Friday, July 08, 2022



Biden Education Dept sued over new parents council that groups claim is ‘cabal’ of left-wing activists

Parents’ rights groups are suing the Biden administration over the Education Department’s creation of a new parents council, which the groups argue is politically biased and violates federal law.

Fight for Schools, Parents Defending Education, and America First Legal filed a joint federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Department of Education, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, and the department's National Parents and Families Engagement Council, which was created last month as a means to find "constructive ways to help families engage at the local level," the department announced June 14.

The council was launched to "facilitate strong and effective relationships between schools and parents, families and caregivers," according to the Education Department, following more than two years of protests from parents demanding more control in their children’s education amid decisions made by school boards surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.

The groups suing the Biden administration say the newly created council violates multiple provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that require balance and transparency.

FACA requires that federal advisory committees have a membership that is "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee."

The groups claim in their lawsuit that the council’s members are allies of the Biden administration, and that nearly 80% of their leaders have donated to Biden or other Democrats.

"Defendant Cardona selected members that are agreeable, not balanced," the lawsuit states.

The groups claim that leaders at 11 of the 14 organizations selected for the committee donated to President Biden, Democratic lawmakers, Democratic fundraisers, or other associations or entities affiliated with Democrats, and that none of the organizations’ highest-ranking executive donated to Republicans or right-wing organizations.

Organizations selected for the council include Al Sharpton’s National Action Network and multiple pro-Black Lives Matter groups, including Mocha Moms Inc., United Parent Leaders Action Network (UPLAN), and UnidosUS.

"To have a fair balance of viewpoints and competent deliberation on students’ needs, there must be fairly equal representation from both sides of the political spectrum," the lawsuit states. "That is not the case here, as the Council consists of groups that are already supportive of this administration."

The groups say the council is also in violation of a FACA provision that requires the "records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by" the advisory committee shall be made available for "public inspection."

The groups point to two press releases by Cardona about the council, one on June 14 that said the council would be meeting in "the coming weeks," and another press release that same day that said "the council meets to discuss how children are recovering, the different ways schools are providing academic, mental health and social and emotional support, and how families can best constructively engage with schools."

The groups say the council is violating FACA’s non-discretionary transparency and public access requirements by apparently meeting "without public notice; without making those meetings open to the public; and without timely notice in the Federal Register."

"Plaintiffs only learned that the Council has met after the DOE indicated that meetings had occurred in its second Press Release," the lawsuit states. "Regardless of whether the Council has already met, the DOE’s equivocation shows the deficiency in Defendants’ disclosure of information to the public, in violation of FACA."

The lawsuit claims that the council causes injury to the suing groups because they now have to deploy more resources to investigate the council's operations.

***********************************************

Elite Colleges Outsource Themselves as Online Universities

2U Inc. isn’t a university, but it sometimes looks like one.

The online education company uses the “.edu” email addresses of partner universities to recruit students for them. It funds scholarships. The company also uses equipment that makes it look as if its recruiters are calling from universities’ area codes.

American universities are searching for ways to generate more revenue. As a result, hundreds of schools—including Vanderbilt University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—are teaming up with for-profit companies such as 2U to provide online programs.

As part of the arrangement, one that is reshaping higher education, universities sometimes hand over to companies a great deal of control of student recruitment and instructional design, especially for nondegree programs. For their work, the companies receive hefty shares of tuition dollars.

Much of this isn’t clear to prospective and current students. Universities often cooperate with companies in ways that can blur the lines for students between schools and recruiters.

2U, based in Lanham, Md., has emerged as a leader in the booming field, employing aggressive recruiting practices and in some cases playing down its role, according to interviews with current and former 2U employees and students.

Christopher “Chip” Paucek, 2U’s chief executive and a co-founder, said the company is providing valuable services to universities that many can’t do themselves. “For the last 14 years, 2U has worked to expand access to high-quality online education for learners around the world, enabling hundreds of thousands of students to transform their lives,” Mr. Paucek said in a written statement.

Christina Denkinger wanted something new after 14 years as an elementary-school teacher in Portland, Ore. After shopping around for a course in data analytics last fall, she requested information through a University of Oregon website portal for an online training program, called a boot camp, offered by the university’s continuing-education division.

She received a “uoregon.edu” email from someone identifying herself as admissions adviser for the boot camp. It had the university logo, and there was no mention in the email of 2U. Ms. Denkinger paid $11,995 to enroll last December.

“The only reason I signed up for this boot camp was because of the reputation of the university,” she said.

One month into the course, she was disappointed with the quality of instruction and began asking questions. That was when she realized that instructors and course materials were all provided by a unit of 2U, Trilogy Education Services.

When she went back and looked on the boot camp website, Ms. Denkinger saw “powered by Trilogy” at the bottom of the landing page.

“I thought it was technical services,” said Ms. Denkinger, who left the course early and has just received a refund. “I do, honestly, feel like I was misled.”

Mr. Paucek said that while 2U isn’t perfect, it doesn’t mislead students. He said disclosure of 2U’s role typically has been left to its university partners.

“Some of the early history of 2U is the university very purposefully wanting us to not be visible...in any way,” he said. The company’s role, he added, has since become “more front and center” on university websites.

As for scholarships that 2U recruiters sometimes offer, Mr. Paucek said these get approval from universities.

A spokeswoman for the University of Oregon said that it provides administrative oversight and that the partnership with 2U is noted in several places on the website and in its enrollment agreement. After The Wall Street Journal asked about disclosures in April, a line was added to the top of the boot camp landing page saying “in partnership with Trilogy Education Services, a 2U, Inc. brand.”

2U, which isn’t accredited as a university, kept 80% of the tuition from the University of Oregon program, according to its contract with the university, which the Journal reviewed. The university said its 20% share was about $600,000 in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

The U.S. Department of Education set the stage for a boom in this “ed tech” industry in 2011. It issued guidance permitting universities to share tuition revenue with for-profit vendors that provide a range of services, including student recruitment. The law still prohibits paying bonuses or commissions to recruiters for securing enrollments.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in a May report, said at least 550 colleges and universities have hired vendors for online programs. At least 25 for-profit companies now are in the business of setting up online programs for universities and recruiting students to fill them, an industry with global revenue of an estimated $8 billion last year, according to the market-research firm Holon IQ. The companies have found willing university partners and an open faucet of federal and private student loans.

Universities, facing declining enrollment and cutbacks in funding, have looked to online programs as a way to generate revenue by reaching new audiences, including working adults. The promise of such programs became evident at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic when many schools were forced to move classes online. Schools often set tuition and fees equal to or even greater than for in-person programs.

2U sometimes provides complete courses—including instructors—for universities’ boot camps and programs leading to a certificate. For degree programs, 2U often handles marketing, recruitment, digital recording of lectures and content delivery over a technology platform, while universities typically retain control over admissions, instruction, curriculum development, tuition-setting and financial aid.

************************************************

DOJ paying $1.5M for 'transgender programming curriculum' in US prisons

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is paying a private company $1.5 million to develop a "transgender programming curriculum" to be used across all U.S. prisons.

The DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) entered a contract on July 1, 2021, with The Change Companies in Carson City, Nevada, for $1.5 million for developing transgender-specific programming for transgender prison inmates.

The BOP's Office of Public Affairs explained in a statement to Fox News Digital that The Change Companies is creating a curriculum for transgender federal inmates that "teaches techniques to seek support for mental health concerns and skills to advocate for physical, emotional, and sexual health and safety."

"The BOP provides services and programs tailored to address the needs of the transgender population," the statement read. "By entering into a contract with The Change Companies, the BOP is able to expand program offerings for transgender inmates."

"Through this engagement, the vendor has been tasked to develop transgender-specific programming to be implemented at all BOP institutions nationwide," it continued. "These include three programs focused on reentry, transition acceptance, and a support group to assist transgender inmates in addressing reentry needs and managing identity concerns. The vendor is in the process of creating these programs, which will include full curricula and facilitator’s guides, the use of instructional workbooks, and videos."

The development phase of the curriculum is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2022, according to the contract summary on the government’s website.

"The BOP maintains procurement integrity and compliance with laws and federal regulations when procuring contracts of goods and services," the agency’s statement continued. "The award of this contract was compliant with federal law and regulations to include fair pricing of the award."

The BOP also pointed to the agency’s "Transgender Offender Manual," which outlines the responsibilities of staff in handling transgender inmates. According to the manual, a transgender inmate must first meet with a BOP psychologist and sign a form indicating consent to be identified within the agency as transgender in order for special accommodations to be considered.

The BOP’s "Transgender Offender Manual," issued in January also includes new protocol regarding gender-affirming surgery for federal inmates. It states that surgery is the "final stage in the transition process and is generally considered only after one year of clear conduct and compliance with mental health, medical, and programming services at the gender-affirming facility."

"The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) recognizes the importance of appropriate gender-affirming management and treatment of transgender individuals in its custody," the agency’s statement to Fox News Digital read. "The programming developed under this contract will be available for individuals identifying as transgender who are currently in BOP custody and moving forward."

The Change Companies did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.

The BOP’s policies for transgender inmates made headlines earlier this month after the agency worked to fast-track a transgender ex-neo-Nazi bank robber's gender affirmation surgery after the inmate, Donna Langan, filed a lawsuit claiming the BOP denied previous requests for the surgery.

In a case earlier this year, a federal judge in Illinois ordered the BOP to immediately find a qualified surgeon to perform gender-affirming surgery on transgender prisoner Cristina Nichole Iglesias.

***********************************

My other blogs: Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*******************************

No comments: