Applications are expected to open in 2027 for the Khan TED Institute, a joint project of Khan Academy, TED — the purveyors of the popular TED Talks — and the Educational Testing Service.

“I think there’s always been, frankly, some need for a program like this,” said Khan Academy founder Sal Khan. Many people, he said, can’t afford a college degree or can’t take the time out of their work lives to attend four years of classes. “It could be that they have pursued a degree, but it’s not giving the signal that would give them the opportunities that they would want.”

Another founder, Amit Sevak, who leads ETS, acknowledged that they are still working out many of the details, but that the new institution could someday enroll “tens of thousands” of students, rivaling flagship state universities. Sevak said he’s “100%” anticipating that its instructors will be humans, most likely a large network of adjuncts.

“We still believe in the value of a human teacher,” he said. “We think that there’s so much socialization and collaboration that takes place [in the classroom]. There’s also the classic need for classroom management and some pedagogical oversight over the assessments.”

Here are five things you need to know about the new enterprise:

1. It’ll offer a bachelor’s degree in applied AI in various fields such as business, marketing, human resources, healthcare and more. 

The college will offer a full undergraduate bachelor’s degree organized around three pillars: core academic knowledge — math, statistics, economics, computer science, science, history and writing — applied AI skills and “durable” human skills such as communication, leadership, collaboration, peer tutoring and public speaking. 

Early employer partners include Microsoft, Google and , an AI app development site.

2. It’s expected to be competency-based, cost less than $10,000 and take as little as half the time of a traditional bachelor’s degree.

The college’s founding partners say its total cost will likely be under $10,000, a fraction of the of a four-year degree.

Rather than requiring four years of seat time, Sevak said, the institute is built around a competency-based model, offering students the opportunity to advance when they demonstrate mastery. That means students could potentially complete the degree in two to three years, he said, depending on how quickly they demonstrate required competencies.

That opens it up to many different kinds of students, he said, including motivated high schoolers who want to earn undergraduate credits quickly before graduation, working adults seeking advancement in their jobs and students already enrolled in traditional colleges who want to stack an AI credential on top of their existing undergraduate credits.

Khan said the new college “is something I’ve thought about doing in some way, shape or form, for many years, and the changes within the job market, because of AI, only accelerated that.”

He said the idea came out of conversations with TED chairman about a year and a half ago. “We started saying, ‘It feels like there’s something powerful between Khan Academy and TED. We’re both learning organizations. Khan Academy is known for academic learning from K-through-14. TED is known as [embodying] lifelong learning. And it’s about human connection. And it feels like we both have fairly unique brands in the not-for-profit space and the education space.’”

Khan later spoke at an ETS trustees dinner and got to know Sevak.

“They’ve been looking at the same things,” he said, “and they’ve also come up with a framework on durable skills and thinking about ways to assess them. And we realized, ‘Look, the world needs this. And if the three of us come together, this will be very credible and hopefully has a high chance of helping a lot of people.’”

3. It’s an “AI-first” institution, weaving artificial intelligence into how courses are designed, taught and assessed.

Sivak said courses will be shaped by AI and teaching will be supported by AI agents, software systems that can tutor students, answer questions and provide feedback. And students will be prepared for work in “AI-native” environments.

Instruction will likely be 100% online at the college’s launch, with an emphasis on asynchronous coursework to accommodate students in different time zones and life circumstances. Over time, Sevak said, they’ll likely explore a hybrid format.

4. Khan Academy will provide the college’s learning platform and pedagogical infrastructure, despite its founder’s tempered enthusiasm about AI and learning.

TED, the conference organization best known for its short, , will incorporate its content into the curriculum, giving students access to live talks, Q&A sessions and community-based learning with TED speakers.

And ETS, the testing and measurement organization that produces the GRE and TOEFL tests, will contribute its assessment expertise, said Sevak.

Khan Academy, the popular free tutoring website, which has about and operates its own , will offer its technology to deliver the college’s coursework, organizers said. Khan, who founded it in 2008, will hold the title of “TED Vision Steward” in the new partnership.

The announcement comes just a few days after Khan told Chalkbeat that the learning revolution he predicted in 2023, upon Khanmigo’s release, .

In September 2022, Khan and Kristen DiCerbo, the organization’s chief learning officer, were among the first people outside of Open AI to get access to GPT-4, the large language model that at the time powered ChatGPT. Their experiments gave rise to a revolution in Khan’s thinking: In 2023, he delivered a TED Talk in which he predicted “the biggest positive transformation that education has ever seen,” saying we’d soon be able to give “every student on the planet an artificially intelligent but amazing personal tutor.”

In 2024, Khan’s book, , bore the subtitle “How AI Will Revolutionize Education.” 

But more than three years after Khanmigo’s launch, Khan admitted, “For a lot of students, it was a non-event. They just didn’t use it much.”

A few students, he said, have used the AI chatbot readily, while others haven’t. AI tutoring, he concluded, doesn’t necessarily motivate students to learn or fill in knowledge gaps they need to learn more. He’s still optimistic about AI in education, but also sees its limits. ”I just view it as part of the solution,” he said. “I don’t view it as the end-all and be-all.”

On Monday, Khan told The 74 that AI is “just going to be part of our arsenal to help make more engaging tools. Maybe we’ll be able to give more rich assessment practice. Instead of having multiple-choice questions, you can start to have ‘explain your thinking’ [questions]. So it starts to open up the aperture.”

5. It’s very much a work in progress.

Speaking four days before the launch, Sevak admitted that nearly everything about the venture “is still evolving,” and that the team is “workshopping the pedagogical design” of the new college.

Sevak said the institute is in talks with regional and national organizations that can offer “the highest form of accreditation,” a step that would set it apart from a growing number of online certificates, micro-credentials and boot camps. 

“We’re really in the early days, and it’s just going to take some time for us to adapt,” he said. 

The college’s curriculum isn’t yet finalized and applications are 12 to 18 months away. Likewise, the specific structure of its hybrid and asynchronous models, its faculty roster and the full range of majors are all still in development.

“Our intention is, over time, to have a whole range of specializations,” said Sevak. But the program’s core is designed to prepare students “to be really AI-centric” for a new reality. “We’re seeing [AI] as ripping through the economy,” creating a lot of uncertainty for young people. 

More to the point, said Khan, “Work is changing very fast. AI is changing everything.”

The 2026 NCAA women’s tournament, combining a mix of expected winners and up-and-coming programs, has provided an exciting month of basketball for millions of fans across the nation. In the last few years, thanks to the athleticism and on and off the court charisma of powerhouse stars in both pro and college teams, women’s basketball is now front and center and more thrilling than ever. 

Witness, for instance, the Vanderbilt Commodores’ Mikayla Blakes, the nation’s leading scorer, perform a near triple-double with 25 points against Illinois. Or the outstanding performance of UCLA’s Lauren Betts and Gabriela Jaquez as the Bruins stomped the Gamecocks of South Carolina to win the school’s first NCAA national title. The list that highlighted the Madness this March could go on, but the point is clear: Women’s basketball is a treat to watch.

But how well do these competitive schools, whose ability on the court has been rewarded with bids to the Big Dance, do when it comes to helping their students reach financial security? 

To find out, I have applied a methodology detailed in my recent analysis of the men’s tournament. 

The formula used ranks each college on an Economic Mobility Index (EMI), based on how many years graduates need to pay down the total net cost of their degree; how much more than a high school graduate the college’s bachelor’s degree recipients earn after 10 years; and how broadly the school’s effort applies to its low- and moderate-income students, using the percentage of students eligible for Pell grants as a proxy for low family income. 

Consequently, the EMI ranks 1,320 bachelor’s degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its most disadvantaged students. 

One way to grasp the value of the EMI is by comparing the two colleges that made it to the NCAA Tournament’s championship game. Although both schools are mighty on the court, there are wide differences in the statistics they provide for the tournament and for the index. To get to the championship game, the No. 1 seeded Bruins of University of California-Los Angeles had to overcome 23 turnovers and survive a late surge from the Texas Longhorns to manage a 51-44 win against the only team that beat them this season. Meanwhile, the South Carolina Gamecocks made it by breezing past the Horned Frogs of Texas Christian University. 

More significantly, in the Social Mobility Tournament, the University of South Carolina got only as far as the second round because the school’s total price tag is $43,300, but the earning premium for its graduates — compared with someone with only a high school diploma — averages just $28,600. Therefore, it takes 1.5 years on average to pay down the cost of its degrees. Compare this to UCLA, where a degree costs $34,500 and the earning premium is a whopping $45,000, making it possible to pay back the amount spent on a degree in less than one year. 

What’s more, South Carolina’s student body is made up of only 19.9% Pell-eligible students, compared with 31.9% for UCLA. The result: South Carolina ranks 501 in our index with a 17.6 EMI score, whereas UCLA, which went on to play in the championship game in both our bracket and the NCAA tournament, is ranked 115 with an EMI score of 30.4. 

Given the challenges colleges face today, as more and more people question whether they are worth the cost, the EMI calculations provide an important service. Not only do they help to identify which colleges are associated with the highest return on the educational investment made, but also which ones are doing so for the greatest numbers of underresourced students.

From a wider perspective, the 2026 NCAA teams in the Sweet Sixteen were a formidable lot. The No. 1 seeded University of Connecticut Huskies crushed the Syracuse Orange. The No. 1 seeded Gamecocks of South Carolina did the same to the embattled Trojans of USC. Meanwhile, the Louisiana State University Tigers, on their way to a fourth consecutive Sweet Sixteen appearance, battered the unfortunate Lady Raiders of Texas Tech by a punishing 101-47 score. 

Still, not every game leading to the Sweet Sixteen was lopsided. In one of the most thrilling games of the tournament, the Gophers of Minnesota sneaked by the Ole Miss Rebels by a mere 2 points, and it took two overtime periods for the University of Virginia Cavaliers to best the Hawkeyes of Iowa. 

But no matter which team you rooted for, this is exhilarating basketball right through to the Final Four matches between four No. 1 seeds. Still, as I have noted in the past, what should be no less thrilling is observing how well some of the tournament’s schools succeed in putting their students on the path to economic security.

After all, with college costs a major concern for most parents and students, an examination of the total net price to earn a degree at the participating schools is worth undertaking. For example, on average, an undergraduate degree at the Sweet Sixteen colleges in our Social Mobility Tournament costs approximately $40,900 but provides an earning premium beyond a high school graduate of about $32,200. It is data like these that make possible an earning premium that permits a graduate to pay down the cost of their degree in less than two years. This type of information is important for anyone considering a college education.

Also important is knowing how wide the door is open at any institution. For instance, when it comes to access, the colleges in our Sweet Sixteen differ greatly from their counterparts in the NCAA tournament. The Social Mobility Sweet Sixteen enroll nearly twice as many Pell-eligible students — 138,000 out of 461,600 — than those in the NCAA Sweet Sixteen, where only 74,200 out of 342,000 students qualify for Pell grants. 

While the winners in the NCAA tournament receive much praise, and their schools enjoy both bragging rights and potential increases in applications and donations, there is much reason to also celebrate this year’s Social Mobility Tournament champion, the University of California at San Diego. 

Not only did the Tritons win the Big West Tournament, but they also enjoy a 34.8 EMI score, putting them in 68th place out of 1,320 schools in the index. This means their approximately 11,100 lower-income graduates can pay back the cost of their education in less than one year and go on to earn on average more than $43,600 than a high school graduate in California.

I look forward to seeing powerhouse teams like the NCAA’s Final Four win games, but more than that, I am pleased that policymakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress and in state legislatures are now paying close attention to which schools are putting their students on the road to financial well-being. These are the schools most worthy of our praise and most deserving of the admiration that comes with success, whatever their fate on the court.

March Madness, that anxious, exciting and promising time for players and fans alike, is upon us. Like millions of others, I have been really enjoying these three weeks of competitive games full of surprises and awesome athletic feats. However, beyond the thrills, this moment highlights the stakes not just for the players, but also for colleges and their broader missions. While loyal students and alumni have experienced moments of joy and grief as they followed their schools’ progress, and administrators hoped for wins that will increase applications and donations, even more important for the nation is how these colleges enable upward economic mobility for their graduates. 

American higher education is experiencing one of the most challenging times in its history. Since 2017, when The 74 began publishing a Social Mobility Tournament bracket composed of colleges participating in the Big Dance, the percentage of surveyed adults who believe a four-year degree is not worth the cost has risen from 40% to 63%. 

This loss in public support that colleges previously took for granted has made them targets of both left- and right-leaning critics and policymakers. They are demanding that schools take greater responsibility not only for educating students, but for ensuring that the education they receive leads to employment with meaningful earnings.

With this in mind, our bracket aims to shift the focus to the broader mission of higher education: advancing economic mobility. Beginning in 2017, each year we have taken the schools competing in the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament and plotted them in a parallel bracket, where winners and losers are determined not by their prowess on the court, but by how well the colleges put students on the road to financial security.

To do this, we employ Third Way’s Economic Mobility Index (EMI), created by the former director of the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard, Michael Itzkowitz. This index uses information from the department and the Census Bureau to rank 1,320 bachelor’s degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its students. Taking into account the key concerns of students, parents and policymakers, the EMI first assesses the return on investment for lower- and moderate-income students at each college by calculating the out-of-pocket costs required to earn a four-year degree. 

The index then considers the added financial benefits students gain from attending one of these schools. This earnings premium is the additional income graduates accrue compared to someone with only a high school diploma. In effect, the lower the out-of-pocket costs and the higher the earnings premium, the quicker a student will receive a return on the investment needed to obtain the degree. Lastly, the index rewards schools for the proportion of financially challenged students they enroll and for the return on investment they deliver. (Click on each school in the bracket to see its Social Mobility score, total net price, earning premium and how long it takes graduates to pay off the cost of their education.)

To make this clearer, consider the following: While the Wolverines of the and the Wildcats of the faced each other in this year’s NCAA Final Four, neither school went further than the second round in our Social Mobility Tournament bracket. After all, Michigan had a lowly score of 16.9 in the EMI and Arizona only a slightly higher ranking at 25.1. Digging into the data, this disparity shows the importance of each data point that composes the index’s score.

As a EMI breakdown shows, the University of Arizona, a public institution, has a total price of $41,000 but an earning premium of a mere $23,700 for graduates when compared with someone holding only a high school diploma. This translates into a price-to-earnings premium that allows Wildcat graduates to pay off the cost of their education in 1.7 years. But the University of Michigan enjoys a net price of just $15,850 and a handsome earning premium of $48,800, making it possible for grads to pay down the total cost of their degree in only 0.3 years.

While winning games in a tournament made up of proven champions is a difficult achievement for any college, helping students move up the economic ladder is no less a challenge, especially for schools serving a high percentage of low- and moderate-income undergraduates. That’s why we believe colleges should be honored not only for victories on the court, but also for earning a high ranking in the Economic Mobility Index.

So, which teams deserve the highest praise this year? Of the 68 teams in the Social Mobility Tournament bracket, only 16 are private universities, and just six of them advanced past the first round. Moreover, by the end of Round 2, just a single private school, , managed not only to reach our Sweet 16, but, as it did last year, to go on to win our Social Mobility Tournament.

The main surprise here is that any private school could go that far, considering that the EMI is based primarily on affordability — how quickly the cost of a degree can be repaid — and the percentage of students enrolled who require financial aid. Therefore, beyond producing winning teams that can be invited to the NCAA tournament, private colleges must be inexpensive and serve a wide range of students to move up the Social Mobility Bracket. 

Given these requirements, how did BYU win it all? Though the Cougars were beaten by the in the first round of the NCAA Tournament, they earned their 33rd straight bid by having a 23-12 season in which they defeated eight teams ranked among the Associated Press’ Top 25. In addition, have a price-to-earnings premium that permits them to pay down the cost of their degree in less than a year, a feat made possible through low tuition and generous financial aid. Meanwhile, the school serves a student body in which nearly 37% of students receive Pell Grants.

How about the other three teams that make up our Final Four? How did they get there? The , and all have high EMI scores of at least 35%, giving them rankings that place them in the top 104 out of 1,320 colleges in the index. This translates into graduates who on average can pay down the cost of their degrees in fewer than four years, and all while having student bodies made up of at least 36% Pell Grant recipients. These, then, are excellent examples of schools working to increase the social mobility of their students.

In this highly polarized time, it is good to know that a bipartisan consensus exists around policies that require colleges to do more to help students gain employment with reasonable earnings. This state of affairs supports our nearly decade-long call to praise colleges like those in our Final Four. After all, few athletes will ever make the pros, but all students need to make a decent, family-sustaining living.

Clarification: The Economic Mobility Index is the property of Third Way.

This gap between the American public and students’ experience reveals a college value disconnect highlighted in a new Lumina Foundation and Gallup , The College Reality Check, based on responses from about 4,000 undergraduates and 6,000 graduates.

Let’s start with the public mood.

�Ҳ������ܱ�’s higher education confidence measure shows a steep slide from 2015, when 57% of U.S. adults said they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in colleges and universities, to 36% in 2024. Even with a modest 2025 rebound to about 42%, confidence remains well below the 2015 level.

Yet, here’s what college students say about their day-to-day reality.

The Lumina–Gallup study reports that seven in 10 students say the quality of the education they receive is either “excellent” or “very good,” while 69% feel they belong on campus. Roughly nine in 10 students say their college degree is worth the investment.

Other findings reinforce this pattern. For example, 93% of current associate- and bachelor-degree students say they are at least “very confident” or “confident” that their degree is teaching them career-relevant skills. And 88% believe it will help them secure a job after graduation.

Here are four likely reasons that explain this disconnect.   

First, the surveys are asking two related but different questions: The public is answering questions about the system: Is college affordable? Is it politically biased? Is it worth the debt? Are taxpayers getting value for money?

But students are answering questions about their experience: Do professors know their material? Am I learning? Do I feel respected? Will this help me get a job?

Students can report that courses are strong, professors are committed and the campus is welcoming. But parents worry about the tuition bill. And voters question whether universities are accountable.

Cost and affordability bridge the disconnect: Even students who like college don’t necessarily believe it’s priced fairly. The Lumina–Gallup report finds that only 25% of students say four-year colleges charge fair prices, while a majority say they don’t — though community colleges fare better. The report comments, “students broadly agree that the cost of college is not only unaffordable but even unfair to many hoping to pursue a degree.”

So, students may be satisfied with what they’re learning, while simultaneously believing the bill is too high. The experience ledger and the cost and affordability ledger are not the same. This ambivalence can translate at the public level into declining confidence.

There’s also a behavioral dynamic: When people invest heavily in a decision, they’re less likely to describe it as a mistake. Economists call this the or . Psychologists describe a related phenomenon, , which leads us to align our beliefs with the choices we have made.

College fits this pattern. It isn’t a small purchase but a formative life decision. Students — and families — invest not only tuition dollars but also years of effort and identity in becoming college-educated. It shouldn’t be surprising that many students hesitate to describe that investment as a mistake.

So students distinguish between “college is worth it to me” and “college is fairly priced.” Many believe their education will pay off in career opportunity and personal development, even while acknowledging concerns about cost.

That is less a case of denial than a reflection of ambivalence.

Finally, public opinion is often shaped by the examples that come most easily to mind, what behavioral economists call the . In the case of higher education, those examples are often negative.

Stories of graduates with heavy debt and low wages travel far. Campus controversies dominate cable news and social media. Viral anecdotes about ideological excess or administrative bloat quickly become shorthand for the entire sector.

The typical college experience, however, is far less dramatic. Students attend lectures, complete assignments, form friendships, pursue internships and eventually enter the workforce. Those everyday experiences rarely generate headlines.

The result is reputational drift, a condition where higher education is judged by its most visible outliers rather than by its typical outcomes.

Closing the disconnect between the public viewpoint and the student viewpoint will require clearer evidence about outcomes and visible progress on affordability and opportunity.

If higher education leaders want to close this gap, slogans won’t suffice. What’s needed is clearer signals about value and stronger evidence about outcomes. Here are four suggestions for how to do this.

First, transparency. Institutions should provide clearer information about program-level outcomes such as completion rates, debt levels,and post-graduation earnings, not just institutional averages. Families increasingly want to know what happens in specific majors, not simply the reputation of the college.

Second, cost discipline. Students may value their education, but many doubt that the price reflects its value. Both student and public skepticism will persist unless institutions and policymakers demonstrate credible progress on cost and affordability.

Third, opportunity. Colleges must strengthen the link between education and early-career opportunity through internships, apprenticeships, employer partnerships and the development of the knowledge and skills that translate into workplace opportunity.

Finally, perspective. Policymakers and institutional leaders alike must resist caricature. The national conversation about higher education often swings between two extremes: College is broken or college is indispensable. The reality is more complicated. Most students report positive experiences, while many families remain anxious about cost and value.

For most enrolled students, college is not an ideological battleground or a financial scam. It is a demanding and often rewarding educational experience that they believe will help them build a future.

The public’s declining confidence signals something different. It signals a demand for affordability, accountability, and clearer evidence that higher education delivers value.

Both signals matter. The challenge is to bring them closer together.

If colleges can reduce cost risk, strengthen labor-market relevance, and communicate results more transparently, the reputation of higher education may eventually catch up with the reality many students already report.

Until then, the college disconnect will remain, and may even grow. This outcome isn’t likely to serve students or the nation.

School choice was a central point of disagreement, with Republican governors more likely to advocate for increased use of public funds for private schooling. A subset of Republican governors also focused on restricting transgender participation in women’s sports. Some Democratic governors fervently criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement for conducting raids in and around schools.

But governors from both parties prioritized improving student achievement — especially in literacy — and increasing funding for public education and teacher pay. School nutrition emerged as a newly prominent area of shared focus. 

School Choice

Thirteen governors — all Republicans except for Arizona’s Katie Hobbs — referenced school choice in their speeches, with the vast majority promoting the use of public dollars for private education. 

Several governors advocated for expansion of their state’s private school choice programs, either by increasing funding or by broadening eligibility for participation. Missouri’s governor, Mike Kehoe, for example, proposed investing an additional $10 million in the MO Scholars Program. By contrast, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster focused on eligibility, calling for universal access to the state’s education scholarship trust fund, which is currently limited to low-income families. 

Three governors announced that they will opt in to the new federal tax credit scholarship program. South Dakota’s Larry Rhoden praised the program and said the state will work with private school, public school and homeschool leaders to prepare for implementation in January 2027.

Other governors highlighted the need for more guardrails in private school choice programs. Hobbs continued to call for increased oversight of Arizona’s universal ESA program, arguing that a program originally designed to support students with disabilities and military families

has become vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse, while Idaho’s Brad Little called for greater accountability in his state’s choice program.

Meanwhile, Kehoe and Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who are both Republicans, urged state lawmakers to support more choices for students within public education. Kehoe set aside $7.5 million for open school district enrollment, and Iowa’s Kim Reynolds proposed that per-pupil funding follow students to charter schools. 

Higher Education

Twenty-two governors discussed higher education priorities, largely centered on financial aid and affordability. Colorado’s Jared Polis continued his commitment to making the first two years at the state’s public colleges free for low-income high school graduates, and Indiana’s Mike Braun announced a freeze on tuition and mandatory fees at every public university for the next two years.

Others proposed targeted scholarships. Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen promised that every in-state student who scores a 33 or better on the ACT will receive a full scholarship, including housing, to the University of Nebraska. Georgia’s Brian Kemp proposed a $325 million investment in the state university’s needs-based DREAMS Scholarships.

Five governors proposed health sector-related higher education initiatives. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced the construction and endowment of a new medical school. Idaho’s Little committed $1 million to support graduate medical education, while Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear proposed $25 million for nursing student loan forgiveness. 

Workforce Development

Looking beyond traditional post-secondary pathways, 15 governors highlighted workforce development initiatives and the importance of aligning career and technical education with the demands of a dynamic job market. 

Both Republican and Democratic governors proposed expanding K-12 and postsecondary programs that connect students to apprenticeships in skilled trades, health care, education and technology. Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, who proposed construction apprenticeships directly tied to affordable housing initiatives and partnerships between schools and nonprofits to train the next generation of climate stewards — key priorities for the state.

Kehoe announced support for a specific trade: pet grooming. His budget includes funding for expanding a Kansas City nonprofit called Pawsperity, which he said has helped 200 low-income students achieve financial stability through a stable career.

The governors of Colorado and South Dakota called for stronger state-level coordination, proposing new agencies to track workforce readiness and expand access to CTE.

Early Learning/Child Care

In line with initiatives to strengthen the workforce, 20 governors — Democrats and Republicans — proposed expanding early care and learning to increase access and affordability for working parents. 

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul pledged to fully fund New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s universal child care program for 2-year-olds for its first two years, while Grisham called for universal child care statewide in New Mexico. 

Seven governors — six Democrats and South Carolina’s McMaster — highlighted continued or new commitments to universal pre-K, while others suggested incremental expansions to early learning. Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, for example, proposed using private investment to add 10,000 new seats in free early learning programs statewide, and Indiana’s Mike Braun suggested requiring businesses to have “skin in the game” to help reduce child care costs and expand access. 

Student Health

In last year’s addresses, several governors — predominantly Republicans — announced plans to ban cellphones in schools, with many framing the policies as necessary to protect students’ mental and behavioral health. 

This year, six Democrats and three Republicans proposed similar restrictions, though many emphasized improving student learning as the primary rationale. Kansas’s Laura Kelly, for example, proposed a school cellphone ban because the devices “are making it much harder for our children to learn and for our teachers to teach.” 

Still, student mental health was a concern, particularly regarding online safety. Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis warned parents about artificial intelligence chatbots, citing concerns about their connection to teen suicides. Democratic governors in New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts proposed restrictions on social media use for children — Hochul’s plan includes disabling AI chatbots, blocking location sharing and restricting access to online sports gambling.

Notably, only two governors, Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro and Wisconsin’s Tony Evers, proposed new investments in K-12 mental health services.

School Nutrition

Nutrition and school meals emerged as a new priority in this year’s addresses, with many governors referencing the Trump administration’s campaign to improve food quality and wellness nationwide. Ten governors, both Democratic and Republican, introduced initiatives aimed at improving student nutrition. 

Kansas’ Kelly proposed making school meals free for all students now eligible for reduced pricing, and Hawaii’s Green extended free school meals to families at 300% of the federal poverty level.

Regarding the food itself, Little proposed a bill to remove artificial dye from school lunches, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom encouraged the continuation of efforts to remove highly processed foods from school cafeterias. Despite tightening restrictions, no alternatives or funding for healthier food were proposed. 

Three Republican governors, citing health concerns such as obesity, proposed removing candy, soda, energy drinks and other unhealthy foods from programs that provide federal subsidies for students when school is not in session: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT).      

This report was produced through a partnership between and The 74. Senior Producer Meghan Gallagher of The 74 developed the interactive maps. 

Indiana’s Purdue University in December approved an AI “working competency” , saying that by the time they earn a diploma, undergraduates must be able to use the latest AI tools effectively in their chosen field while understanding both the technology’s strengths and limitations. 

Graduates must also be able to defend decisions informed by AI while sussing out its “presence, influence and consequences” in their work.

“The root of all of this is really making sure that our students are ready for the workforce and are not left behind by AI,” said , Purdue’s senior vice provost for academic and student success. While admitting that college students likely rely on AI for class assignments, she said what’s missing is the ability to go deeper. 

“Yes, they know how to use it, but are we instilling a framework and a practice where we’re emphasizing critical thinking?” she said. 

The long-term goal of the effort is to ensure that graduates are “wildly successful in an AI-enabled workplace,” while being able to evaluate AI-generated work and criticize it. 

A microbiologist by training, Oliver-Jischke said AI has already “revolutionized” her field. Recent research suggests that AI-enabled analysis of large genomic data sets, for instance, is allowing scientists to look at DNA directly from environmental samples, revealing of previously unknown microbes.

“The technology is here,” said Oliver-Jischke. “You will lose out on opportunities if you don’t understand it or know how to utilize it and apply it effectively.”

Purdue’s faculty and curriculum committees began discussing the new requirement last summer, she said. The university has already identified 35 courses that will lead the way toward fulfilling the requirement. It goes into effect fully for the graduating class of 2030, who are due to arrive on campus in the fall. It won’t require a separate exam or course, but rather it will be embedded into students’ required coursework, she said.

While it’s unusual, Purdue’s move isn’t unprecedented. 

In January 2025, the State University of New York system its information literacy curriculum to include requirements that SUNY students effectively recognize and ethically use AI. While it integrates AI into an existing requirement, it doesn’t create a standalone competency like Purdue’s.

In June, The Ohio State University unveiled its initiative, which will embed AI education “into the core of every undergraduate curriculum, equipping students with the ability to not only use AI tools, but to understand, question and innovate with them — no matter their major.”

Both Purdue and Ohio State are public , founded within months of each other in 1869 and 1870, respectively, to meet what was at the time a booming demand for agricultural and technical expertise. 

Ohio State’s AI effort will require all graduates, beginning with the class of 2029, to be “fluent” in the technology and how it can be responsibly applied to advance their field. “In the not-so-distant future, every job, in every industry, is going to be impacted in some way by AI,” Walter “Ted” Carter Jr., the university president, said at the time.

Executive Vice President and Provost told The 74 that as AI continues to influence how we work, teach and learn, “we will remain at the forefront of this technology.” 

Is ‘vibe coding’ the future?

The moves come as recent surveys suggest that college students are already making AI a large part of their education, even if they’re mostly outsourcing hard work: The AI and plagiarism detection platform Copyleaks in September found that of college students have used AI for academic purposes, with 53% using it either daily or several times a week. 

While most students say they use it for brainstorming, half use AI to draft outlines and 44% to generate actual drafts of work. About one in three students uses AI to summarize readings.

In light of statistics like these, requiring a deeper competence around AI is “a good step in the right direction,” said Alex Kotran, CEO of the . “Closing out 2025, I was feeling like post-secondary is sort of deer-in-the-headlights” when it comes to AI. “This is promising, but the proof will be in the pudding: Are they building the systems for professional development and learning, because that’s going to be critical. The policy is just step one.”

Kotran noted that the vast majority of job postings now specifically name AI skills as a requirement. Colleges that are seen as more effective at helping students get those skills are likely producing “more employable” graduates.

Purdue’s Oliver-Jischke said the focus at the university, which enrolls , is on “working competencies” and how they can fit into instruction across departments. “This can be a large boat to turn, but because we have a commitment to AI and this is obviously a massive STEM school, everybody is curious, interested and willing to explore how this should be implemented into the core curricula.”

At the same time, she said, AI is evolving quickly and the landscape could soon be very different. “We recognize that, and we want to remain nimble,” she said. “And we will keep our curricula nimble to do that.”

The two schools’ focus on differentiated, workplace-specific use of AI is a smart one, Kotran said. But to be effective, universities should go beyond simply relying on off-the-shelf commercial products. “The future of work is not a bunch of employees using ChatGPT or Gemini day-to-day and being more productive because of that,” he said.

Instead, the real value of AI, at least for now, is in the custom software it enables users to build via what’s known informally as “,” or using AI prompts to do the actual behind-the-scenes coding that once took advanced knowledge. “The real unlock comes when you’re building custom software to do stuff more efficiently,” he said.

Since generative AI came to market in 2022, the cost of building apps, websites, games and other software has dropped precipitously, while the task has gotten easier for non-technical users. 

“That’s going to change the way we work,” Kotran said. The more users can develop and control their own software, the more productive they’ll be. “But it’s very hard to get that insight if you haven’t seen vibe coding for yourself.” 

Done right, the efforts at Purdue and Ohio State could be significant, Kotran said. “It just increases the exposure that students are going to get to having the opportunity to build that intuition and to experiment,” he said. “And it will force professors to start building their assessments around it.”

Students across the country will soon be able to receive Workforce Pell Grants to use toward tuition and fees for certain short-term workforce training programs.

Established by the in 2025, Workforce Pell Grants expand traditional to programs that are between 8-15 weeks, lead to a high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand job, result in a recognized postsecondary credential, and articulate credit into a certificate or degree program, among other requirements.

In December, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) held a process to develop new rules for Workforce Pell Grants. In one week, negotiators reached an agreement on , which will be used as the basis of DOE’s forthcoming consensus rule. That consensus rule will be open to public comment before a final rule is published.

In the meantime, states are working to identify potentially eligible programs ahead of Workforce Pell’s anticipated launch on July 1, 2026. States play a critical role in implementing Workforce Pell — under the law and proposed regulations, governors must approve any eligible program before a federal approval process takes place.

However, during a Feb. 11 meeting of the , Jeff Cox, president of the N.C. Community College System, expressed caution about the number of programs that may ultimately qualify for Workforce Pell in the state due to the program’s federally-established . Eligible programs must demonstrate a 70% completion rate, a 70% job placement rate within 180 days, and a positive return on investment, demonstrated through a value-added .

“Just out of these initial screens — the number of hours and then the job placement and the completion rates — I think only about 4% or so of our overall short-term credential programs are going to qualify,” Cox said.

The status of Workforce Pell in North Carolina

During its February meeting, the council heard an update on the status of Workforce Pell Grant implementation in North Carolina from Andrea DeSantis, assistant secretary for workforce solutions at the N.C. Department of Commerce.

DeSantis opened with an overview of Workforce Pell Grants, highlighting that they provide a new opportunity to quickly move students into the workforce through short-term training programs, but that eligible programs must meet high standards.

“This is really a huge departure from the way that federal funding happens right now and the accountability measures for institutions,” DeSantis said.

DeSantis then outlined the federal timeline for Workforce Pell, noting that she participated as an alternate negotiator during DOE’ negotiated rulemaking process in December. DOE’s goal is to have a final rule by the spring, and according to , the program should launch on July 1.

“That timeline is going to move quick, and that means us as states, we have to move quickly too,” DeSantis said. “What will that mean in July? While we have not heard official dates from the Department of Ed, it means that the Department of Ed intends to be able to start reviewing applications from institutions that have programs that were approved at the state level.”

As states consider potentially eligible programs, DeSantis said that it is not the federal government’s expectation that all short-term training programs will be eligible for Workforce Pell. Instead, she said, “states should take this as an opportunity to say, ‘What are the needs in communities, and what programs are really essential for us to improve and fund?’”

DeSantis then provided an update on where North Carolina stands in Workforce Pell implementation. Since November 2025, staff from the Governor’s Office, Department of Commerce, and higher education agencies have worked with , a national consulting firm, to develop the state’s Workforce Pell approach.

This includes:

• Defining what a high-wage, high-skill, or in-demand job is: DeSantis said these definitions will build off assets from the within the N.C. Department of Commerce. To define in-demand jobs, DeSantis said LEAD has pulled a list of occupations that are in-demand at both the state and local levels. She added that high-skill jobs are those that require a license or additional postsecondary credential, and that no definition has been determined yet for what qualifies as a high-wage job. Importantly, to be eligible for Workforce Pell, a program must lead to a job that meets at least one of these three criteria. For example, a job that is in-demand but low-wage could still be eligible.
• Defining stackability and portability: These are two additional federal requirements for Workforce Pell — programs must result in a recognized credential, and they must articulate credit into a related certificate or degree program.
• Developing an application process: DeSantis said the group will also develop an application process that accounts for the data that a program must report and the high standards it must meet to qualify for Workforce Pell. “How do we leverage existing assets within the Department of Commerce and our as a potential pathway for institutions to apply?” DeSantis said.
• Determining how Workforce Pell can be leveraged for apprenticeships: DeSantis said that Workforce Pell can be used to cover portions of the cost of related instruction for a Reegistered Apprenticeship Program, which is a component of the policy the group is working on.

In April, the state hopes to have a draft policy and application for Workforce Pell that would be available for public comment. On May 13, the , the state’s workforce development board, would review the policy and application.

“Assuming that the federal level has put out their final guidance, we would then plan to have an application available sometime in late May,” said DeSantis. “This would give us enough time to approve initial applications before the July deadline.”

DeSantis also noted that the N.C. Community College System (NCCCS) has already published an initial , which is part of the system’s . This list includes short-term workforce courses and credentials that meet the time limits required by Workforce Pell — but not all of those programs will necessarily meet the grant’s additional eligibility requirements.

“Institutions have received individualized data to see, ‘OK, which programs do we offer at our own institutions — not just across the state — that we think could be eligible for Workforce Pell,’ based on the hour requirements, as well as that completion and job placement data, which is going to be really important,” said DeSantis.

Although all Workforce Pell programs must have existed in their current format for at least one year, DeSantis said this is an opportunity for community colleges to have conversations with employers and consider what new programs or adjustments to current programs may be needed to meet workforce needs in the coming years.

“This is expected to be a slow start,” DeSantis said of Workforce Pell’s launch. “This is not intended to approve every program, but to really be about intentional design at the state and local level.”

Cox echoed that sentiment, saying he is “a little bit underwhelmed” by the number of programs that may qualify for Workforce Pell.

“I’m excited about it, but I also want to inject a little bit of caution around the level of impact we’re going to have right out of the gate,” he said.

Updates on the council’s work

In addition to hearing this update on Workforce Pell, the council also reflected on its work in 2025 and discussed other key efforts that will help advance its goals.

In June 2025, the council outlining the state’s goals for workforce development, which are separated into four objectives: increasing attainment, expanding work-based education, focusing on key sectors, and highlighting workforce programs through a public outreach campaign. In December, the council released a that outlines 30 strategies to advance those goals.

Then, in January, the council’s co-chairs joined Gov. Josh Stein at an event to announce the state’s ranking as first for workforce development by .

“We now stand at a pivotal moment where strategy development is transitioning into action,” said N.C. Secretary of Commerce Lee Lilley, who is also a council co-chair, at the February meeting. “As we move forward today, our focus shifts toward implementation, accountability, and metrics, translating these strategies into meaningful outcomes for North Carolina’s workforce.”

The council heard a short presentation on how the relates to the work of the council.

Annie Izod, executive director of the NCWorks Commission, shared that as of February, the council and NCWorks Commission had aligned each entities’ four committees. In December 2026, the council committees will sunset, and the NCWorks Commission will continue to monitor progress toward the state’s workforce development goals.

New funding for youth apprenticeships

On Feb. 10, Stein announced that he is directing discretionary funds allotted through the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to to expand youth apprenticeships.

According to a , NC Career Launch “helps businesses develop registered apprenticeship programs for students beginning in grades 11 and 12 in high-demand sectors like child care, health care, skilled trades, and advanced manufacturing.”

This investment is connected to one of the council’s : to double the number of apprentices in the state, including both registered apprenticeships and apprenticeships. According to , youth apprenticeships can begin as early as 16 and are available in more than 1,200 occupations.

During the council’s February meeting, Kindl Detar, policy adviser to Stein, said youth apprenticeships allow employers to grow local talent early before students may drop out of the , and they allow students to earn and learn with pathways to career opportunities in their local communities.

According to Detar, the first year of the investment will focus on expanding existing youth apprenticeship programs that have wait lists and on expanding youth apprenticeships in the western part of the state as it continues to recover from .

“We know that making these apprenticeships work will require engagement from our employers,” said Detar. “In his announcement yesterday, the governor had a special call-out to employers to think about how these models of youth apprenticeships … can be beneficial to them, to not only provide opportunity, but to create that local workforce that they need.”

NCCareers.org sees record number of users

First launched in July 2020, is the state’s career information system. It aggregates key information on jobs, wages, and pathways, providing career exploration tools to help North Carolinians on their education-to-workforce journey.

During the council’s meeting, Jamie Vaughn, senior analyst for market intelligence at the North Carolina Department of Commerce, shared that the website had 1 million users in the last 12 months — representing 95% growth from the previous year.

The website has information on wages and demand across more than 800 occupations that can be sorted by 16 sub-state regions. According to Vaughn, more than half of school districts in the state are to help meet the that all middle and high school students complete a career development plan.

Vaughn also previewed new features that will be added to the website, including business listings of local companies that may hire employees in specific occupations, and information to help high school students better understand what CTE courses are available at their school that will lead to CTE pathways.

Cecilia Holden, president and CEO of , said that one component of myfutureNC’s proposed Workforce Act of 2026 for the legislative short session is $1.5 million for NCCareers.org, which would equate to $1.50 per user based on 1 million annual users.

For more information on NCCareers.org, see this

The council’s next meeting will be held on May 13 from 10 to 11:30 a.m.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

, authored by Israeli academics Yoav Goldstein and Matan Kolerman, used survey responses from nearly 500 American colleges and universities to isolate the political impact of students’ choice of college majors. Those who predominantly take classes in humanities and most social science disciplines became substantially more likely to self-identify as liberal over the course of their college years; those earning economics and business degrees, meanwhile, largely resisted that drift, adopting more right-leaning stances on economic issues like taxation and socialized healthcare. 

Because those effects might result from self-sorting by liberals and conservatives into majors that affirm their already-held beliefs, the authors controlled for undergraduates’ pre-college ideologies, intended majors, and life goals. Those steps showed very similar young people taking opposite political paths after being exposed to divergent academic content. 

Kolerman, a postdoctoral associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, didn’t offer an explanation for why those changes occurred, observing only that the main result clearly showed “very, very important” consequences resulting from the choices made by students selecting their course of study.

“It just seems that college majors have huge effects,” he said. “We don’t know many other social science papers that find such large effects on any institution in democratic societies.”

Kolerman and Matan drew their data from UCLA’s , which has been administered to both incoming freshmen and exiting seniors since 1990. Their sample focused on roughly 310,000 undergraduates attending 477 four-year colleges between 1990 and 2015. The poll includes students’ intended course of study upon enrollment, their actual major upon college completion, and a spectrum of political self-description along a five-point scale (1 for furthest right, 5 for furthest left). 

The average respondent was about seven percentage points more likely to self-identify as liberal or left-wing by the end of college. Humanities and social science majors were especially likely to move left (by 10.5 points and 10.7 points, respectively), while business and economics majors migrated much more incrementally in that direction (2.4 points). In general, students who began in the middle of the spectrum were more likely to eventually describe themselves as liberal (26 percent) than conservative (15 percent).

The authors also studied how students in each category changed their positions on individual policy questions relative to those studying the natural sciences (such as physics or biology), who were chosen as a reference group because of the largely apolitical content of their coursework. The comparison showed humanities and social science students gradually taking a much more leftward orientation on virtually every item, including the death penalty, marijuana legalization, climate change, and higher taxes on the wealthy. But business and economics majors developed more conservative positions than those focusing on natural sciences — and the effect on economic issues, such as tax levels or socialized healthcare, was more than three times that of cultural issues like abortion or LGBT rights.

Kolerman remarked that, given America’s “heated debate” over both college instruction and social politics, it was significant how much of the influence of different majors hinged on economic questions.

“Much of the political debate in the U.S. is related to cultural issues, but it seems like a larger fraction of the effect is on economic issues,” he observed.

Strikingly, some evidence also pointed to broader behavioral shifts depending on major choice. 

Queried about their life goals, business and economics majors were more likely to assign greater importance to financial success than other students, even including those focusing on high-earning fields like engineering. They were also more likely to prioritize starting a family, while social science and humanities majors placed more emphasis on keeping up with current events, influencing social goals, and seeking purpose in life.

‘Compelling evidence’

While the researchers hesitated to make strong claims about the cause for students’ ideological movement, the data do suggest that these trends reflect the political values of college faculty themselves.

Most polls of professors demonstrate favoring liberals and Democrats across virtually all academic departments, though appeared to show the skew receding as more instructors disaffiliated from parties altogether. To examine the relationship of teacher and student beliefs, Goldstein and Kolerman relied on UCLA’s faculty survey, which has been conducted regularly at the same colleges enrolling their undergraduate sample.

Among students who chose the humanities or social science same major, they discovered, exposure to more liberal liberal faculty members was significantly correlated with the adoption of more liberal views.

Vladimir Kogan, a political scientist at Ohio State University, called the study “compelling evidence” that students’ political transformation during their college years can be attributed to what is being taught in classrooms, rather than the residue of social interactions between students. Still, he added, the force of professors’ ideology is likely applied indirectly — in the sheer predominance of liberal-minded faculty, for example — rather than through deliberate preaching.

“I wouldn’t go as far as calling this evidence of indoctrination,” Kogan argued. “I don’t think this is conscious. I just think it reflects the lack of ideological diversity in some of these disciplines.”

Goldstein and Kolerman’s work . Its conclusions also dovetail with those of some other scholars. In 2024, British political scientist Ralph Scott published a study showing that U.K. graduates who studied the arts, humanities, and social sciences than their peers at the same institutions. pointed to a similar phenomenon even earlier in the education cycle, finding that high school students who devoted more time to arts and humanities subjects were later more likely to vote for more liberal political parties. 

Kogan warned that institutions of higher learning, especially those accountable to Republican voters and officeholders, could pay a price if they are seen as shepherding their charges to the left. Already, red states like Texas in public universities, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of the New College of Florida, vowing to recreate it into a school steeped in the principles of classical education.

“We want to continue getting support from taxpayers, and it’s going to be really hard to make that argument if policy makers think that you’re going to be turning future voters against them,” Kogan concluded. “It’s something that I definitely think we need to take seriously.”

Zjanice Carter was just a child in Seattle when her parents moved the family more than 2,000 miles to Kalamazoo, Michigan, all for a chance at free college for their six children.

“My parents always dreamed of having a big family,” said Carter, now 25 and a college graduate. “But as they realized that dream was really expensive, they began to game plan and pray about how (were) they going to afford to give us the life that they wanted us to have?”

Kalamazoo had what was then a rare program. Anonymous donors in 2005 created what they called the Kalamazoo Promise, a pledge to pay college tuition for any graduate of the Kalamazoo school district. Students would no longer worry about whether they could afford college or if they would graduate with thousands of dollars of debt.

“My parents packed their whole lives into the back of the van and just drove for 33 hours, the whole way, trusting that this community would keep its promise,” Carter recalled.

Kalamazoo did keep its promise — for all six Carter children, who each earned college degrees without tuition bills — along with about 9,000 graduates who have had college tuition bills paid since the program launched. A little more than half of those students who started college earned a certificate or degree.

The Kalamazoo Promise marked its 20th anniversary in November by pairing a celebratory banquet with a conference of researchers and advocates of similar “promise” programs across the country that Kalamazoo helped inspire.

In some cases, donors in communities rallied to raise private funds that would guarantee tuition payments for decades. In others, individual colleges, cities or states commit tax dollars to covering tuition.

The anniversary was also occasion to take stock of challenges that promise programs face as the Trump administration reshapes school laws and federal funding of schools, states and social service organizations.

“It’s an important time for the Promise movement,” said Michelle Miller-Adams, senior researcher at the W.E. Upjohn Institute and organizer of a panel on the federal changes. “We’re here celebrating two decades of innovation around place-based scholarships, as well as the many thousands of students served by Promise programs. At the same time, though, we need to attend to policy changes that could make the coming decade more difficult.”

She said “attacks” on the U.S. Department of Education, changes to student loan rules and accreditation, as well as potential threats to Pell grants students rely on are “altering the landscape of federal higher education policy and may challenge the foundation on which Promise programs are built.”

All of those factors could affect promise programs in different ways — in how well students are supported while they prepare for college, how much tax money is left for publicly-funded promise programs and how much money a promise program will need to cover tuition to keep their promise.

Ryan Fewlins-Bliss, executive director of the nonprofit Michigan College Access Network, told The 74 that navigating the political climate today is “scarier” than before.

“I think people are really worried about the existence of their organizations and their missions, and their fundraising, their donations…their federal funds,” he said.

There’s even concern that federal cuts to Medicaid will push health care costs to states, which will leave less money in state budgets to support state colleges and to support state promise programs.

 “We could again see declining college affordability as a result of state budget choices,” said Sameer Gadkaree, outgoing CEO of The Institute for College Access & Success.

Though it might be the best-known, Kalamazoo isn’t the first such “promise” program — the first came in the 1960s in Philomath, Oregon — but the city of 73,000 was key in drawing attention to a strategy to give students hope that if they finish high school, college was within reach.

In the 20 years since the Kalamazoo Promise was announced, similar programs have grown dramatically across the country, from just 10 in 2005 to more than 200 today, by one count, as cities like Pittsburgh, New Haven, CT, and El Dorado, AR, have started their own programs.

Several states also started statewide scholarship efforts, including California, Massachusetts, New York and Tennessee, while Michigan added promise programs in Detroit and other cities.

College Promise, a Washington, D.C., non-profit that advocates for the programs, reports an even greater growth when including other broad and inclusive scholarship programs — 53 such scholarships in 2015 to more than 450 today.

“Absolutely, we can trace many of the community-based programs to the Kalamazoo Promise modeling effect,” said Michelle Miller-Adams of the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. “The Kalamazoo Promise got a ton of national publicity when it was first created, and that is part of the reason many other communities decided to give the model a try.”

Former President Barack Obama brought some of that attention when he at a city high school, telling students their chance to “chase your own dreams without incurring a mountain of debt” was an “incredible gift.” 

Since then, researchers have found that promise programs can improve college readiness, enrollment and completion, along with increasing property values modestly, as families like the Carters increase demand for houses. 

Because promise programs can differ greatly — most notably in the type of colleges they pay for or whether students must contribute their federal Pell Grants first — comparisons are rarely simple.

But researchers have shown:

• College promise programs lead to more students enrolling in college than before the programs started.
• The pandemic caused a break in that pattern, with fewer students everywhere enrolling in college than pre-pandemic. But students in promise programs are still enrolling in college more than in comparable cities.
• Students are to believe they will earn an associates degree or higher with help from a promise program, with disadvantaged racial groups sometimes expecting a 30-percentage-point gain.

“The adoption of a promise program had meaningful impacts on local high school students’expectations to ultimately attain an associate degree or higher,” University of Wisconsin-Madison Assistant Professor Taylor Odle reported in 2022.

Promise programs can also help cities. Though they don’t draw flocks of families looking to take advantage of them, multiple studies have shown they draw some. Communities tend to either lose fewer residents if the region is declining or gain some population — about 1.7 percent, — compared to similar communities.

Programs like Kalamazoo’s, that give students 10 years of scholarship eligibility, can also help students whose career path isn’t clear. Jacqueline Bell, a 2021 graduate of Kalamazoo Central High School, tried culinary and cosmetology programs at two separate colleges before deciding to pursue becoming a pastry chef at Kalamazoo Valley Community College.

“I would still be doing this, even without the promise,” Bell said. “This is just what I love to do. But having that promise definitely helped and kept me here … and in less debt. I’m very grateful that I don’t have to worry about that.”

At the same time, some question whether the programs truly help low-income students that most need it. Federal Pell Grants can typically cover community college tuition for the poorest students already, even if there is no promise program in place.

Promise programs also rarely cover room, board and transportation, costs students have to pay themselves while attending college full time. Since about 75 percent of promise programs cover tuition only after Pell Grants have been spent, students can’t use the grants to cover those costs. 

“Since most promise scholarships only cover tuition and fees, low-income students may not receive any money,” University of Georgia researcher Meredith Billings the Brookings Institution. “Instead, these programs tend to subsidize middle- or high-income students.”

Promise advocates also have additional concerns about low-income students and those of racial minorities. They worry that if federal grants to nonprofits that help these students are cut, students might not get the support they need before graduating from high school, leaving them less prepared for college. And philanthropies that would otherwise support a local promise program could shift money to cover gaps for those students from lost federal grants instead.

“The offices that supported them are going away,” said Fewins-Bliss. “The scholarships that supported them are going away. The people that supported them are going away. 

Those concerns are tempered, however, by what backers say is strong bipartisan support from states, who see appeal both in helping disadvantaged students find a path forward, but also as a way to build a more skilled and educated workforce to boost the state economy. Many promise programs have evolved so that connecting students to internships and jobs is as much a part of their mission as paying college tuition.

“You have students that are less likely to use social assistance,” John Barnshaw, senior leader of research and policy for College Promise told The 74. “You have students that are now more likely to have jobs full time and contribute to an educated workforce (and) higher tax base.”

Even within Kalamazoo and other urban areas, promise programs are constantly fighting to have families take school seriously and believe that college is right for their children. Kalamazoo Public Schools Superintendent Darrin Slade said his district had more than 50 percent of high school students chronically absent after the pandemic and there are still students who don’t take advantage of the scholarships, even just for trade school.

“We’re fighting old narratives, cultural biases, any number of things that will keep a student feeling that even though the opportunity is here and it’s the most universal offering that we could imagine, that they still think it’s not for them,” he said.

As Miller-Adams added, “It’s not enough just to understand the value of what’s on offer. People need to show up and see it through.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that a study found an increase in college degrees earned under college promise programs. The study covered increases in student beliefs that they would earn a degree, not degrees earned.

State universities would be responsible for portions of students’ defaulted loans under legislation advanced Wednesday by an Iowa House subcommittee.

would require state universities to offset 25% of a borrower’s liability if they default on an educational loan taken out to attend the institution. This means the university would be liable for 25% of what the student owes.

More than 40% of Iowa public college graduates finish their education debt-free, Iowa Board of Regents State Relations Officer Jillian Carlson said, and those who do take out loans receive financial counseling early in their college career “to help them right-size their debt and advise them on not taking out more than they need.”

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

“One question or concern that we do have is to clarify whether students who default on their loans are actually defaulting because they’re unable to make the payments, versus defaulting on their loans because they know that we would pick up 25% of the bill when they actually do have the resources to make the payments,” Carlson said.

Rep. Heather Matson, D-Ankeny, said there are important, practical questions on the topic of universities potentially being liable for defaulted loans that are not answered in the bill, such as where the money to take on these debts would come from. She also asked whether it should be the responsibility of a university to “be on the hook for” part of a loan in certain situations, like if a graduate finds themself in medical debt and must decide how they’ll use their money to stay safe and healthy.

“I think it’s important to recognize that the majority party talks a lot about personal responsibility, especially when it comes to student loans,” Matson said. “So I’m curious as to why you all are proposing to put a graduate’s financial decisions back onto a university if personal responsibility for student loans is so incredibly important.”

Rep. Jeff Shipley, R-Fairfield, said during the subcommittee meeting he believes the idea presented in the bill has “some merit.” He and subcommittee chair Rep. Taylor Collins, R-Mediapolis, approved the legislation to move to the Iowa House Higher Education Committee.

“My general thoughts are, we need to make sure we have some skin in the game when it comes to … the future employment of these individuals, once they graduate,” Collins said.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.

Lawmakers moved a bill out of an Iowa House subcommittee Wednesday that would have the state’s public higher education system explore a funding model based on workforce-based performance measures.

would have the Iowa Board of Regents study a potential performance-based funding model for the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa and submit a report to the General Assembly by its November 2026 meeting.

According to the bill, this funding model should factor in graduation rates, the number of awarded degrees corresponding to Iowa’s high-demand jobs, post-graduation employment rates and income and how many graduates stay in Iowa.

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

While the board of regents is registered as undecided on the legislation, board state relations officer Jillian Carlson said there are some concerns with what would need to be factored into the funding model. Post-graduation income is one she identified as potentially posing an issue, as the universities work to meet workforce needs in rural areas where income is often lower.

“I think we certainly understand your guys’ desire to look at these performance metrics, but we do have some concerns with the metrics in the bill, particularly where they would conflict with state needs,” Carlson said.

As the Iowa House Higher Education Committee is “looking to create efficiencies,” Carlson said the board’s budget, investment and finance committee is “currently working on an efficiency review of all of our revenue” — an effort headed by Regent Kurt Tjaden.

Members of the subcommittee said they were surprised and disappointed to see little public comment during the meeting, with Rep. John Wills, R-Spirit Lake, saying he’s noticed a lack of participation in other subcommittees he’s sat on during this legislative session as well.

Rep. Heather Matson, D-Ankeny, was the only lawmaker on the subcommittee to not support the legislation, saying so after Rep. Taylor Collins, R-Mediapolis, didn’t answer her questions on what a performance-based funding model would look like from his perspective as the person who filed the bill.

“I think it probably goes without saying that I’m not going to be signing off on the bill today, mostly because of a lack of engagement in a conversation on what this bill actually entails and how it will practically work in the real world,” Matson said.

She also took issue with the potential funding model’s criteria, some which she said are out of universities’ control. If a student decides to move away from Iowa because it is what is best for them and their family, she said a university could be penalized through the funding model even though they couldn’t do anything to change that outcome.

Collins said the bill would not enact a new system for universities to follow but “seeks to align taxpayer investment with taxpayer return,” and to gather additional information for the General Assembly to potentially act upon.

Iowa needs to evolve, Wills said, and the Legislature can’t just keep going with the status quo.

“We need to become more efficient,” Wills said. “We need to look and research other opportunities and other ways of doing business, because sometimes the status quo, the way we’ve always done it, is not the best way.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.

The (DOE) has launched a new earnings indicator for students as part of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) process, according to a .

Using existing federal data, the indicator provides students and their families with information about a school’s post-graduation earnings, says the release.

Of 162 North Carolina institutions in the database, 27 are flagged as having “lower earnings” and 13 do not have available data. Most of the flagged institutions are trade schools, but a few private colleges and one community college make the list.

Once a student completes the FAFSA process, the submission summary will now present key earnings data for each institution they have expressed interest in attending. If the institution’s average earnings are below those of the average high school graduate, the form will generate a “lower earnings” disclosure, says the release.

A spreadsheet for the new earnings indicator is now posted on the , and the department will update the indicator as more recent earnings data become available on the , a tool managed by DOE that provides data to help students compare colleges. The from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and IPEDS. Currently, some of the data relied on for the indicator is more than five years old.

You can download the spreadsheet , by clicking on the hyperlinked “Earnings Data.” To isolate data for North Carolina, in column F, deselect “All,” and then select “NC.” You should end up with a list of 162 institutions. In column K on the far right, you can see whether the department has flagged an institution as “lower earnings” for students. Use the column drop down, deselect “All,” and then select “Yes” to see which institutions are flagged. Additional information about the methodology is included on the spreadsheet in the definitions tab.

Flagged

1. Leons Beauty School Inc
2. Louisburg College
3. Miller-Motte College-Wilmington
4. Mitchells Academy
5. College of Wilmington
6. Pamlico Community College
7. Paul Mitchell the School-Fayetteville
8. Winston Salem Barber School
9. Pinnacle Institute of Cosmetology
10. Gwinnett College
11. Paul Mitchell the School-Charlotte
12. Charlotte Christian College and Theological Seminary
13. Empire Beauty School-Concord
14. Aveda Institute-Chapel Hill
15. Center for Massage
16. Miller-Motte College-Raleigh
17. Health And Style Institute
18. Miller-Motte College-Fayetteville
19. Empire Beauty School-Charlotte
20. Empire Beauty School-Winston-Salem
21. Empire Beauty School-Pineville
22. Carolina College of Hair Design Inc
23. Miller-Motte College-Jacksonville
24. Paul Mitchell the School-Raleigh
25. Empire Beauty School-West Greensboro
26. Beyond Measure Barbering Institute
27. Elevate Salon Institute

Data not available

1. Heritage Bible College
2. Carolina Christian College
3. Southeastern Free Will Baptist Bible College
4. Hood Theological Seminary
5. Daoist Traditions College of Chinese Medical Arts
6. Carolina College of Biblical Studies
7. Jung Tao School of Classical Chinese Medicine
8. Shepherds Theological Seminary
9. Manna University
10. Alexander Paul Institute of Hair Design
11. Bull City Durham Beauty and Barber College
12. No Grease Barber School
13. One Stop Academy

“More than half of all Americans now say a college degree is not worth the price, and total outstanding student loan debt is approaching $1.7 trillion. Families deserve a clearer picture of how postsecondary education connects to real-world earnings, and this new indicator will provide that transparency,” said Secretary of Education .

Nicholas Kent, under secretary of the department, published this , “Introducing the New Earnings Indicator on the FAFSA® Form,” covering why transparency matters, how the indicators works, and how to use the data to strengthen decision-making.

“This feature reflects our ongoing commitment to providing students and families with the information they need to plan confidently and pursue their desired future,” writes Kent.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

At issue: a working list of “professional” programs that require advanced degrees and licenses. Circulated online last month, it amounts to just 11 fields, including doctors, dentists and attorneys, among others.

Left out are virtually all other professions that, in many cases, require advanced degrees and licenses. 

The proposed change is part of a GOP effort to trim not just student debt and federal spending but college costs more broadly. 

In practical terms, enrolling in a “professional” program would give students the ability to borrow up to $50,000 per year in federal loans, or $200,000 over the course of their graduate school career. By contrast, programs that don’t fall into one of the 11 fields would give students access to just $20,500 a year, or $100,000 total. That often doesn’t cover the cost of a graduate education, advocates say, leaving students to rely on families or expensive private loans.

“It is a bad situation for a lot of professions,” said Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the , which represents college presidents. The council has over the list, saying the U.S. Department of Education should broaden it to include, among others, nurses, social workers and many kinds of teachers.

In a , the American Association of Colleges of Nursing said it was “deeply concerned” by the department’s proposed definition, saying it “excludes nursing and significantly limits student loan access.”

In a statement, Education Department spokeswoman Ellen Keast blamed social media “misinformation” about the rule-making process for confusion about the administration’s moves. Much of the uproar has spread via videos on sites like and .

Keast said the plans are still in development, and that reducing lending limits will reduce students’ costs. “We expect that institutions charging tuition rates well above market prices will consider lowering tuition thanks to these historic reforms,” she said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, told The 74 the student debt crisis “will not be solved by making arbitrary judgements about which professions ‘deserve’ support. Lifetime and annual borrowing caps hit career-changers and graduate students hardest, especially as the cost of higher education continues to rise.”

AFT also represents nurses, librarians, higher education faculty and graduate students who teach and do research.

Dina Kastner, public policy and advocacy manager for the National Association of Social Workers, said federal loan limits “will really have an impact” on social work students.

“For people who are going to graduate school — particularly in a profession like social work, where a graduate degree is needed for a lot of the work that social workers do — it’s definitely a problem,” she said in an interview. 

The association has been hearing “consistently” from members since details about the changes began trickling out, she said.

A consensus or a ‘stranglehold’?

While the effort is part of a broader one by Congress in President Trump’s to limit the burden of graduate student debt and cap federal borrowing, details of the two categories actually took shape as the Education Department initiated the rule-making process, said ACE’s Fansmith.

Department representatives proposed that instead of trying to figure out all of the programs that fit under the “professional” category, they would rely on a list of 10 professions originally cited as “examples” — and declared that those are eligible for the higher borrowing limits. 

“You would think it’s an oversight, because the actual statutory language says these 10 are ‘examples,’” Fansmith said. “Essentially, what they said was, ‘We are going to do the minimum possible,’ in part because they’re really trying to limit how much students can borrow.” That, despite the fact that in several fields, such as education and nursing, employers are facing huge demands for highly trained workers, he said. 

After two weeks of talks, Fansmith said, negotiators agreed to add an 11th category to the “professional” list: clinical psychology.

He called the process “completely crazy” and not what Congress intended for the lending program. “This administration is kind of shooting ourselves in the foot and doing something that’s going to have really lasting harm until it’s overturned.”

In its statement, the department did not directly address the process it followed, but in a “Myth vs. Fact” , issued Nov. 24, it called the proposed limits on lending “commonsense” and said a negotiating committee offered “a consensus definition” for the two categories — one that it says is now being bent out of shape by fear-mongering “progressive voices.”

The department said federal data indicates that 95% of nursing students borrow below the annual $100,000 loan limit “and therefore are not affected by the new caps.”

It also noted that it “has not prejudged the rulemaking process and may make changes in response to public comments” over the next few months.

That hasn’t stopped professional groups from protesting in advance. The nurses’ association said that, as of 2022, more than one in four RNs planned to leave nursing or retire over the next five years. One in five holds a master’s degree or higher, it said, and demand for nurses with advanced degrees — in clinical specialties, teaching and research — “far outstrips the supply.”

‘Drowning in debt’

The move to limit lending comes, in part, from a conservative belief that expanding financial aid via big federal loans not only creates a debt problem for students — it also allows universities to quietly inflate costs as many students borrow the entire amount needed to attend.

The idea is sometimes called , after former U.S. Education Secretary William Bennett. In 1987, he wrote that increases in federal aid had “enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”

Nearly 40 years later, the idea lives on: In 2023 when Republicans in Congress to lower college costs, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said, “Our federal higher education financing system contributes more to the problem than the solution. Colleges and universities using the availability of federal loans to increase their tuitions have left too many students drowning in debt without a path for success.”

Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, in October said Congress’s budget bill, which will Grad PLUS loans as of July 2026, has bring costs down. As an example, he said Santa Clara University School of Law next fall will give incoming full-time students a guaranteed $16,000 tuition scholarship, renewable for up to three years, the duration of the program. That amounts to an effective $16,000 cut in net tuition, he said.

The relationship between credit availability and tuition rates is difficult to track directly, but a few studies have found a connection. In 2015, economist David O. Lucca and colleagues changes in subsidized loan maximums had an effect on tuition, especially for “more expensive degrees, those offered by private institutions, and for two-year or vocational programs.” Other studies have found the effect more pronounced in .

By contrast, in 2017, , who studies college costs at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, law school tuition rates and found “far less evidence for the Bennett Hypothesis than I expected to see.” 

He offered several explanations, among them that law schools that raise tuition by more than competitors may see declines in applicants and revenue, and that greater availability of federal loans simply shifts students’ debt out of private banks and into the public system: In 2003, he noted, 36% of law students took out private loans. By 2011, five years after Grad PLUS loans debuted, it was just 5%.

Kastner of the social workers’ association said limiting how much graduate students can borrow, combined with the of Grad PLUS loans, is “a double whammy” for students. As a result, many will be forced to rely once again on private banks, which demand higher interest rates and offer fewer protections if they can’t pay loans back.

Asked if she had sympathy for the effort to lower students’ debt burden by restricting graduate borrowing, Kastner replied, “I don’t see it that way. I think it’s just making things more difficult for students.”

Kastner herself struggled to get her degree in the mid-1990s. By the time she began her social work career in Chicago in 1997, her debt amounted to about $40,000. Her monthly payment: $600, the equivalent one semi-monthly paycheck. 

She eventually got help from her parents to pay back her loans, but said squeezing new professionals will present “a real challenge,” especially for first-generation students “who may not have the family resources to really help them bridge that gap.”

ACE’s Fansmith said the department should be considering policies, such as income- based repayment and long-term loan forgiveness, that could actually address budgetary and student debt problems “without simply saying, ‘You can’t access the education.’”

He noted that the final rules, slated to take effect in July, won’t be written until early next year. In the meantime, he anticipates heated public comments from nurses, social workers, educators and other professions. 

“It wouldn’t be shocking to see Congress step in,” said Fansmith. “Nurses are, understandably and appropriately, a really sympathetic group.” And everyone sees the need for more of them, he said. “So these kinds of decisions that are really harmful for our country, honestly, might get re-evaluated.”

The Trump administration is authorizing the Department of Education to remove nonprofits from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program if deemed to have “substantial illegal purpose.” This change puts the entire public service ecosystem at risk. At a moment when America desperately needs more teachers, nurses, social workers and legal aid attorneys, we cannot afford to strip away one of the strongest incentives for talented, service-minded people to choose these careers.

Under the new rule, organizations could lose PSLF eligibility based on a vaguely defined “preponderance of evidence” that their work conflicts with administration priorities. Entire institutions could be banned if one department is accused of crossing an undefined line. That means workers who’ve made years of qualifying payments could see their progress erased with no opportunity to respond and no right of appeal.

This is a direct threat to the stability of the public service workforce that holds our communities together.

Consider Equal Justice Works Fellow Cecilia Ballinger, who serves families in rural Alabama. In a region where hospitals and schools are closing and where even basic needs such as transportation or internet access are hard to come by, Cecilia helps children with disabilities secure vital services. Her advocacy extends far beyond individual cases; she is empowering entire communities to push for change. Without PSLF, advocates like Cecilia will be in short supply as fewer students will take on the financial burden of pursuing public service careers entirely.

Public service workers already face financial obstacles that keep too many Americans from pursuing these career paths. For instance, a starting public interest attorney around $69,000 annually — about one-third of what their counterparts at a large private firm can make — while likely carrying six-figure student loan debt. Teachers, nurses, social workers and other public servants face similar choices between lucrative careers and mission-driven ones. These gaps are even starker in rural and underserved communities, where salaries are lowest but the needs are greatest.

PSLF is a critical bridge, ensuring people who want to serve are not priced out of higher education opportunities. Without it, communities risk losing the very professionals they rely on most.

PSLF also establishes a sustainable workforce model. Because workers must make 120 qualifying monthly payments over a decade of service, while employed in government or eligible nonprofits, the program encourages professionals to stay long enough to master complex skills and meaningful community relationships. 

After those 120 payments are received, the remaining balance is forgiven, and those years of consistent service pays dividends. Students thrive under experienced teachers; patients are healthier under consistent care from nurses; and families benefit from social workers and legal advocates who understand their challenges deeply.

The fallout of these loan forgiveness rule changes would be devastating. Underserved communities would feel the brunt of it, with justice deserts widening, health care access shrinking and classrooms left without experienced teachers. Students of color and low-income students who already disproportionate debt loads would face additional barriers to pursuing public service. And clients would lose advocates who reflect their experiences and fight on their behalf.

As if these dire consequences were not enough to make policymakers seriously reconsider hobbling PSLF, there is also a question of whether the department has overstepped. Congress created the program to ensure Americans who dedicate a decade of their lives to public service can do so without being crushed by debt. The Department of Education to rewrite that promise.

As of right now, the rule changes are set to take effect in July 2026 — which means we still have time to change course. Weakening PSLF would push countless professionals out of fields that sustain our democracy and safeguard our future. Policymakers must protect this vital program — not just for the workers who depend on it, but for every community in America that relies on teachers to educate our children, nurses to care for our sick, and lawyers and social workers to protect our most vulnerable.

When public service becomes financially impossible for people to serve their communities, we all lose.

Many high school seniors are now focusing on what they will do once they graduate – or how they don’t at all know what is to come.

Every morning, all of the roughly 100 seniors at Kingsborough Early College Secondary school start their day taking classes together at CUNY Kingsborough Community College.

In the afternoon, they hop on a yellow school bus and head back to their school on the Lafayette educational campus about 15 minutes away.

Kingsborough juniors make the reverse trek. They start their morning at the Lafayette campus then take the bus to the community college for afternoon classes.

By the time the students graduate high school, most have earned associate degrees from CUNY Kingsborough. In fact, the majority — 57% — of CUNY Kingsborough students are not stereotypical college students. They’re high schoolers, according to a from a New York coalition of advocates and education institutions.

CUNY Kingsborough is one of six community colleges across the state where high schoolers make up the majority of students. It could be the harbinger of something bigger. As dual enrollment programs — where high school students take college courses and earn college-level credit — are expanding in New York state and elsewhere.

The state Education Department is making these programs a priority. It recently requiring institutions to not only report their dual enrollment partnership agreements but also to provide data on enrollment and outcomes. The idea is to help officials and educators get a better grasp on the variety of dual enrollment programs and find ways to ensure the programs reach more students who are underrepresented in higher education.

The stakes are high: According to a 2024 , workers will need a bachelor’s degree for 66% of “good jobs” in 2031 — defined as one that pays a minimum of $43,000 a year nationally to workers ages 25-44.

The state’s proposed rules, which it’s expected to adopt early next year, will mark the state’s first consistent policy governing these programs. Additionally, the state to support dual enrollment and other early college programs to focus on enrolling more students from low-income families.

Several studies have celebrated dual enrollment programs for helping put students on a path to college by exposing them to high-level coursework.

At Kingsborough, the program has proven so successful that many of its students not only complete higher education degrees, they eventually return to work at the school. Of the school’s 80 staffers, 16 are graduates, its principal, Tracee Murren, said.

And there’s one other very obvious benefit dual enrollment programs frequently offer: Students can save money by earning college credits, often for free, before they finish high school.

Early college programs help families save on average $13,000 on the cost of a bachelor’s degree, said Alexandra Wilcox, deputy director of the , the group that studied the state’s dual enrollment expansion.

Research has found students in these programs are also more likely , , and earn a within six years.

“It really is a game changer in terms of being able to save time and money to a degree,” Wilcox said.

But a deeper understanding of the types of programs, who they’re serving, and what their outcomes are — the things the state is proposing to capture — will ultimately strengthen dual enrollment programs, said Wilcox.

Though New York pioneered dual enrollment programs, launching them more than 50 years ago, the state’s approach in terms of policy and funding has been “inconsistent and unpredictable,” Wilcox said.

NYC has range of early college programs

Across New York state, dual enrollment jumped 15% year-over-year, the alliance report found. It now has the nation’s third largest number of students in dual enrollment with more than 176,000, behind California and Texas.

In New York City, the majority of dual enrollment students are in , where they take college-level courses at CUNY for free, generally as an add-on to their regular high school courses. But there’s rising interest in the early college approach, which integrates college courses more deeply into the curriculum. About 30,000 students take College Now courses while roughly 3,500 students take CUNY classes through early college courses, a CUNY spokesperson said.

Nearly 45 out of the city’s 400 high schools offer early college programs, according to the city’s MySchools lookup tool.

The early college model traces its roots to , which opened in 1974 to provide students who struggled in traditional schools with an opportunity to take courses at LaGuardia Community College in Queens, where the school is still located.

Some early college programs do not screen students based on their academic records, like Pathways in Technology Early College High School, known as P-TECH. That school launched in Brooklyn in 2011 and across the boroughs that offer a six-year program, grades 9-14, each affiliated with different CUNY institutions. Students at these schools can graduate with an associate degree in a STEM field at no cost.

Other programs are highly selective. Bard College, a liberal arts school in Annandale-on-Hudson, has four New York City campuses, where Bard professors teach students, who go through a rigorous admissions process involving a test and interview. The newly opened — which partners with Delaware State University, a historically Black institution — also admits students based on GPAs, a writing exercise, and a video submission. The HBCU Early College students take online classes through Delaware State.

Access to dual enrollment programs shifts

At , which opened in 2006, the school targets students who are underserved in higher education — those “not typically selected for gifted and talented,” Murren said.

The school starts in sixth grade, admitting students through a lottery. Demand for it is high: Roughly 1,000 students apply for 100 seats every year.

Roughly 40 to 50% enter the program reading below grade level, Murren said, and the school takes an intensive approach to ensure they’re ready to read dense college-level material as they reach the upper grades. Middle schoolers also have an advisory class every day to ensure they have the “mental fortitude” to take on college-level work, she said.

The students take their first college class in ninth grade, a Spanish course, stretching it from one semester to the entire year to make it slower and more digestible, Murren said. The school intentionally starts with a foreign language since it’s a course that many four-year colleges require and has no prerequisites.

Professors from CUNY Kingsborough Community College come to the Lafayette campus to teach the freshman and sophomores in the afternoon, and the school has an extended day to accommodate these courses.

Balancing high school and the more advanced college courses simultaneously isn’t easy, Murren acknowledged. But her staff is committed. There’s low teacher turnover, and they get to know most students from the age of 10.

The students, for the most part, take their college classes together once they start attending the CUNY campus, maintaining a sense of community.

Murren said the students also support each other, characterizing their approach in this way: “‘We’ve been going through this together, and I don’t want you to fall off, so I’m going to make sure that you don’t.’”

She added: “We should never doubt what our students are capable of, their abilities, and their tenacity really shines through when given the opportunity.”

Historically, many high schools have used dual enrollment programs as an acceleration strategy instead of also a strategy to promote college access, said John Fink, a researcher at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University.

But that’s changing. Research into dual enrollment is also shifting away from addressing whether it works and instead trying to understand how to make it work better — and for more students, not just the top students who are “already acing everything,” he said.

The key question, Fink believes, is how to make sure that families know there’s free college available to New York City high schoolers.

“Even though you think that word would get out, it doesn’t,” he said, “[but] when it’s implemented as a purposeful path to debt-free college … that marketing also helps sell the high school.”

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

New international students enrolling at U.S. colleges declined sharply this fall, a concerning development for universities that rely on those students for research, tuition revenue and the diversity they bring to campus culture. It could, however, create more space for U.S. residents at those campuses.

Enrollments of new international students were down 17% compared to fall 2024, according to a report released Monday by the Institute of International Education, which surveyed more than 800 colleges about their fall 2025 enrollments. The institute, a nonprofit organization based in New York, publishes an annual report that examines the enrollment of international students. 

The fall data was not broken down by state, so the scale of decline in California is unclear. At USC, which enrolls more international students than any other California college, overall enrollment of international students is down 3% this fall, according to a campus spokesperson. That includes returning and first-time students, so the drop could be much higher for new arrivals. USC this fall enrolls about 12,000 international students, or 26% of its total student population, according to the college. About half of those students are from China. 

The declines come amid a changing landscape for international students under the Trump administration, which has delayed visa processing, created travel restrictions and pressured some campuses to recruit and admit fewer students from other countries. The colleges surveyed this fall by the institute cited visa application concerns and travel restrictions as top factors in the decline. 

“We are confronting major headwinds with what I would say are poor policy decisions that the administration is taking. And that is creating a climate for international students that signals that you’re not welcome here,” said Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, a nonprofit for international education and exchange.

President Donald Trump has said that he wants to lower the number of international students at U.S. colleges to leave more room at those campuses for U.S. students. “It’s too much because we have Americans that want to go there and to other places, and they can’t go there,” he said earlier this year, referencing the number of international students at Harvard and other universities.

For the full 2024-25 academic year, new international student enrollments were down by 7%, driven by a 15% drop among new international graduate students, compared to 2023-24. However, the number of new undergraduates was up by 5%. Trump took office in January, just before the start of the spring semester at most colleges. 

In the U.S., students from India were the largest group of international students, accounting for 30.8% of all international students, followed by students from China, with 22.6% of enrollments.

In the 2024-25 academic year in California, the largest share of international students were from China, and they made up 35.4% of enrollments, followed by students from India at 20.9%. Overall enrollment of international students in California was down 1.1% in 2024-25. 

USC enrolled the most international students of any California university, followed by four University of California campuses: Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Diego and Irvine. According to the report, the total number of enrolled international students were: 12,020 at Berkeley, 10,769 at UCLA, 10,545 at San Diego, and 7,638 at Irvine.

Across the state, international students make up about 7% of enrollments at four-year colleges, . They make up a large share of graduate students, accounting for 31% of graduate students at UC campuses, 15% at private nonprofit universities, and 12% at California State University campuses. 

Freya Vijay, 20, a third-year student from Canada studying business administration at USC, said she always planned to come to the United States for college. 

“In terms of business and just the economy, you have Wall Street, you have New York, Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco, all these big cities that dominate what’s going on in the world,” she said. “So immediately, in terms of opportunity, my mind was set on the States.” 

In addition to visa and travel restrictions, the Trump administration has directly requested — or threatened, as some have called it — California campuses to limit enrollments of international students. The administration’s compact offer to USC last month would have forced the university to cap international enrollment at 15% for undergraduates and limit enrollment from any one country to 5%.

, which also would have required the university to make a number of other changes, including committing to “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” 

Separately, in a settlement proposal to UCLA, the Trump administration calls on the campus to ensure that “foreign students likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions or harassment” are not admitted. UCLA is still in negotiations with the administration and has not yet reached a deal. The Trump administration has charged the campus with antisemitism and civil rights violations. 

Even amid the turmoil, experts say they expect California universities to continue recruiting international students. Julie Posselt, a professor of education at USC’s Rossier School of Education, noted that at research universities, much of the research is being carried out by international graduate students. 

“Especially in STEM fields, international students are really central to the research functions of universities,” Posselt said. “Enrolling international students is not optional. It is absolutely a part of the fabric of what makes universities great.” 

On top of that, colleges have financial incentives to enroll international students. That’s especially true at UC campuses, which charge international students and students from other states much higher rates of tuition than California residents. In the 2026-27 academic year, new international and out-of-state undergraduates at UC will pay nearly $52,000 in tuition, more than triple what in-state students will be charged. Nonresidents in graduate programs also generally pay higher rates than residents.

Facing pressure from the state Legislature to make more room for California residents, UC in 2017 passed a policy to cap nonresident enrollment at 18%, with a higher percentage allowed for campuses that were already above that mark. But the system still gets significant tuition revenue from nonresidents, including international students, which UC says supports the system’s core operations and helps to lower the cost of attendance for California residents.  

In a Nov. 10 interview with Fox News, Trump seemed to acknowledge the importance of international students, saying colleges might “go out of business” without them.

“You don’t want to cut half of the people, half of the students from all over the world that are coming into our country — destroy our entire university and college system — I don’t want to do that,” he said. 

International students also bring diverse perspectives and “a richness to the campus culture,” said Stett Holbrook, a spokesperson for the University of California system. “That’s something we really appreciate and try to cultivate.”

At USC, the presence of international students from more than 130 countries means there are “innumerable opportunities at USC to encounter different perspectives” and “experience new cultures,” a spokesperson said in a statement. 

Vijay, the USC student from Canada, said she regularly boasts about USC to friends, adding that she hopes attending remains an option for other international students. 

“I always think it’s just such a great opportunity and that no international student should ever take it for granted,” she said. “I wish other internationals could experience it.”

This was originally published on .

When six Southern public university systems this summer formed a new accreditation agency, the move shook the national evaluation model that higher education has relied on for decades.

The news wasn’t unexpected: It arrived a few months after President Donald Trump issued an in April overhauling the nation’s accreditation system by, among other things, barring accreditors from using college diversity mandates. It also came after U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in May for universities to switch accreditors.

The accreditation process, often bureaucratic, cumbersome and time consuming, is critical to the survival of institutions of higher education. Colleges and their individual departments must undergo outside reviews — usually every few years — to prove that they meet certain educational and financial standards. If a school is not accredited, its students cannot receive federal aid such as Pell grants and student loans.

Some accreditation agencies acknowledge the process needs to evolve. But critics say the Trump administration is reshaping accreditation for political reasons, and risks undermining the legitimacy of the degrees colleges and universities award to students.

Trump said during his campaign that he would wield college accreditation as a “secret weapon” to root out DEI and other “woke” ideas from higher education. He has made good on that pledge.

Over the summer, for example, the administration sent letters to the accreditors of both Columbia and Harvard universities, alleging that the schools had violated federal civil rights law, and thus their accreditation rules, by failing to prevent the harassment of Jewish students after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel.

The administration’s antipathy toward DEI has prompted some accreditors to remove diversity requirements. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, for instance, from its guiding principles earlier this year. Under White House pressure, the American Bar Association this year suspended enforcement of its DEI standards for its accreditation of law schools and has extended that suspension into next year.

But state legislatures laid the groundwork for public university accreditation changes even before Trump returned to the White House.

In 2022, Florida enacted a requiring the state’s public institutions to switch accreditors every cycle — usually every few years — forcing them to move away from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, known as SACSCOC.

North Carolina , with a law prohibiting the 16 universities within the University of North Carolina system and the state’s community colleges from receiving accreditation from the same agency for consecutive cycles.

Then, the consortium of six Southern university systems this summer launched its new accreditation agency, called the Commission for Public Higher Education. The participating states include Florida and North Carolina, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in a news release that the commission will “break the ideological stronghold” that other accreditation agencies have on higher education. Speaking at Florida Atlantic University, he the new organization will “upend the monopoly of the woke accreditation cartels.”

“We care about student achievement; we care about measurable outcomes; we care about efficiency; we care about pursuing truth; we care about preparing our students to be citizens of our republic,” DeSantis said.

Jan Friis, senior vice president for government affairs at the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which represents accrediting agencies, said the century-old system is in the midst of its most significant changes since the federal government tied accreditation to student aid after World War II.

“If the student picks a school that’s not accredited by a recognized accreditor, they can’t spend any federal aid there,” Friis said. “Accreditation has become the ‘good housekeeping seal of approval.’”

What’s next for the new accreditor

Dan Harrison, who is leading the startup phase of the Commission for Public Higher Education, described accreditation as “the plumbing of the whole higher ed infrastructure.”

“It’s not dramatic. It’s not meant to be partisan. But it’s critical to how schools function,” said Harrison, who is the University of North Carolina System’s vice president for academic affairs.

Though the founding schools of the new commission are all in the South, Harrison said, he expects accreditation to shift away from the long-standing geography-based model. In the past, universities in the South were accredited by SACSCOC simply because of location. In the future, he said, public universities across the country might instead be grouped together because they share similar governance structures, funding constraints and oversight.

“In 2025, if you were designing accreditation from scratch, you wouldn’t build it around geography,” Harrison said. “Public universities have more in common with each other across states than they do with private or for-profit institutions in their own backyard.”

The Commission for Public Higher Education opened with an initial cohort capped at 10 institutions within the first six states. Harrison said that based on the interest, the group could have accepted 15 to 20.

“I thought we’d be at six or seven. We reached 10 quickly and across a wider range of institutions than expected,” he said. “We already have an applicant outside the founding systems. That’s well ahead of where I thought we would be.”

That early interest, he said, reflects frustration among public institutions around finances. In particular, public universities are mandated to undergo audits from the state, but also feel burdened by audits required by accreditors.

“Public universities already undergo multiple audits and state budget oversight,” he said. “Then accreditation requires them to do the same work again. It feels like reinventing the wheel and it pulls faculty and staff away from teaching and research.”

Harrison estimates it will take five to seven years for the new accreditor to be fully up and running, and that institutions will need to maintain dual accreditation to avoid risking Pell Grants and federal loans.

The commission is busypeer review teams made up primarily of current and former public university leaders such as governing board members, system chancellors, provosts, chief financial officers, deans and faculty. In contrast to regional accreditors, which typically draw reviewers from both public and private institutions, the new commission is prioritizing reviewers from public universities.

“Ultimately, we want to be a true nationwide accreditor,” Harrison said. “Not a regional one. Not a partisan one. Just one that is organized around sector and peer expertise.”

While the creation of a public university accreditor is new, the concept of sector-specific accreditation exists in other parts of higher education, including for two-year colleges.

Mac Powell, president of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, said that tailoring accreditation to a sector can make the peer-review model more meaningful, because reviewers can identify with similar challenges. He said reviewers have been moving away from measuring resources and bureaucratic compliance toward assessing what students actually get out of their education.

“The big shift was moving from counting inputs to asking, ‘Did students actually learn what we said they would learn?’” said Powell, whose organization accredits 138 colleges across Arizona, California, New York and the Pacific.

The most important metric all accreditation models should value is how they transition their students into the workforce, he said.

“Every accreditor today is paying much more attention to retention, persistence, transfer, career outcomes and return on investment,” Powell said. “It’s becoming less about how many books are in the library and more about whether students can find a pathway to the middle class.”

The institution evolves

Stephen Pruitt is in his first year as the president of SACSCOC, the accreditation organization that the half-dozen Southern state university systems just left. Pruitt, a Georgia native, jokes that his “Southern accent and front-porch style” has helped him break down the importance of accreditation to just about anyone.

In simple terms, he said, accreditation is the system that makes college degrees real. But he feels he has to clarify a misconception about the role of accreditation agencies like SACSCOC.

“There’s this myth that I’m sitting in Atlanta deciding if institutions are good or not,” he said. “That’s not how American accreditation works. Your peers evaluate you. People who do the same work you do.”

At the same time, Pruitt isn’t dismissing the concerns that prompted states such as Florida and North Carolina to explore alternatives to SACSCOC. According to Pruitt, institutions have long raised concerns about slow turnaround times, redundant paperwork and standards that have not always adapted quickly to the evolving landscape in higher education.

“Some of the frustration is real. Institutions want less redundancy and more responsiveness. Competition isn’t something we’re afraid of,” he said. “We’re doing a full audit of our processes. We have to be more contemporary. Faster approvals, more flexibility, more transparency. Accreditation shouldn’t just be the stick. It should be the carrot too.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

You can make a lot if your bachelor’s degree is in petroleum engineering ($146,000) or pharmaceutical sciences or administration ($145,000) but a lot less if you earn a B.A. in counseling ($55,000) or early childhood education ($51,000), according to the the latest report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

On the whole, having a bachelor’s degree leads on average, to earning 70% more than just having a high school diploma, reports the center, which has been a leader the last several years in researching which credentials employers are seeking and the return for students who earn them.

People with graduate degrees earn 29% more than those with just a bachelor’s degree.

But there are big differences between fields and degrees at each level.

“Choosing a major has long been one of the most consequential decisions that college students make — and this is particularly true now, when recent college graduates are facing an unusually rocky labor market. Students need to weigh their options carefully,” wrote lead author Catherine Morris.

Speaking broadly, the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), business and communications, and healthcare degrees lead to the highest median earnings at their peak. Education, public service, humanities and the arts are as much as $40,000 a year lower.

The report — and the chart to search all 152 majors below — also shows the earning by degree for students right out of college, as well how much earnings increase when a student adds a graduate degree.

How much earnings should factor into a student’s choice of major is another debate. Some believe humanities degrees make people more informed citizens and happier adults. Advocates of some of the lower-paying fields argue that society doesn’t function well without them and that individuals can find meaning in other professions that outweigh paychecks.

Matt Hooper, vice president of communications and membership for the Council on Social Work Education, said the value of social workers to mental and behavioral health, often for children and the elderly, is hard to place a value on.

“You often hear how that pursuit (of social work degrees) was driven by their desire to make a positive difference in their communities and in the world,” Hooper said. “Social work offers inestimable value in that respect.”

As college costs rise, college loan debt cripples some graduates and Georgetown and others provide more and more data on earning potential, students have been shying away from arts to STEM and other higher-paying majors. That’s and families to and pick pursuits with better returns instead.

Humanities degrees earned have fallen a third since 2009, the report shows, while more lucrative degrees in computers, statistics and mathematics have grown by 159%. Those findings are similar to , which has also tracked the growth of engineering, health and medical degrees and the declines in humanities and education degrees.

was originally reported by Chabeli Carrazana of .

Child care is so expensive for parents in college that it often exceeds the cost of their education. For years, one federal program has been helping lower those costs, until this year when the program has faced cuts under the Trump administration.

Now, Democratic lawmakers are leading a push to save it.

House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Sen. Tammy Duckworth are reintroducing a bill Thursday to dramatically grow the $80 million Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program, which awards four-year grants to about to offer child care to low-income students, the lawmakers shared exclusively with The 19th.

Duckworth and Clark have been reintroducing this legislation for almost a decade, but this year has brought new challenges.

In his 2026 budget, President Donald Trump called for a , saying that “subsidizing child care for parents in college is unaffordable and duplicative.” It’s an effort the president has supported . The House also recommended eliminating the program, and the Senate has suggested maintaining the current level of funding, but a budget has not yet been finalized.

Already, fewer schools are participating this year because the Department of Education decided not to open the application process, so schools that would typically be reapplying for a four-year grant were shut out, experts told The 19th.

Then in August, the department made an unusual move: It notified 13 other colleges that they would no longer be receiving grant funding to run their child care programs, arguing that some of the recipients were teaching toddlers about gender ideology and the concept of race. The decision is part of the administration’s efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, though advocates said what was being taught were simple concepts to help toddlers, who are beginning to understand race and gender.

The Education Department did not respond to The 19th’s questions about cuts in grant funding, but Ellen Keast, a spokesperson for the department, that the “Trump administration will not fund programs that are not in the best interest of the American families they are intended to serve.”

Rescinding more than a dozen grants in the middle of their cycles — impacting schools in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio and other states— has been destabilizing for those programs, experts told The 19th. Edward Conroy, a senior policy manager on the higher education team at New America, a left-leaning think tank, said that schools relied heavily on CCAMPIS funding to operate and that some will likely be closing their on-campus centers when the money runs dry. That could be as soon as this month. The schools were informed just before Labor Day, when some had already begun their school years.

“If you’re on a four-year grant cycle, unless something goes really sideways, you’re expecting those funds to continue for the four years,” Conroy said. “It’s very unusual for them to be ended. It’s even more unusual for them to be ended with essentially no warning.”

Some institutions are appealing, but the future of the federal program is in question.

Clark argued that this all means it’s “even more reason to continue to push” for her bill. But that effort is also likely to face some opposition in the current political climate because Clark and Duckworth are not only suggesting the program continue operating, they want to raise its budget by more than six times what it is now.

The new price tag: $500 million.

More than 3 million college undergrads — 1 in 5 — have children, and about have kids under the age of 6. An estimated of those students are women, many of them and . The largest share of those students are .

The CCAMPIS program, which was established in 1998, targets those low-income students to help them reach graduation. Overall, student parents are about to drop out of college, and only about of single mothers who are students reach graduation within six years.

But in , the cost of center-based infant care exceeds the cost of in-state college tuition.

“There is no reasonable way for someone to be a full-time student, work and also afford child care,” said Elliot Haspel, a national child care expert who has written on the subject. “The math doesn’t math. It can be back breaking, which is why we need parents to access some kind of subsidy.”

The CCAMPIS program not only supports students (those who qualify for the Pell Grant can access the program), but smaller community colleges that don’t have the discretionary funds to operate their own child care programs. Grantees can either establish their own on-campus centers or partner with local facilities. One study at Monroe Community College in New York analyzing data from 2006 to 2014 found that 71 percent of students who used on-campus child care , compared with 42 percent of student parents who did not use on-campus child care.

“It really punches above its own weight in terms of what it can do,” Duckworth told The 19th. “Many of these programs are training centers for students who are getting degrees in early childhood education so it’s a real win, win, win, and it’s a relatively cheap program for what it provides.”

But only a small share of the students who need on-campus child care are being covered by the program as it exists now. A report from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that about parents were supported by the program in 2018. An earlier report from the analyzing program data from 2016 to 2017 found some 4,000 children were on waitlists. And because the funds are offered on a sliding scale to students, some only get a covered by the program.

It’s a : Care is too expensive and too hard to find, and those who can’t afford it or find it have to make difficult decisions around whether to care for their kids or continue to work .

“We are asking parents of young children to foot this incredible bill when we need them and it is in the interest of everyone to help them find and be able to afford child care,” Clark, who represents Massachusetts, told The 19th. “It is not only good for families and good for kids, it is really good for our economy.”

By expanding the program and its funding, Clark and Duckworth are hoping it can be better designed to actually support what students need. On-campus child care options declined from 2012 to 2021, according to a report from New America. And though CCAMPIS has been steadily receiving more funding annually, from $15 million in fiscal year 2017 to $75 million in fiscal year 2023, fewer institutions have received grants.

Advocates believe a $500 million price tag would allow the program to better cover the cost of administering child care, cover more students who need it and . New America estimates that expansion would cover .

“The $500 million is based on need and what we are seeing from people who would love to access this program but can’t,” Clark said.

The bill would reauthorize CCAMPIS through 2031 and raise the minimum grant amount in the law’s statute from $30,000 to $75,000  and establish a maximum grant amount: $2 million. It will also require that on-campus child care centers meet either federal or state quality standards, or be accredited by a respected national early childhood accrediting body; grant funds can be used for these quality improvements.

Clark told The 19th the legislation is also about giving smaller colleges the funding they need to more efficiently stand up the infrastructure to establish on-campus care. A higher minimum grant amount is “going to encourage more colleges, more universities to participate in this,” she added.

In prior years, the bill has had Republican co-leads. This year it doesn’t. Still, some Republicans do want to see improvements to the program, including Rep. Nathaniel Moran, from Texas, who has previously to also raise the minimum grant amount and add additional flexibility into the program.

Duckworth said that reintroducing the bill is in some ways about sending a message on priorities, that they are not giving up on improving the program.

“It’s also about getting the word out so colleges in and universities in red districts and red states can speak to their congressmen and their senators and say, ‘Hey, you know what? You should probably sign on to this,” Duckworth said. “There are students everywhere that have children, and they need the help, and so I’m hoping eventually somebody will sign up.”

But the $500 million price tag is likely to be a sticking point at a time when the federal government is looking for areas to cut costs.

Richard Davis Jr., a policy analyst for higher education at New America, said that while increases are badly needed for the program, “there’s still a real fight ahead to sustain funding.”

For American families, child care is a major line item in family budgets for those with young children, yet the Trump administration has not made the issue a priority despite it being one that across the political spectrum would like to see the federal government address.

“Given there is so much talk about a pro-family agenda with the Republican Party, we think there is a really great opportunity for increasing support for children and families in this way,” Davis said.

And, Haspel added, even if the $500 million figure is aspirational for advocates, there is some value in introducing legislation that draws Americans’ attention to efforts that directly address their needs.

“Something like introducing a bill and saying, ‘Hey, we actually want to increase it,’ can help force that conversation,” Haspel said. “Make those who oppose it say why.”

This story was originally published on The 19th.

A Texas State University student’s enrollment ended after a video was posted showing him mocking conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s death, the latest in a series of removals across Texas campuses prompted by comments made about the killing.

The video, Tuesday morning on X, shows the student in a crowd slapping his neck several times, calling himself Kirk and at one point climbing the base of a statue and stating “my name is Charlie Kirk” before falling over. Kirk died after being shot in the neck on Sept. 10 during an event he was hosting at Utah Valley University.

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

The video sparked responses condemning the student’s mocking of Kirk, including from Gov. , who reshared the video and demanded Texas State University take action against the student.

“Expel this student immediately,” Abbott said in a social media on X. “Mocking assassination must have consequences.”

Six hours after Abbott’s request, Texas State University announced the person in the video had been identified and “was no longer a student” at the university, according to a from Texas State University President Kelly Damphousse. It was not immediately clear whether the student was expelled or voluntarily withdrew. In Damphousse’s statement, he called the video “disturbing” and condemned the student’s behavior.

“I will not tolerate behavior that mocks, trivializes, or promotes violence on our campuses,” Damphousse said.

The name of the student was not released by Damphousse in his statement, and said that federal law prevents the school from commenting on individual student conduct matters. Texas State University spokespeople did not immediately respond to questions about what policies may have been broken or what specific behavior from the student had triggered officials to act.

The end of the student’s enrollment is a convergence between two recent phenomena gripping Texas education: widespread conservative backlash against those who mock or criticize Kirk in the days since his killing, and viral videos of those in higher education leading to their removal from campus. Faculty and advocacy groups have expressed repeated that the wave of removals and firings for statements and actions by students and faculty amount to First Amendment violations and a clampdown on free speech.

A student at Texas Tech University was arrested for misdemeanor assault on Sept. 12 after a video of her demeaning Kirk and arguing with another student was shared on social media, including by Abbott.

And in K-12 schools, at least two teachers in Texas have been fired for online comments they made about Kirk and two have resigned. The Texas Education Agency said it has received it will investigate related to comments made about Kirk. Texas American Federation of Teachers president Zeph Capo condemned the investigations as a politically motivated “witch hunt.”

Comments made by those in higher education to matters unrelated to Kirk’s death have also prompted online criticism and calls for removals. On Sept. 10, Texas State University Professor Thomas Alter for comments he made during an online social conference that was unknowingly recorded and posted on social media.

And at Texas A&M University on Sept. 9, Professor Melissa McCoul was and the College of Arts and Sciences dean and a department head were removed from their positions. The firing and removals came after a video of a student confronting McCoul in her children’s literature course over gender identity content was posted online.

The shockwave of backlash on multiple fronts across the state, led and at times spurred by conservative lawmakers, comes as Texas universities are turning to more frequently to take on administrative roles at state institutions. Three state Republican lawmakers have been selected as chancellors of some of Texas’ largest university systems this year.

Republican lawmakers have also led efforts to restrict when and how students can protest on campus, claiming the new guidelines will help to avoid unsafe behavior seen at pro-Palestinian protests last year. restricts sound amplifying devices to be used in a disruptive manner and prohibits protests between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.

The restrictions in SB 2972 come five years after the Texas Legislature passed a bill in 2019 that aimed to bolster free speech protections on campus. was also authored and favored by Republicans, which created sanctions for students who interfere with others’ free speech and protects student organizations’ ability to invite speakers on campus.

Amid the public outcry, Damphousse pushed back on claims that the student’s actions in the video reflects on the university or its community as a whole in an email sent to Texas State University students. He also asked for “measured response and dialogue” amid the anxiety on campus.

“Just as the behavior in the video was reprehensible, attempts to spread the blame onto innocent students are also unacceptable,” Damphousse said. “The actions of one person do not reflect our entire community or the individuals in it.”

This article originally appeared in at .

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) has introduced a program that will provide state funding to those with two-year college degrees to attend four-year institutions and earn their bachelors’ degrees.

The program, called Pathways to Success, aims to bolster the state’s economy through offering support for ongoing education.

“For us, it’s about providing support for them growing their human capital for what is needed in that region,” ACHE Executive Director Jim Purcell said. “We basically did a statistical analysis using the American Community Survey (ACS) and determined two workforce regions that were on the cusp of economic growth but they needed to have a different mix of credentialed individuals.”

The ACS is an annual survey of social and economic demographics conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Students attending a four-year institution can receive up to $3,000 per academic year for full-time enrollment and $250 per credit hour for part-time enrollment. Students attending a two-year institution can receive up to $1,500 per academic year for full-time enrollment and $125 per credit hour for part-time enrollment.

The initiative currently focuses on the southeast, east and north Alabama regions. According to a presentation, the Southeastern region has a high number of people with associate degrees, but is in need of individuals with a bachelor degree or higher and higher labor force participation.

Jacksonville State University (JSU), Troy University, Athens State University and Calhoun Community College will participate in the program.

this academic year is $10,590 while is $10,176. tuition for last academic year was $6,120 and tuition for the same term was $5,120.

“Being selected for the Pathways to Progress Initiative affirms our commitment to helping northeast Alabama grow by building a stronger workforce and creating more opportunities for adult learners,” JSU President Don C. Killingsworth said in a statement.

Purcell said the program will move across the state as the ACS is updated.

“We will be looking at places which we think we can increase the speed we rightset the workforce there to provide an appropriate mix of bachelors and associates in a community,” he said.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.