penn Carey Law buildings.  

The board wrote that it found Wax “in dereliction of her scholarly responsibilities, especially as a teacher” in part due to her “reliance on misleading and partial information,” which results in her drawing “sweeping and unreliable conclusions.” 

But the sanctions, which reportedly take effect for the 2025-26 school year, won’t have an impact on her teaching plans this semester — which, according to a course syllabus obtained by the DP, include an invite of American Renaissance magazine editor Jared Taylor to deliver a guest lecture at Dec. 3 meeting of LAW 9560: “Conservative and Political Legal Thought.” The invitation would mark at least the third appearance by Taylor at Wax’s class in four years, after his visit last fall sparked a protest outside Wax’s classroom and a rare schoolwide emailfrom Penn Carey Law Dean Sophia Lee addressing the “bounds of academic freedom.”

Weeks before Taylor comes to campus, Wax is scheduled to speak at a conference in Tennessee alongside multiple people who have reportedly espoused white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and racist views.

Tuesday’s Almanac will also include an Aug. 11, 2023 letter from Magill in which she accepted the sanctions initially recommended by the hearing board.

Jameson provided an introduction for Magill’s letter, summarizing the disciplinary process against Wax and confirming he was implementing Magill’s decision.

Magill wrote in her letter that the board considered arguments such as the “critical point” regarding academic freedom and used a “well-developed” factual record to make its decision. 

While she said she was “mindful of the limit of my authority as established by our policy,” Magill accepted the major sanctions suggested from the board’s report. 

The letter from Magill prompted Wax to file a Aug. 29, 2023 appeal to SCAFR, in which Wax’s lawyer argued that there were “several procedural defects” which gave the respondent the right to appeal.

Shapiro wrote that that the most significant “defect” was that the hearing board made the decision “about the breadth and extent of a tenured professor’s contractually guaranteed right to academic freedom,” rather than SCAFR.

The appeal also alleged that Magill and the hearing board applied an unfair speech standard. Shapiro wrote that Wax was punished under an “incoherent standard, never before articulated, or applied to any Penn faculty member.”

The standard used to punish Wax has drawn scrutiny from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a national civil liberties group which said on Monday that Penn had mustered “zero evidence” that Wax discriminated against her students.

“Faculty nationwide may now pay a heavy price for Penn’s willingness to undercut academic freedom for all to get at this one professor,” FIRE Vice President Alex Morey wrote in a statement. “After today, any university under pressure to censor a controversial faculty member need only follow Penn’s playbook.”

Wax’s history of discriminatory statements has included her claiming that Black students never graduate at the top of the Penn Carey Law class and that “non-Western groups” are resentful towards “Western people.” Wax has also faced criticism for hosting white nationalist Jared Taylor for a guest lecture and allegedly telling a Penn Carey Law student that she was only accepted into the Ivy League “because of affirmative action.”

In June 2022, former Penn Carey Law Dean Ted Ruger filed a complaint to the Faculty Senate recommending a “major sanction” against Wax. At the time, he cited numerous student and faculty accounts of Wax’s conduct that he believed warranted disciplinary action. Ruger asked the Faculty Senate to appoint a hearing board of five professors from across the University to evaluate his complaint, conduct a full review of Wax’s conduct, and impose sanctions in line with the University’s policy for punishing tenured faculty members. 

“Academic freedom for a tenured scholar is, and always has been, premised on a faculty member remaining fit to perform the minimal requirements of the job,” Ruger wrote in his report to the Faculty Senate. “However, Wax’s conduct demonstrates a ‘flagrant disregard of the standards, rules, or mission of the University.’”

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, Higher Education, Pennsylvania

Florida: University President Sasse Spent Lavishly on Parties

By dianeravitch
September 16, 2024 //
25

Former Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse served briefly as president of the University of Florida–17 months. During that time, he spent lavishly on staff and entertaining. He hired members of his former DC staff at six-figure salaries and allowed them to work remotely. He resigned in July to “spend more time with his family,” but will be paid his salary of $1 million a year until February 2028.

The student newspaper reported another instance of Sasse’s extravagant spending; the story was republished in the Orlando Sentinel. It was written by Garrett Shanley and appeared in Fresh Take Florida, a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications.

GAINESVILLE — The University of Florida’s then-president, Ben Sasse, dished out over $1.3 million on private catering for lavish dinners, football tailgates and extravagant social functions — a figure roughly double the amount spent by his predecessor and one that included a holiday party featuring a $38,610 sushi bar.

At the Dec. 7 holiday party, Sasse hosted about 200 guests who dined on fresh sushi hand-rolled by two dedicated chefs alongside traditional dishes of beef, chicken and sweet desserts. The event, detailed in a newly released list of more than 500 itemized catering expenses obtained under Florida’s public records law, cost $176,816, or roughly $900 per person.

The guest list that night included UF’s top brass and officials with the university’s fundraising foundation, who solicit big checks for education programs from wealthy donors. With a student choir caroling in the background, Sasse personally welcomed guests as they arrived at the old president’s mansion on campus, and later toasted them from two open bars serving unlimited alcohol. The bill for the liquor alone was listed as $7,061.

Sasse’s yuletide soirée was the largest single expenditure — nearly 15% of his total catering spending — until he abruptly resigned in July after 17 months in office. The new details about his outsized catering costs add to disclosures about his office’s multi-million dollar spending on lucrative consulting contracts and high-paid, remote jobs he awarded to Republican former staffers and allies that have generated bipartisan scrutiny and promises of government audits.

Open the link to finish reading.

This story was produced by Fresh Take Florida, a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications. The reporter can be reached at garrettshanley@ufl.edu. You can donate to support our students here.

Categories Florida, Higher Education

Florida: Who Is the Worst College President in the State? Sasse or Corcoran?

By dianeravitch
September 16, 2024 //
3

Nate Monroe of the Jacksonville, Florida, Times Union poses a challenging question: who is the worst college president in the state? Ben Sasse or Richard Corcoran? Sasse, the former Senator from Nebraska, was hand-picked by Governor DeSantis to be President of the state university system, the University of Florida. He hired several of his former staff in D.C. and paid them lavish salaries to stay in D.C. and work remotely. He retired after one year, with a $1 million annual salary until 2028. Corcoran, former Speaker of the House in Florida, former state education commissioner, rightwing ideologue, was selected by DeSantis to lead the conversion of tiny (700 students) New College from a bastion of progressivism to become a libertarian/Christian Hillsdale of the South.

He writes:

Richard Corcoran wasn’t about to let that runza monger hog the spotlight. No sir, if there’s going to be a disgraced university president in the news, by god it’s going to be Richard Michael Corcoran of New College of Florida, the once-respected liberal arts school turned raggedy right-wing academy for Clarence Thomas scholars.

Ben Sasse, the University of Florida’s former president, was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, making him Florida’s main character for the first half of the week. Not to be outdone, Corcoran’s latest sin is having his underlings toss a truckload of books into the garbage, according to a report Thursday from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune’s Steven Walker, combining the oafish meanness of Matilda’s parents with the imagery of dystopian fiction. In a response befitting this disinformation age, Corcoran’s flaks called the account “false” — a bold statement in light of the video and photo evidence available — before then, with no hint of irony, confirming the account: “The images seen online of a dumpster of library materials is related to the standard weeding process.”

Some hapless Corcoran toady pointed to a state law to explain why the books couldn’t be donated or made available to students, as they had in the past, but that law merely confirms the clear fact that New College could have done exactly that. This was no accident: The books bound for the landfill included titles from the college’s former Gender and Diversity Center — a collection of words that, in the Free State of Florida, generally invite state censorship. Heaven forbid college kids read “Nine and Counting: The Women of the Senate,” a book a curious New College student would have to dumpster dive to find now.

Corcoran is that most fitting a Floridian for the DeSantis era: a committed, strident ideologue, except in his own affairs. During his tenure in the state House, for example, he was known as a rude and miserly fiscal hawk, possessed with the belief college administrators were overpaid and spending lavishly. He seemed to believe that until he began trawling for a sinecure from his political superior, Gov. Ron DeSantis, in the world of public education. That first took the form of an appointment as Florida’s Education Commissioner, a mostly undistinguished term save for a bid-rigging scandal centered on the management of a small Florida school district.

As commissioner, he got the public attention he so often seems to crave, but his true apparent goal was becoming one of those overpaid college administrators himself. He gunned for a chance to run Florida State University — a crusade during which he flew a bit close to the sun — but ultimately landed a job running New College of Florida. He was installed by a remade board of trustees, a group of fanatics selected by DeSantis with the intention of making an example out of the small liberal-arts school.

Corcoran, an opponent of public education (save for his ability to make a buck off it), quickly set about turning New College into the Hillsdale of the South, a conservative higher-education bulwark. Vital to this work was securing for himself a plum compensation package worth about $1.1 million, a staggering sum that is among the highest in Florida despite New College being the state’s smallest public college.

It’s been one controversy after the next with Corcoran, but that so often seems to be the point.

Corcoran and Sasse’s hirings at their respective schools seemed to usher in a sea change in how higher education is run in Florida: experienced administrators were out, politicians were in. DeSantis carefully chose the appointees who run Florida’s college system, centralizing power over this diversified set of schools and allowing him to exert his will on issues like tenure and diversity programs. Every high-level vacancy in a Florida college prompts a fevered and terrified concern: which low-life politician is DeSantis going to stick them with next?

But Sasse and Corcoran have generated so much heat — Sasse in particular has come under criticism this week from no less than U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz and Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis — it’s tempting to hope this experience has even soured DeSantis on this particular project. The problem with useful idiots is that they happen to be … well, you know.

Nate Monroe is a Florida columnist for the USA Today Network. Follow him on Twitter @NateMonroeTU. Email him at nmonroe@gannett.com.

Categories DeSantis, Disruption, Education Industry, Ethics, Florida, Higher Education

John Merrow: Education and the 2024 Election

By dianeravitch
September 9, 2024 //
9

John Merrow spent many years as PBS’s education reporter. Now retired, he continues to be a well-informed and well-respected observer of education issues.

Merrow writes:

If Kamala Harris wins the Presidency, public education isn’t likely to be shaken up as much as it needs to be. If Donald Trump is elected and has his way, public education will be turned upside down. But no matter who wins, American higher education is in big trouble….although, as you will see, every crisis is also an opportunity.

If Trump wins in November, the world of education faces rough seas.  His “Project 2025” pledges to abolish the federal Department of Education, without specifying what agencies would be responsible for what the Department now does, such as enforcing civil rights laws in education.  “Project 2025” pledges to abolish Head Start, the preschool program that now serves about 833,000 low income children, send Title One money directly to states (while phasing it out over a 10-year period), and turn over Pell Grant administration to the Treasury Department.   While many in education want the Pell Grant cap of $7,395 per year to be raised (given the cost of a college education), “Project 2025” does not address this.

President Biden has made forgiving student debt a goal, but most of his efforts have been stymied by the courts. “Project 2025” would end the practice completely.

Trump and his team promise to advance “education freedom” by vigorously promoting “school choice.”  In practice, this would provide parents with cash vouchers that can be spent at private and religious schools, as well as federal tax credits for money spent on private school tuition. In simplest terms, Trump and his team want as much of the money that now goes to public schools to go to parents instead, and they want it to be tax-deductible, as it now is in Arizona. 

“Project 2025” calls for restricting free breakfast and lunch to low income students. Doing that would probably bring back separate lines and separate entrances for those paying and those eating ‘for free.’  That practice led some poor kids to skip meals entirely, to avoid humiliation, which is why many school districts have opted to feed all kids. (There’s some evidence that feeding everyone is actually cheaper, because it eliminates the need for special passes, separate accounting, and so forth. Ask Tim Walz about it.)

A significant change that I experienced as a reporter was the treatment of children with handicapping conditions.  Prior to 1975, many of those children were institutionalized or kept at home. “The Education of All Handicapped Children Act” (PL 94-142) moved the revolution that had begun in Massachusetts and Minnesota to the national level. While it’s not perfect today, the federal government contributes more than $14 Billion to pay for services for those youngsters.  “Project 2025” would distribute the money to states directly with few if any strings attached and would ask Congress to rewrite the law so that some money could go directly to parents. That doesn’t seem to me to be a step in the right direction.

All of these provisos and directives seem likely to do major damage to public education, as well as to the life chances of low income students.

Charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run schools, seem unlikely to fare well no matter who wins. They aren’t private enough for most Republicans, and they are too private for most Democrats.

What lies in store for education if Harris wins in November?  The Biden-Harris Administration promised far more than it delivered, particularly in higher education, and its Secretary of Education has been largely missing in action, as far as I could tell. The party’s platform calls for free pre-school, free public college for families earning under $125,000 per year, making college tuition tax-deductible, smaller classes, and more ‘character education,’ whatever that is.

My own wish list would be for an energetic Secretary of Education who would encourage and lead conversations about the purposes of education, and the roles that schools play.  Too often today public schools are merely rubber-stamping the status children arrive with; but schools are supposed to be ladders of opportunity, there to be climbed by anyone and everyone with ambition.

The federal government cannot change how schools operate, but its leadership could and should shine a bright light on what schools could be….and how they could get there.

If I am allowed one wish, it’s that President Harris and Vice President Walz propose National Service, a 2-year commitment for all, in return for two years of tuition/training.  It’s long past time to put the ‘me-me-me’ self-absorption of the Ronald Reagan era in our rear view mirror. Our young people need to be reminded that they live in a great country and ought to show our appreciation by serving it in some capacity.

Whoever wins, Harris or Trump, American higher education’s rough years will continue, because a growing number of young people are questioning the value of, and necessity for, a college education.  This is a genuine crisis, and American higher education is in the fight of its life: Last year nearly 100 colleges shut down, roughly two per week.  While we still have more than 4,000 higher education institutions, many of those may not make it to 2030.  The rising cost of college defies common sense, the rise of Artificial Intelligence threatens some professions that now require a college degree, and many young people seem inclined to opt out of the high-speed, high stakes chase for a credential.  How many of the 31,000,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 will continue to enroll in college this year and next is an open question.  

Of course, colleges aren’t standing pat. For example,  Community Colleges are reaching down into high schools to keep their enrollment up; about one-fifth of all current Community College students are also enrolled in high school. Those institutions also enroll lots of older students–the average age of a Community College student is 28.

Four-year colleges and universities are fighting to enroll the 40,000,000 Americans who have some college credits but not enough for a degree.  They are also doing their best to attract on-line learners of all ages, and the most ambitious institutions are working hard to enroll (full paying) students from all over the world.  

If Trump wins, his immigration policies might shut the door on foreign students, a cash cow for a large number of institutions.  If Harris wins, federal aid probably won’t be slashed, but that won’t stop the questioning.

Questioning is long overdue. For too long elitists in the Democratic and Republican parties have looked down their noses at those not going to college, ignoring the wisdom of the great John Gardner:  “An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.”

Every crisis is also an opportunity:Some of those shuttered college campuses might be repurposed for housing for senior citizens, or veterans.  Some of those facilities could become Head Start centers, hubs for small businesses, community hospitals, and so forth. I’d like to see a Harris-Walz Administration embrace the possiblities, with energy and imagination.

So please pay attention. Vote intelligently, and urge your friends and neighbors to vote.

Categories Accountability, Biden, Democracy, Democrats, Deregulation, Education Reform, Elections, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Funding, Harris, Kamala, Higher Education, Republicans, Special Education, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. education

Cornell and Harvard Adopt Policy of Neutrality on Hot Issues

By dianeravitch
September 1, 2024 //
26

In anticipation of a renewal of student protests against the war in Gaza, Cornell recently announced that it has adopted an official policy of institutional neutrality, meaning that it won’t take sides. Harvard had adopted the same policy last spring.

I agree with this policy. Universities are places for learning, debate, study, and free expression of ideas. They lose their role as guardian of free thinking and open exchange of ideas when they take a stand on controversial issues. Conflicting groups of students and faculty want the University to “take a stand,” but that’s not the role of a university. That’s their responsibility.

Laurell Duggan of Unherd wrote:

Cornell University announced on Monday that its president and provost will refrain from making statements on issues that do not directly impact the school. This makes it the second Ivy League university to adopt such a policy in pursuit of institutional neutrality, after Harvard.

The school pledged that its response to expected protests in the coming months will be content-neutral, and said it will need to balance free speech rights with the legal obligation to protect students from harassment and discrimination. “Thus it is our responsibility and our obligation to enforce our policies ensuring that speech or actions by some members of our community does not violate the rights of others,” the announcement read.

This spring, Cornell was subject to widespread media coverage of its campus protests over the war in Gaza, with one piece in Tablet describing a campus culture which was hostile to “normal” students — including the one-third of the student body who belong to Greek life — and permissive of rule-breaking protests and encampments. The university also received pushback from pro-Israel donors and alumni, who expressed concerns about campus antisemitism. Going forward, Cornell will ensure that protests, particularly encampments, do not block other students from accessing campus spaces.

Institutional neutrality, most famously articulated in the 1968 Chicago Statement, is a policy under which universities remain neutral on hot-button issues in order to protect academic freedom for staff and students. In past years, most notably during the racial reckoning of 2020, American universities took stances through official statements in violation of this principle. After years of taking public stands, universities were slow to publish statements in the wake of the 7 October attacks and the ensuing war in Gaza, angering those on both sides of the debate and leading to a donor revolt by pro-Israel alumni as well as months-long anti-Israel campus protests that derailed the academic year at many Ivy League universities.

The debacle of the past year has prompted a change of heart among university leaders. Earlier this month, Johns Hopkins University announced that its president, provost and deans would no longer make public statements on current events unless they were directly related to the functioning of the university, instead adopting a “policy of restraint”. There has been a growth in demands for the university to make official statements in recent years according to the announcement, which explained that such statements “can be at odds with the university’s function as a place for open discourse and the free exchange of ideas”.

“The very idea of an ‘official’ position of the university on a social, scientific, or political issue runs counter to our foundational ethos […] to be a place where competing views are welcomed, challenged, and tested through dialogue and rigorous marshalling,” university leaders wrote.

As with other universities’ policies, this update at Johns Hopkins is not intended to prevent staff from engaging in politics. “In fact,” the announcement read, “one intent of the commitment is to extend the broadest possible scope to the views and expressions of faculty, bolstering faculty in the exercise of their freedom to share insights and perspectives without being concerned about running counter to an ‘institutional’ stance.”

Harvard implemented a similar policy in the spring, indicating that university staff wanted to move away from official statements and instead adopt institutional neutrality.

“We value free and open inquiry and expression – tenets that underlie academic freedom – even of ideas some may consider wrong or offensive,” Cornell’s core values state. “Inherent in this commitment is the corollary freedom to engage in reasoned opposition to messages to which one objects.”

Categories Accountability, Ethics, Higher Education

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Latest Biden Plan to Forgive Student Debt

By dianeravitch
August 29, 2024 //
31

Most people are aware that the cost of higher education has dramatically escalated in recent years, for a variety of reasons. Some students do not enroll in college because they can’t afford it. Others graduate with crushing debt, based on student loans. It’s hard to believe that some European nations have made college either free or affordable.

President Biden has tried repeatedly to find ways to help students pay off their college debt. His most ambitious plan was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2023.

Biden devised a new plan, and yesterday the Supreme Court temporarily blocked that one today.

Adam Lipton and Abby VanSickle of The New York Times told the story:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked a new effort by President Biden to wipe out tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars of student debt.

The plan was part of the president’s piecemeal approach to forgiving debt after the Supreme Court rejected a more ambitious proposal last year that would have canceled more than $400 billion in loans. Mr. Biden has instead pursued more limited measures directed at certain types of borrowers, including people on disability and public service workers, and refined existing programs.

The decision leaves in limbo millions of borrowers enrolled in a new plan, called Saving on a Valuable Education, which ties monthly payments to household size and earnings.

The emergency application was one of two related to the program that the justices decided on Wednesday. The brief order did not give reasons, which is typical, and no public dissents were noted.

Republican-led states had filed a number of challenges to the plan, including a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, which earlier this summer issued a broad hold on the loan plan while it considers the merits of the case.

That case could soon make its way back to the justices, who indicated that they expected the lower court to act swiftly on the matter.

The Biden administration had argued the new program was authorized by a 1993 law that allowed the secretary of education to fashion “income contingent repayment” plans. The law authorizes the secretary to determine repayment schedules based on “the appropriate portion of the annual income of the borrower.”

Over the years, the secretary has invoked that law several times to relax repayment requirements. The latest plan, the subject of the Supreme Court’s order, was the most generous one.

It reduced the required payments for undergraduate loans to 5 percent from 10 percent of the borrower’s discretionary income, and it redefined discretionary income to be above 225 percent of the poverty line. People making less than that pay nothing. Loans of $12,000 or less are canceled after 10 years — down from 20 or 25 years — so long as the borrower made payments if required to do so.

The SAVE program, issued in June 2023, was challenged nine months later by the attorneys general of 11 Republican-led states, who said it was flawed in ways similar to the one the justices rejected last year. The 1993 law, they said, contemplates repayment rather than actual or effective forgiveness.

In the administration’s Supreme Court brief in response to one of the challenges, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote that the new plan “relies on a different statute with different language to provide a different set of borrowers with different assistance from the one-time loan forgiveness the court held invalid.”

The old plan invoked the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, often called the HEROES Act. That law, initially enacted after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, gave the secretary of education the power to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” to protect borrowers affected by “a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

In its decision last year, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6-to-3 vote that the 2003 law did not authorize forgiving the loans at issue there. That same day, President Biden vowed to find other ways to provide debt relief.

“Today’s decision has closed one path,” Mr. Biden said. “Now we’re going to pursue another.”

The new program was based on a federal law that contemplated reduced payments based on income.

In the Eighth Circuit lawsuit, filed in Missouri, the appeals court temporarily blocked the entire SAVE plan. The Biden administration had asked the justices earlier this month to clear the way for the plan to take effect.

The administration initially estimated that the SAVE plan would cost $156 billion over 10 years, but that amount assumed that the Supreme Court would uphold the earlier plan. The real cost of the new plan, the states challenging it said, is $475 billion over 10 years. The administration says the real number is smaller, particularly as parts of the SAVE plan have not been blocked.

Categories Biden, Education Industry, Funding, Higher Education, Student Financial Aid and Student Debt

Dean Baker: The Little-Known Biden-Harris Success Story

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2024 //
6

Dean Baker published a terrific article in The New Republic, called “The Biggest Success Story the Country Doesn’t Know About.” Baker is a  macroeconomist who co-founded the Center for Economic and Policy Research(CEPR) with Mark Weisbrot.

He wrote:

Over the last few weeks, an extraordinary series of events has altered the course of an election that previously seemed to have few surprises in store. Eight days after Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt, President Joe Biden announced his historic decision to withdraw from the presidential race and cast his support for Vice President Kamala Harris to run in his stead. It will be some time before we know all the political ramifications of these events, but whatever they may be, they will not change the past.

What can the past tell us about what’s to come? Perhaps the most critical element of a candidate’s platform is their approach to the economy. In assessing Harris as a presidential candidate, people will want to look at the economic track record of the Biden-Harris administration. As always, the president takes the lead role in setting the economic course for the administration, but throughout Biden’s term in office, Harris was standing alongside him. The Republicans will surely blame her for everything that went wrong and many things that didn’t. On the other hand, Harris can take credit for what went right, and there is much here to boast about. Indeed, she can (and should) run on the outstanding—and criminally underappreciated—economic record of the Biden administration.

Under Biden, the United States made a remarkable recovery from the pandemic recession. We have seenthe longest run of below 4.0 percent unemployment in more than 70 years, even surpassing the long stretch during the 1960s boom. This period of low unemployment has led to rapid real wage growth at the lower end of the wage distribution, reversing much of the rise in wage inequality we have seen in the last four decades. It has been especially beneficial to the most disadvantaged groups in the labor market.

The burst of inflation that accompanied this growth was mostly an outcome of the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine. All other wealthy countries saw comparable rises in inflation. As of summer 2024, the rate of inflation in the United States has fallen back almost to the Fed’s 2.0 percent target. Meanwhile, our growth has far surpassed that of our peers.

Furthermore, the Biden administration really does deserve credit for this extraordinary boom. Much of what happens under a president’s watch is beyond their control. However, the economic turnaround following the pandemic can be directly traced to Biden’s recovery package, along with his infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, all of which have sustained growtheven as the impact of the initial recovery package faded. While the CARES Act, pushed through when Trump was in office, provided essential support during the shutdown period, it was not sufficient to push through the recovery.

Finally, the negative assessment that voters routinely give the Biden administration on the economy seems more based on what they hear from the media or elsewhere. They generally rate their own financial situation positively and say that the economy in their city or state is doing well. It is only the national economy, of which they have no direct knowledge, that they rate poorly.

Let the Good Times Roll!

Before going through what is positive about the Biden economy, I’ll just state the obvious. Tens of millions of people are struggling to get by, or not getting by at all. This is a horrible situation, which we should be trying to change every way we can. However, this has always been the case. We have a badly underdeveloped system of social supports, so that people cannot count on getting the food, health care, and shelter they need.

It’s also the case that the spurt of inflation in 2021 and 2022 was a shock after a long period of low inflation. People found themselves paying considerably more for food, gas, shelter, and other essentials, and in many cases their pay did not keep up, especially at the time these prices were soaring.

But the Biden administration has taken important steps to directly improve the situation for low- and moderate-income people, notably by making the subsidies in the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, more generous and expanding the Child Tax Credit, or CTC. He increased the benefitsin the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by 21 percent. Unfortunately, the expansion of the CTC, which was included in the initial recovery package, was only temporary. It expired at the end of 2021, and Biden has been unable to get the support needed in Congress to extend it.

While we should always recognize the enormous work left to be done, we need as well to acknowledge when we are making progress, and we have made an enormous amount of progress in improving living standards during Biden’s presidency. Also, the suffering of tens of millions of people at the lower end of the income distribution can’t possibly be the explanation for negative views of the economy. People at the bottom were suffering at least as much in 2019, when most people gave the economy high marks.

Categories Biden, Democracy, Economy, Elections, Environment, Higher Education

Orlando Sentinel: President of University of Florida Cashed In on Staff and Consultants

By dianeravitch
August 17, 2024 //
8

Shortly after Senator Ben Sasse left the U.S. Senate, he accepted the presidency of the University of Florida. Silas Morgan of the Orlando Sentinel relied on reporting by the student newspaper, the Independent Florida Alligator, to describe how former Senator Sasse upped the budget for his office by millions of dollars.

The University of Florida’s student newspaper reported Monday that former university president Ben Sasse spent millions of the school’s money to hire GOP political allies.


Sasse, a former Republican U.S. Senator from Nebraska, gave several one-time Senate staff members and other GOP officials lucrative remote positions at UF, according to records obtained by the Independent Florida Alligator.


Among the Senate staffers who joined him at UF are his former chief of staff, Raymond Sass; his former communications director, James Wegmann; his former press secretary, Taylor Silva; and three other former staffers. Both Sass and Wegmann worked remotely from the Washington D.C. area.


Sass’ salary, at $396,000, was more than double his Senate salary. Wegmann’s new position at UF earned him $432,000, while his predecessor in the position had made $270,000.

The hirings contributed to a $4.3 million increase in presidential salary expenses, part of a tripling of his office’s spending compared to what his predecessor, Kent Fuchs, spent during his last year in office, the Alligator reported. Sasse’s office employed more than 30 staff members, while Fuchs had fewer than 10.


Sasse also hired former Tennessee Education Commissioner Penny Schwinn, who worked remotely from Nashville, in a newly-created position that paid a starting salary of $367,500 and U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham’s former scheduler, Alice James Burns, who also worked remotely and was paid $205,000.


A report obtained by the Alligator says Sasse spent over $20,000 flying his employees to UF between April 29 and July 29. The only hire who lives in Florida received a $15,000 stipend to relocate to Gainesville.


UF hasn’t responded to requests from the Alligator for a complete log of Sasse’s travel expenses. His travel expenses rose to $633,000 over his first full fiscal year, more than Fuchs spent on travel in eight years.

He also spent $7.2 million on consulting contracts, nearly two-thirds of which went to consulting giant McKinsey and Company, where he used to work as an advisor on an hourly contract. This amounts to more than 40 times what Fuchs spent on consulting in eight years.

Sasse abruptly resigned at the end of July, citing his wife’s failing health. The Alligator says the university did not respond to questions about what would happen to the hires now that Sasse is gone. Fuchs has returned as interim president until the UF Board of Trustees can hire a permanent replacement for Sasse.


Sasse’s hiring by the Board in 2022 resulted in the UF Faculty Senate passing a no confidence resolution in Sasse’s presidential search process due to transparency issues. Legislation passed by Florida’s GOP-controlled legislature earlier in 2022 made records relating to public university presidential searches exempt from Florida’s open public meetings and public records requirements.

His appointment by the board of trustees also generated controversy among parts of the student body, especially the LGBTQ+ community, for political positions Sasse had taken while in the Senate.

Categories Accountability, DeSantis, Education Reform, Florida, For-Profit, Funding, Higher Education
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »