Latest news with #NationalDefenseEducationAct
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Iowa State University president signs statement calling for national investment in R&D
Iowa State University President Wendy Wintersteen joined other university and business leaders in calling for national investment in research and development. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Iowa State University leadership has joined universities, companies and other organizations across the U.S. in calling for the Trump administration to further invest in national research and development and ensure the country's future as a talent pipeline and innovation powerhouse. ISU President Wendy Wintersteen last week signed a written statement penned by the Council on Competitiveness, a nonprofit organization with the mission of enhancing U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace, asking President Donald Trump and Congress to support a 'renewed call to action' to strengthen domestic innovation and production capabilities. The statement includes recommendations for transforming American innovation by investing in research and new technologies, strengthening partnerships and attracting global talent. ISU spokesperson Angie Hunt said Wintersteen decided to sign the statement to support investment in research and development. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Investing in innovation is vital for developing new cutting-edge technologies that fuel our economy and keep our state and country competitive,' Hunt said. 'Iowa State is a trusted partner for innovative and proactive solutions, and President Wintersteen understands the value of working collaboratively with industry and government to meet societal needs.' Other universities whose leaders signed onto the statement include the University of South Carolina, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of California Davis and San Diego, the University of Arizona, the University at Buffalo, Boston University, Boise State University, the University of Nebraska and Illinois systems, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Idaho State University, Ohio State University, the University of Maryland, the University of Memphis, the University of Colorado Boulder, Vanderbilt University and the University of Wyoming. Gallup and PepsiCo were also featured on the list of 50 Council on Competitiveness members who signed the statement, as well as the American Federation of Teachers. The statement named China as the U.S.'s biggest competitor in its nearly 250-year history, and said the country 'aims to rewrite the rules of the global economy, control emerging 'dual-use' technologies, and dominate the strategic industries of the future.' One of the recommendations included in the statement is for the U.S. to 'invest at scale' in dual-use technologies like advanced materials, AI, biotechnology, precision agriculture, semiconductors and more. It also recommends enhancing statecraft for critical technologies and implementing a new National Defense Education Act to grow the number of Americans with some level of STEM degree. 'To achieve President Trump's vision of a Golden Age of American Innovation, we must strengthen our innovation system by reinvesting in the research partnerships and innovation infrastructure that have made the United States the global leader in turning knowledge and ideas into commercial value and societal impact,' the statement said. Increased and expanded partnerships are also recommended in the statement, from those between research universities, the business sector and the government to international allies, as well as bringing research and development investment up to 2% of the U.S. GDP and maintaining efforts to recruit and retain global talent while following research security protocols. R&D funding at the federal level as a part of the total GDP used to sit at more than 2% in the 1960s, according to the statement, but has dropped to the current .7%. Actions taken by Trump and his administration have gone against what the organization is recommending, including revoking international student SEVIS statuses and visas and, most recently, halting the scheduling of new visa interviews for international students until new guidelines relating to social media are available, the Associated Press reported. Cutting funding to science agency budgets and research funding, as well as reducing staff in federal offices, were mentioned in the statement as moves that 'threaten the research infrastructure that underpins America's innovation capacity and capability.' The U.S. has been a global leader of science and technology advancements since World War II, the statement said, driven by a model of partnerships and collaboration between academia, industries and the government. A renewed investment in R&D on a national scale, driven by commitments on both sides of the aisle, to continue this trend and keep the U.S. innovating. 'We must accelerate the policy drivers and investments required to increase national productivity and improve the living standards for all Americans,' the statement said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Time of India
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
How are America's elite universities financed?
In a sweeping assertion of federal power barely months after returning to the White House , President Donald Trump has begun reshaping American higher education by targeting elite universities with deep funding cuts. The most dramatic move came last week, when Trump moved to revoke $2.2 billion (€1.9 billion) in multiyear research grants for Harvard. Earlier in April, he froze nearly $1 billion in funding for Cornell and $790 million for Northwestern, signaling that no institution is exempt. The funding freeze is part of a broader campaign to shrink publicly financed science and penalize US campuses that the Trump administration has accused of ideological bias, antisemitism and failing to handle pro-Palestinian protests in their campuses. Cuts have extended beyond higher education, affecting research in areas such as climate science, vaccine development and gender inequality. In response, more than 100 universities issued a joint letter on April 22 denouncing what they called "unprecedented government overreach." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Upto 15% Discount for Salaried Individuals ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo "We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion. We must reject the coercive use of public research funding," the letter stated. US elite universities have a unique financial system Federal funding for elite universities dates back to the Great Depression in the early part of the 20th century, and was solidified during the Cold War. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act in response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, the world's first artificial satellite, which initiated major investments in science and technology. That funding laid the groundwork for a long-standing partnership in which the federal government helped transform American universities into global centers of research, innovation and talent. In 2023, US colleges and universities spent $108.8 billion on research and development —$60 billion of which, or roughly 55%, was provided by the federal government, according to the National Science Foundation. Harvard sues Trump administration over funding freeze Unlike many nations, the United States does not have a national university. American education is primarily the responsibility of states, and elite institutions rely on a complex web of revenue streams to operate, of which federal funding is just one part. The financial strength of top US universities lies in their diversified models, particularly in their endowments — vast investment portfolios built through decades of philanthropy and capital growth. For example, Harvard's endowment, which reached $53.2 billion in 2024, making it the largest among all universities worldwide, exceeds the gross domestic product (GDP) of countries such as Jordan, Georgia or Iceland. The universities of Texas, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and MIT follow closely behind, with endowments ranging from $23.5 billion to more than $40 billion, according to National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). But these endowments are not limitless lifelines. Most of the capital is tied up in donor-restricted funds, which are legally earmarked for specific purposes, such as scholarships, professorships or targeted research initiatives. Harvard's endowment comprises more than 14,600 individual funds, nearly all of which are bound by donor restrictions, according to university disclosures. Philanthropy, fundraising campaigns and tuition Philanthropic donations remain a fundamental part of university finances, often driving capital expansion and boosting institutional prestige. However, these gifts frequently come with conditions. According to NACUBO, approximately 90% of university endowment funds are designated for specific uses, such as scholarships, research or infrastructure. High-profile fundraising campaigns can generate billions, but most donations are earmarked for long-term projects such as new buildings, endowed faculty positions or academic program development — not for emergencies or sudden budget shortfalls. Unrestricted gifts, which universities can use to cover operating deficits or respond to abrupt funding cuts, are comparatively rare. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, many institutions faced financial strain despite having significant funds, because much of that capital was locked in long-term projects and could not be accessed freely. Tuition revenue, meanwhile, covers only part of the operational costs at elite private universities. It also remains a politically sensitive and limited source of income. The same applies to auxiliary revenues, such as campus housing, dining, technology licensing and executive education, which are typically reinvested in core academic functions rather than optional expenditures. How US universities compare to non-American counterparts Elite American universities operate on a scale unmatched by their global peers. Oxford University's endowment, when combining its 43 colleges and the central university, totals about £8.3 billion ($11.05 billion, €10 billion) — about one-fifth of Harvard's alone, according to the University of Oxford. The Cambridge University Endowment Fund stands at approximately £210 million, with the broader institution's total net assets at £2.62 billion, excluding the assets of individual colleges. In much of Europe and China, revenue models lean heavily on government subsidies and tuition caps. According to the European Tertiary Education Register, few European institutions hold endowments exceeding $1 billion. What are the consequences of research budget cuts? While America's top universities boast immense endowments and diversified revenue streams, their capacity to lead in global research remains deeply intertwined with public funding. That dependence is now being tested. Harvard Medical School has begun preparing for possible layoffs, ended leases on several buildings and suspended some research grants. The NIH, the nation's primary source of biomedical research funding, faces a proposed 40% budget cut. At Columbia University, the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons has responded with immediate spending freezes — an early signal of the broader fallout to come. The funding squeeze extends far beyond health sciences. NASA's $7.6 billion science budget could be nearly halved under current proposals. Nasa has confirmed that it is reviewing budget recommendations submitted by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has not commented publicly on the matter. The impact is not limited to elite schools. Smaller universities and specialized scientific operations that primarily rely on federal support face potential disruptions that could stall local innovation and weaken regional economies. The Atomic Spectroscopy Group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a key global reference lab used in fields from cosmology to manufacturing, is reportedly set to shut down. For many learning and research institutions, the question is no longer whether they will be affected, but how deeply — and how long the damage will last.
Miami Herald
25-03-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Trump order throws income-driven student loan repayment into upheaval. What to know
Uncertainty is high for millions of federal student loan borrowers wondering how their payment plans will be impacted amid disruptions in the Department of Education after President Donald Trump's executive order crafted an effort to dismantle the department. Some borrowers on income-driven repayment plans have reported that they are unable to recertify their income because the form is no longer available to them online, a necessary step to remain on the plan. These plans base monthly payments off of a borrower's income and family size. In one case, an attorney in Texas said her student loan payments more than quadrupled without warning after she was automatically placed on a 10-year standard repayment plan after missing the deadline to recertify her income. 'The Trump administration took the form for selecting an income-driven repayment plan offline after the appeals court enjoined the program,' student financial aid expert Mark Kantrowitz told McClatchy News. A court injunction blocked the implementation of the Biden-era Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan, but also called into question other parts of income-driven repayment plans, according to the Office of Federal Student Aid. Amid reports of the missing, yet necessary form, the Office of Federal Student Aid extended the deadline to recertify income and family size to at least February 2026. However, the announcement said, 'please allow a few weeks for this extension to occur. We will notify borrowers when this is complete.' How were income-driven repayment plans created? Federal student loans were first offered in 1958 under passage of the National Defense Education Act. Seven years later, the Higher Education Act of 1965 established federal aid for lower income students, but subsequently allowed banks and private institutions to hand out government-subsidized student loans, according to Congressional Research Service. The Student Loan Reform Act, which amended the 1965 statute, within the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in 1993 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. This law set lower interest rates for Federal Direct Stafford Loans and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans beginning July 1, 1994, according to the bill, and created a variety of repayment options. 'Income contingent' repayment plans were part of this bill. These plans base a monthly student loan payment off of a borrower's income and family size, according to the Office of Federal Student Aid. At the end of the plan's established repayment period, remaining balances can be forgiven in some cases. Over the last three decades, there have been a variety of income-driven repayment plans offered by the Department of Education. Today, four are available, though the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan remains in a federal court battle. Can Trump dismantle income-based repayment plans? Education experts say Trump cannot use an executive order to dismantle parts of the Department of Education that were established through a congressional act. 'Dissolving the U.S. Department of Education would require an act of Congress. The FAFSA, student loans and the Federal Pell Grant are specified in statute, so President Trump cannot eliminate them or the U.S. Department of Education through an executive order,' Kantrowitz told McClatchy News in a February email. In general, executive orders cannot nullify federal laws or rights granted in the constitution, Texas Christian University criminal justice professor Michele Meitl said in a Q&A. In the March 20 executive order, Trump called on Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to 'take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.' The request asked the Secretary to take action to the 'maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.' Since then, multiple lawsuits have been filed in an effort to stop the dismantling of the department without the approval of Congress, the New York Times reported. Trump announced that the student loan system orchestrated by the federal government will shift from the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration, Forbes reported. However, Kantrowitz said that this move still requires an act of Congress.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Without the DOE's Institute of Education Sciences, Helping Teachers Learn What Works in the Classroom Will Get a Lot Harder
This article was originally published in The Conversation. The future of the Institute of Education Sciences, the nonpartisan research arm of the Education Department, is suddenly in jeopardy. The Department of Government Efficiency, a Trump administration task force led by Elon Musk, has announced plans to cancel most of the institute's contracts and training grants. The institute's annual budget is less that US$1 billion – or less than 1% of the Department of Education's budget – but it advances education by supporting rigorous research and sharing data on student progress. It also sets standards for evidence-based practices and formalizes the criteria for evaluating educational research. In short, the Institute of Education Sciences identifies what works and what doesn't. Related Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter As cognitive scientists who engage in educational research, we believe this often overlooked institute is key to advancing national education standards and preventing pseudoscience from entering classrooms. Getting education right can help address some of the nation's biggest challenges, such as high school dropout rates and poverty. But throughout U.S. history, dissatisfaction with student achievement levels has spurred major education reform efforts. Russia's launch of the Sputnik space satellite, for example, triggered the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That measure attempted to strengthen science and math instruction to bolster Cold War defense efforts. Concerns about educational inequality led to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which funded schools serving students from low-income families. After President Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education in 1979, small-government conservatives, including Ronald Reagan, pledged to abolish it. As president, however, Reagan appointed former education commissioner Terrel Bell as secretary of education. Bell convened the National Commission on Excellence in Education. And in 1983 it produced A Nation at Risk, a report that warned of 'a rising tide of mediocrity' in schools. It motivated national leaders to push for higher academic standards. In 1997, growing alarm over many students' poor reading levels led to the National Reading Panel, which emphasized evidence-based reading instruction. In response to continuing concern about U.S. education, President George W. Bush partnered with U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to pass the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002. The law attempted to raise standards by mandating testing and interventions for low-performing schools. It provided incentives for successful schools and punishment for failing ones. This law significantly improved achievement, particularly in math. Just months after Congress approved the No Child Left Behind Act, it established the Institute of Education Sciences to provide independent education research, becoming the first federal agency dedicated to using scientific research to guide education policy. Before the institute, educational research was fragmented, ideologically driven and inaccessible to parents and teachers. Findings were buried in books or locked behind paywalls. The institute broke that cycle. Structured with statutory independence, it is led by a director and a board composed of researchers, not political appointees. It produces replicable results and makes them freely available to the public. For example, the What Works Clearinghouse, launched in 2003, provides educators with guidance on effective practices. A school board seeking to adopt a new curriculum can find answers on the site about effective approaches. The clearinghouse distills research into clear recommendations. It spares local decision-makers from having to wade through complex studies. The site also references original studies and offers descriptions for local decision-makers who want to examine the evidence for themselves. Since 2007, it has published 30 practice guides. They cover topics such as teaching fractions, improving reading and reducing high school dropout rates. These guides synthesize the best available evidence, rather than relying on one study, leader or political ideology. Yet, the clearinghouse may be one of the parts of the Institute of Education Sciences on the chopping block. From the 20th-century belief that instruction should be tailored to students' skull shape to the 1970s movement promoting unstructured learning in classrooms without walls, pseudoscience and fads have obstructed improvements in education. The Institute of Education Sciences protects educational freedom by countering these claims. Some argue that free markets should dictate educational choices. They believe parents and school boards will naturally gravitate toward effective programs while ineffective ones fade away. But education markets often reward programs with the best marketing, not the best results. Psychologists who study scientific thinking have documented how pseudoscientific programs gain traction through compelling narratives rather than evidence. Meanwhile, public trust in expertise is declining, and pseudoscientific products flood the market. Programs such as Brain Balance and Learning Rx thrive in the $2 billion brain training industry. Marketed directly to parents of children with learning difficulties, these products use slick advertising and claim to 'rewire' children's brains to boost learning. Families pay thousands for programs that lack credible, peer-reviewed evidence of lasting benefits. Programs designed by university scholars also aren't immune to the allure of anecdote over hard data. Columbia professor Lucy Calkins has downplayed the importance of teaching phonics, thus harming a generation of students' reading development. Stanford professor Jo Boaler's controversial ideas delayed Algebra I in some California schools until ninth grade and discouraged timed arithmetic practice. And Drug Abuse Resistance Education thrived for decades despite overwhelming evidence that it did not work. These examples reveal how well-intentioned but ineffective educational products gain traction through public appeal rather than rigorous research. In 2007 the Office of Management and Budget awarded the Institute of Education Sciences the highest score on its program assessment rating tool, a distinction earned by only 18% of federal programs. But most Americans probably never heard of this. And that highlights the institute's major weakness: insufficient emphasis on sharing its findings and practice guides with the public and policymakers. The institute would do well to publicize its findings more extensively so that parents and education leaders can better access rigorous research to improve education. Whatever changes are made to the Department of Education, preserving the institute's role in providing research on what works best – and ensuring continuous exchanges between research and practice – will benefit the American public. This article has been corrected regarding Lucy Calkins' affiliation with Columbia University. The school's Teachers College has disbanded Calkins' Reading and Writing Project, but she remains a faculty member on sabbatical. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Helping teachers learn what works in the classroom − and what doesn't − will get a lot harder without the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences
The future of the Institute of Education Sciences, the nonpartisan research arm of the Education Department, is suddenly in jeopardy. The Department of Government Efficiency, a Trump administration task force led by Elon Musk, has announced plans to cancel most of the institute's contracts and training grants. The institute's annual budget is less that US$1 billion – or less than 1% of the Department of Education's budget – but it advances education by supporting rigorous research and sharing data on student progress. It also sets standards for evidence-based practices and formalizes the criteria for evaluating educational research. In short, the Institute of Education Sciences identifies what works and what doesn't. As cognitive scientists who engage in educational research, we believe this often overlooked institute is key to advancing national education standards and preventing pseudoscience from entering classrooms. Getting education right can help address some of the nation's biggest challenges, such as high school dropout rates and poverty. But throughout U.S. history, dissatisfaction with student achievement levels has spurred major education reform efforts. Russia's launch of the Sputnik space satellite, for example, triggered the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That measure attempted to strengthen science and math instruction to bolster Cold War defense efforts. Concerns about educational inequality led to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which funded schools serving students from low-income families. After President Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education in 1979, small-government conservatives, including Ronald Reagan, pledged to abolish it. As president, however, Reagan appointed former education commissioner Terrel Bell as secretary of education. Bell convened the National Commission on Excellence in Education. And in 1983 it produced A Nation at Risk, a report that warned of 'a rising tide of mediocrity' in schools. It motivated national leaders to push for higher academic standards. In 1997, growing alarm over many students' poor reading levels led to the National Reading Panel, which emphasized evidence-based reading instruction. In response to continuing concern about U.S. education, President George W. Bush partnered with U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to pass the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002. The law attempted to raise standards by mandating testing and interventions for low-performing schools. It provided incentives for successful schools and punishment for failing ones. This law significantly improved achievement, particularly in math. Just months after Congress approved the No Child Left Behind Act, it established the Institute of Education Sciences to provide independent education research, becoming the first federal agency dedicated to using scientific research to guide education policy. Before the institute, educational research was fragmented, ideologically driven and inaccessible to parents and teachers. Findings were buried in books or locked behind paywalls. The institute broke that cycle. Structured with statutory independence, it is led by a director and a board composed of researchers, not political appointees. It produces replicable results and makes them freely available to the public. For example, the What Works Clearinghouse, launched in 2003, provides educators with guidance on effective practices. A school board seeking to adopt a new curriculum can find answers on the site about effective approaches. The clearinghouse distills research into clear recommendations. It spares local decision-makers from having to wade through complex studies. The site also references original studies and offers descriptions for local decision-makers who want to examine the evidence for themselves. Since 2007, it has published 30 practice guides. They cover topics such as teaching fractions, improving reading and reducing high school dropout rates. These guides synthesize the best available evidence, rather than relying on one study, leader or political ideology. Yet, the clearinghouse may be one of the parts of the Institute of Education Sciences on the chopping block. From the 20th-century belief that instruction should be tailored to students' skull shape to the 1970s movement promoting unstructured learning in classrooms without walls, pseudoscience and fads have obstructed improvements in education. The Institute of Education Sciences protects educational freedom by countering these claims. Some argue that free markets should dictate educational choices. They believe parents and school boards will naturally gravitate toward effective programs while ineffective ones fade away. But education markets often reward programs with the best marketing, not the best results. Psychologists who study scientific thinking have documented how pseudoscientific programs gain traction through compelling narratives rather than evidence. Meanwhile, public trust in expertise is declining, and pseudoscientific products flood the market. Programs such as Brain Balance and Learning Rx thrive in the $2 billion brain training industry. Marketed directly to parents of children with learning difficulties, these products use slick advertising and claim to 'rewire' children's brains to boost learning. Families pay thousands for programs that lack credible, peer-reviewed evidence of lasting benefits. Programs designed by university scholars also aren't immune to the allure of anecdote over hard data. Former Columbia professor Lucy Calkins downplayed the importance of teaching phonics, thus harming a generation of students' reading development. Stanford professor Jo Boaler's controversial ideas delayed Algebra I in some California schools until ninth grade and discouraged timed arithmetic practice. And Drug Abuse Resistance Education thrived for decades despite overwhelming evidence that it did not work. These examples reveal how well-intentioned but ineffective educational products gain traction through public appeal rather than rigorous research. In 2007 the Office of Management and Budget awarded the Institute of Education Sciences the highest score on its program assessment rating tool, a distinction earned by only 18% of federal programs. But most Americans probably never heard of this. And that highlights the institute's major weakness: insufficient emphasis on sharing its findings and practice guides with the public and policymakers. The institute would do well to publicize its findings more extensively so that parents and education leaders can better access rigorous research to improve education. Whatever changes are made to the Department of Education, preserving the institute's role in providing research on what works best – and ensuring continuous exchanges between research and practice – will benefit the American public. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Nicole M. McNeil, University of Notre Dame and Robert Stuart Siegler, Columbia University Read more: There is declining trust in Australian unis. Federal government policy is a big part of the problem US secretary of education helps set national priorities in a system primarily funded and guided by local governments Why does Trump want to abolish the Education Department? An anthropologist who studies MAGA explains 4 reasons Nicole M. McNeil has served as an investigator on projects funded by IES, including one current project on leveraging technology to improve children's mathematical understanding. She has given invited talks to trainees in IES predoctoral training programs and has served on IES grant review and awards panels. She regularly supports educators in engaging with IES's What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and its Practice Guides as part of her capacity-building efforts to connect volunteer tutors to cognitive science through an AmeriCorps VGF grant. Robert Stuart Siegler has received funding from IES for four grants; the most recent of which ended in 2018. He also received funds from IES for heading the Fractions Practice Guide Panel and for writing a review for IES of findings from research that the institute funded.
