Natalie Javitt is an intern with the Pennsylvania Legislative Correspondents Association.

Middle school nurse Kacie Blum said she had nearly 12,000 visitors to her office last academic year, seeing 60 to 75 students a day.

She said Blum’s local urgent care facility sees about 35 patients a day and employs multiple physicians.

Caring for students with diabetes, cystic fibrosis and cerebral palsy, as well as working on individualized health plans and clinics, are just some of the tasks Blum deals with every day. But she said she can only provide consistent and reliable care if she has the time and ability to do so.

“There’s not a lot of room for a bathroom break, a lunch break, or planning for the administrative responsibilities that I’m supposed to have during the day,” said Blum, who received the 2025-2026 School Nurse Excellence Award for the south-central region of Pennsylvania.

Blum, who works at York Suburban Middle School in York County, was one of 20 school nurses who went to the Capitol on Tuesday to demand an update to Pennsylvania’s 75-year-old public school code, which governs nurse-to-student ratios and state funding for medical needs.

AND House bill proposed by Rep. Lisa Borowski (D-Delaware) would augment reimbursement rates and the required number of nurses per student in schools.

Currently, the code provides for one school nurse for every 1,500 students. Under Borowski’s House Bill 2285, that ratio would be cut in half, to one nurse for every 750 students, bringing it into line with CDC recommendations.

Pennsylvania reimburses public schools for health care costs through a flat-rate funding structure. The bill also seeks to augment the reimbursement rate by 30% on an average student basis to offset rising medical and service costs.

It also proposes limiting school reimbursement for providing care.

Borowski proposed the bill after meeting with Leigh Ann Coary, a school nurse in the Tredyffrin/Easttown school district, tthe hat made her concerned that the nurses were stretched too lean. Coary said on average she sometimes sees more than 100 students, making it tough to meet their individual needs and multitask.

“If I’m dealing with a medically sensitive student, I can’t be in another hallway and have an allergic reaction,” Coary said. “If I’m on the phone with a parent about a student in crisis, I can’t be running into an emergency situation at the same time. When we’re short-staffed, the question becomes, ‘Who else is waiting?’

Coary said school nurse regulations need to be updated to better reflect the unpredictability and variety of health crises students are currently experiencing.

The bill modernizes the reimbursement system instead of relying on an dated financing system, but the policy will be meaningless if staff shortages are not addressed, she added.

Coary continued that nurses need to be recruited and retained by school districts so they don’t have to employ so many students.

The shortage of nurses is a national problem felt across the country questionnaire finding a 19% vacancy rate for registered nurses in Pennsylvania hospitals.

Borowski said she expects these shortcomings will be addressed in lawmakers’ deliberations on the bill. But she said staffing rates ensure children have access to care even in the face of shortages, and increasing funding would improve care by actually covering costs.

“I don’t know how one person can meet the needs of so many students in one day,” Borowski said.

Blum said increasing reimbursement rates was more cost-effective than paying the costs of litigation if something went wrong and there weren’t enough nurses to support in an emergency.

She said Pennsylvania’s school code is archaic and written for a different era because the last update to the school health care reimbursement structure was in 1991.

“The work I do within the walls of my school spills into my students’ homes and onto the streets of their neighborhoods,” said Whitney Roach, a nurse in Philadelphia County. “School nurses are uniquely qualified and trusted to improve the health and well-being of not only schools, but entire communities.”

The House of Representatives Education Committee passed the bill party line vote in March.

Emily Scolnick is a 2026 Dow Jones News Fund intern at Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

House lawmakers are urging the state Senate to pass a bill that would allow Pennsylvania’s governing body for high school athletics to split playoffs for public and private schools.

House Bill 41First introduced by Rep. Scott Conklin (D-Center), would give Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) has the legal authority to make changes to the playoff structure.

Standard passed the House in delayed April by a 178-23 bipartisan vote and currently serves on the Senate Education Committee.

Proposed text Amends the Public School Code of 1949 to allow the PIAA to separate playoff games for border and non-border schools.

The bill “does not require PIAA to make any changes,” said Sen. Marty Flynn (D-Lackawanna), who introduced it Senate version of the billhe said. “It simply gives the organization the power to make changes.”

The legislation gained momentum this year after the boys basketball team from Old Forge High School in Lackawanna County made a historic run to the PIAA championship before losing to Sewickley Academy, a private school near Pittsburgh, prompting its principal to call for reform.

“The issue wasn’t about working harder, it wasn’t about coaching, it wasn’t about dedication,” said Chris Rasmus, a recent graduate of Old Forge High School and a member of that basketball team. “The problem is competitive balance.”

Paul Brennan, Director of Riverside School Districtstated that it is necessary to consider whether “our children [lost] to a better team from another community, or did they lose to a system that allowed one side to build differently?”

The issue of fair competition in high school sports in Pennsylvania is not novel: Conklin said that before the COVID-19 pandemic, schools outside the PIAA’s boundaries were considering forming their own league because “it has become crystal clear that the idea of ​​high school sports is to teach that we all stay at the same level.”

Several speakers emphasized that the bill is not an attack on private, religious or charter schools, but is intended to ensure equal opportunities for student-athletes across the state.

“We are here because equity and opportunity matter, and public schools and athletes matter.” Stara Kuźnia School District said Superintendent Chris Gatto.

Out-of-bounds schools currently make up 24% of PIAA members but win 57% of state titles compared to out-of-bounds schools, Gatto said. Since 2011, foreign schools have won 68% of state basketball titles.

“The current system adapts to wins and losses, it does not adapt to access to talent,” he said. “No formula will ever do this unless we are willing to honestly admit that there is a difference between the two models.”

Flynn, representing Old Forge, added that the goal of the bill is to prioritize fair and equitable competition.

“We don’t always see that the votes were unequal,” said Rep. Jim Haddock (D-Luzerne), who also represents Old Forge. “Democrats and Republicans came together to support House Bill 41 because it was not about politics, it was about students.”

Casey Scanlan, a prominent Lehigh Valley mother community organizer Supporting the bill, they said state school administrators’ associations and school boards also support the measure, along with a coalition of more than 400 superintendents from across the state.

Haddock said “PIAA is working” to ensure the bill is passed and “understood.”[s] situation.” Scanlan said that if it passes the Senate, the changes could take effect in delayed 2027 or early 2028 after a series of public hearings.

“We believe they will hear from the public what we say,” Scanlan said.

Scanlan also made a direct appeal to Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (Indiana) and Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward (Westmoreland), urging them to move the legislation through the Education Committee and consider it on the floor.

“The time has come,” he said. “The House just passed you the most bipartisan legislation you will see. Our coalition does not want to be kept waiting.”

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat.

Furious over the Philadelphia Board of Education’s vote to close several schools, City Council Education Committee Chairman Isaiah Thomas wants to consider changing the board from a mayor-appointed to an elected one.

However, this would be an extremely complicated and politically discouraging process. State lawmakers would have to pass legislation, which the governor would have to sign. The mayor would have to give up appointing board members, and voters would have to approve the change.

The move to an elected board could also strip the City Council of much of its influence over the district. That’s because these and other legal changes could ultimately give the school board the main power it currently lacks: the power to levy taxes.

Proposal from Tomasz follows a citywide outcry all around the district’s decision to close 17 schoolsto which he was vehemently opposed; he promised apply to suspend the closuresalthough no such suit has been created to date.

The highlight is his push to change the way school board members are elected long-term conflicts between various centers of political power in the city. It also raises concerns that, unlike every other school district in the state, Philadelphia residents lack direct representation when the board makes vital decisions about spending, charter school expansion, curriculum mandates, desegregation initiatives and more.

Under the current arrangement, school board members and the superintendent must go back to the mayor and council each year to insist on a portion of city taxes that would be sufficient to facilitate the district meet student needs, after many years of what the court found. there were insufficient state funding levels, which was a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

This forces board members and district leaders to argue with the council over the budget every year. Even more stressful is the district’s long-standing structural deficit. For 2026-27 management just adopted budget of $4.6 billion, with cuts of $225 million to meet projections $300 million missing.

All of this means that if the school board gained its own taxing powers and could rely less on city government, “it would be a huge structural change in the way the city and the school district operate,” said Christopher McGinley, a former Philadelphia school board member who also served as superintendent in two suburban districts with elected boards.

It’s unclear what, if anything, would convince city officials to give up their current power over school funding and school board members. Last month, Thomas said that while he supports an elected school board, he does not support giving it taxing powers.

Mayor Cherelle Parker elected all nine current board members at the beginning of her term. Nominees are first verified by: Education Nominating Panelwho is also appointed by the mayor. They are then subject to the “advice and consent” of the City Council. (Board member Joyce Wilkerson was appointed by Parker but he never obtained council approvaland now serves as a “remaining” member who caused additional controversy.)

A spokesman for Parker did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

An elected school board could create modern political problems in Philadelphia even if it alleviates current ones. But some believe the existing process is insufficient to address the myriad challenges facing the district.

Lisa Haver of the Alliance for Philadelphia Public Schools, a longtime critic of the board, pointed out that at local hearings on the proposed school closures, almost every speaker opposed them, but to no avail. For her, Philadelphia’s elected school board is also about integrity.

“Why should every other school district in Pennsylvania have an elected board and Philadelphia shouldn’t?” she said

School boards in Pennsylvania have taxing power – except for Philly’s

The most direct impact an elected and unelected board could have on the city’s schools would be the ability to raise tax dollars.

In all of the state’s other 500 school districts, elected boards of education collect taxes from schools, while municipal and county governments raise taxes for other needs, such as infrastructure and social services. Education and citizenship governing bodies are separate entities with their own taxing powers, geographic boundaries and sources of revenue. For example, Montgomery County includes 62 municipalities and 22 school districts.

Merely moving from an appointed to an elected school board would not automatically include taxing rights. Giving the elected school board taxing powers would require a vote of the state legislature and amendments to the state school code. It would also require voters to approve changes to the education portion of the city’s 1965 Charter of Home Rule.

However, unlike other jurisdictions, Philadelphia is its own county and its own school district. This means that even if an elected school board were given the power to levy taxes by the state government and voters, it would result in the City Council and the Board of Education drawing from the same sources of tax revenue.

Richard Feder, a former legislative chief at the city’s law department, said all of these changes would mean “cutting the City Council out of the process” of school funding, likely leading to the kind of sturdy council opposition that Thomas has already expressed.

In addition to the sedate political concerns, Feder said he doesn’t think giving the elected board taxing powers is a good idea from a fiscal standpoint.

“I’ve spent my career fighting for more school funding,” Feder said, “but we shouldn’t have two competing tax authorities fighting for the same limited tax base.”

Susan Gobreski, former head of the advocacy group Education Voters PA, said Philadelphians already elect officials who fund schools. The council “is not a single-issue body” like the school board and can put all of the city’s needs into perspective, she added.

At the same time, she added, the feeling that the management board is accountable to no one is real. Gobreski said that even if the elected board lacked taxing powers, it would still be worthwhile to allow the public to elect its members so that voters could feel they had a say in choosing those responsible for education policy decisions.

Electing school board members could open Pandora’s box

But there would be another complication of changing the elected board. Feder said that to meet state requirements, Philadelphia voters would have to approve a change to the city’s charter to allow partisan elections. Otherwise, state voters would have to approve a school code amendment allowing Philadelphia to hold nonpartisan elections.

McGinley, who served on the School Reform Commission that previously ran Philadelphia schools and was superintendent at Lower Merion and Cheltenham, worries that electing school board members will open a political Pandora’s box, giving more influence to interest groups “that play their cards” on various issues.

But Elaine Simon, a retired urban planning professor at the University of Pennsylvania who is co-authoring a forthcoming book on the latest wave of school closures in 2013, said an elected board, especially one with regional representatives, would be more sensitive to the needs of different areas of the city.

“At this time, school board members do not represent the district,” she said.

Not surprisingly, Board of Education Chairman Reginald Streater is skeptical about the benefits Philadelphia would gain by electing school board members.

He said more time should pass before another major change in district management can be considered. Only this recently appeared from an even less democratic period, when a state commission ran city schools from 2001 to 2018 before ceding control to the local school board.

He emphasized that the state is moving towards adequacy of school financing after historic ruling of the Commonwealth Court, and that in Philadelphia, measures include test scores, attendance rates, and dropout rates are improving.

Conditions “are getting better… why change it now?” he said.

Chalkbeat’s Philadelphia bureau chief, Carly Sitrin, contributed to this article.

The pace of school cellphone bans has reached more than half of states as teachers, superintendents and education experts praise the policies as a way to improve student achievement and mental health and rebuild a sense of community that many say has been undermined by students’ addiction to screens.

The question now for many states and school districts is not whether to remove distracting devices from students every day, but for how long.

States that have passed laws requiring some type of cellphone policy are now considering going further and enforcing 24-hour bans, even for high school students. The idea was met with opposition from students, but also from teachers and parents, who claim that strict bans from bell to bell are not necessary. Some say they worry about safety in the event of a school shooting or other threat.

Education experts say newfangled initiatives to ban school phones have gained momentum after the pandemic changed how students apply technology and interrupted crucial in-person classroom experiences. Kara Stern, director of education and engagement at SchoolStatus, a data collection company that helps K-12 districts with attendance and other school issues, said smartphones have moved from being communication tools during remote learning to sources of isolation once students return to classrooms.

“During remote learning, phones have become the primary way children have fun and stay connected,” Stern said. “But as schools reopened, phones went from being a tool for connection to being a tool for disconnection.”

Currently, 38 states and Washington, D.C., have implemented some form of statewide restriction or requirement on districts to limit student phone apply. Of those, approximately 18 states and districts have all-day bans or comprehensive statewide restrictions (including during and outside school hours).

Despite widespread adoption and support of cell phone restrictions in schools, compliance remains uneven, according to a 2025 University of Southern California study test. Researchers found that most students continued to apply their phones during the school day, regardless of restrictions.

Still, more than half of teens surveyed said law enforcement is stricter this school year than last year.

“Teaching a class where students are on their phones is like trying to teach at Disney World over a loudspeaker,” Stern said. “The environment is not designed for learning.”

Push for broader bans

Georgia belongs to the states considering a bell-to-bell policy for all public secondary schools. This comes a year after Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed the ban for grades K-8.

Students pay attention. At East Paulding High School in Dallas, Georgia, students and teachers offered mixed views regarding bans on the apply of mobile phones. In a student-led news program that aired last fall, some students expressed concerns for their safety, while some teachers were bullish on the idea that the ban would be effective at the high school level.

Republican state representative Scott Hilton, who proposed the up-to-date law, he said Georgia Recorder that the ban for younger students helped families become accustomed to the bell-to-bell ban.

“I was amazed by the positive response from all the constituencies, teachers, administrators, parents and even in many cases students who experienced the difference and said, ‘Oh wow, I kind of like this,’” Hilton said.

Several states focus their bans on banning cell phone apply “during class time,” which does not necessarily include free time such as lunch. Kansas lawmakers do pushing forward regarding the prohibition of apply during teaching activities; this would replace previous measures that allowed local districts discretion over cell phone apply in schools. Michigan lawmakers passed a similar bill last month; it was sent on Monday to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Similar teaching time bills were passed last year in Iowa, North Carolina and Wisconsin. In Oregon, Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek issued an executive order in July requiring all counties to adopt bell-to-bell cellphone bans by Jan. 1. Several districts said the mandate had expired better than expectedand some superintendents say they have seen more interactions between students.

Bell-to-bell cell phone restrictions are being considered or implemented in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and New York recently introduced them. The Massachusetts bill goes further than most by adding smartphones, tablets and Bluetooth devices to the list of banned electronic devices.

Most of the regulations reviewed by Stateline include exceptions to the bans for students with special needs and emergencies.

According to a review by Education Week. Still, there were 18 shootings last year, resulting in seven deaths, the review found.

In Georgia, State Superintendent Richard Woods, a Republican, told reporters that he had heard firsthand from shooting survivors about the importance of having a cell phone on hand for safety reasons.

“Do I support this? Absolutely” – Woods he saidreferring to the ban on using mobile phones. “But I think we have to find a middle ground and not go to extremes.”

What works best?

According to Pew Research Center vote Released last summer, it found that 74% of U.S. adults support bans on cell phone apply in classrooms for middle and high school students, up from 68% in fall 2024. The poll found that significantly fewer adults (19%) oppose cell phone bans in classrooms, and 7% are unsure.

For proponents of phone-free education, the gold standard of cell phone policy is “ring-to-ring” restrictions, which involve no access to the device’s memory.

A 2025 article in JAMA Pediatrics reported that teenagers ages 13–18 spend an average of 90 minutes on their phones in school, but little has been written about what students do during this time.

“Although 99.7% of U.S. public school principals say their school has a smartphone policy, few studies have objectively examined smartphone app use in schools,” the study abstract said.

Stern said she saw firsthand the effects of “consistent bell-to-bell policy” on her own son. When his phone broke in the eighth grade, he was afraid to go to school without it. But after the first day, he returned home and told Stern that he had played soccer during recess, met up-to-date classmates and had a “really good day” – better than usual.

Kim Whitman, co-founder of Smartphone Free Childhood US, and other education experts believe cellphone bans will reflect changes in public health that have occurred in the past: like banning smoking in schools – and perhaps redefine what it means to be in a classroom post-pandemic.

“Today we cannot imagine allowing smoking in schools,” Whitman said. “I think in five to 10 years we’ll be saying the same about cell phones — wondering how we even allowed them into classrooms.”

Whitman, who studied and rated states on the effectiveness of cellphone bans, found that North Dakota and Rhode Island were the only states that deserved high marks for adopting and enforcing bell-to-bell policies.

Despite claims from adults who love no-phone politics, students are not so convinced. According to data, only 41% of teenagers support a ban on the apply of cell phones in middle and high school classrooms questionnaire published in January by the Pew Research Center.

The USC study finds that the greatest percentage of teens who like certain no-phone policies attend schools where policies allow phone apply during non-school hours.

Editor’s note: This story has been edited to correct that it was Kara Stern of SchoolStatus who told Stateline about her son’s experience with a phone-free day.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at: sequenceira@stateline.org.

Less than half or 44%According to Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, 3- and 4-year-olds in the state attend high-quality, publicly funded preschool. An estimated 84,000 children were left behind Black children are less likely to participate in high-quality programs.

Research shows that high-quality preschool education prepares children for kindergarten and beyond. Participants are less likely to go to prison later in life and more likely to graduate from high school.

Listen to Whitney and Emily’s audio summary:

“Pre-K is one of the most cost-effective investments a state can make,” said Rep. Sean Dougherty (Philadelphia). “High-quality early childhood education lays the foundation for lifelong learning and better health outcomes.”

Dougherty is a co-sponsor House Bill 46which was the main topic of Tuesday’s meeting of the commission examining the benefits of using the universal pre-K preparation.

Otis Bullock, CEO of the Greater Philadelphia Community Alliance, noted that low-income children are less likely to have access to early education resources and often start school behind their affluent peers.

“It is widely accepted that the trajectory of educational success is determined before a child enters kindergarten. The experiences that children undergo in the first months and years have a decisive impact on their neuropathological development,” Bullock said. “Early childhood education must be a key part of any strategy to improve education or economic development.

Latest analysis of the National Bureau of Economic Research reported that parents’ wages increased by almost 22% when families had access to universal preschool education, Bullock added. The study found that parents’ benefits outweigh government costs, with every dollar spent generating $10 in benefits.

Positive for families and schools

Preschool costs Pennsylvania families an average of more than $12,000 per year, but costs vary by region.

Zaina Cahill, director of early childhood education policy at Children First PA, said she spends $15,600 each year on her 4-year-old child who attends a low-performing classroom in Philadelphia.

“Unfortunately, we were unable to access a high-quality program in our area due to waitlists and costs. It cost $20,200, so it was quite prohibitive cost-wise,” Cahill said.

On the other hand, the Universal Pre-k program “would create a pathway for economic mobility for many families across the commonwealth because then they wouldn’t be spending $15,600 a year on child care,” Cahill said. “It would be money that could be spent on all kinds of things that would stimulate Pennsylvania’s economy.”

With more support, families may choose to have more children, Cahill added, which could add to the state’s ponderous population growth.

But Cahill and others warned that schools alone could not meet the state’s needs. For example, some districts only offer half-day kindergarten due to lack of available space.

“The Philadelphia school district couldn’t do all this alone and will need organizations like mine to help,” Bullock said. “So a mixed delivery system is probably the best way to address the entire commonwealth.”

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Tariq Khan (R-Philadelphia), would require school districts to provide preschool to all eligible children. Khan, however, called it an “opening gambit” that will evolve throughout the legislative process. He said achieving universal pre-school education in the commonwealth would “definitely” require a mixed approach.

“The goal is to get to a place where programs – whether they come from schools, nonprofits or other agencies… offer high-quality activities for preschool children and are available throughout the Commonwealth,” Khan said.

Schools, he said, would benefit “enormously” from having students with a high-quality pre-school education.

“It will mean that (negative) behaviors will decrease. It will mean less truancy (and) more engagement. Test scores will be higher,” Khan said. “It’s a positive result.”

A closer look at costs and expenses

Pre-K Counts covers costs for thousands of children ages three and older from families earning up to 300% of the federal poverty level (or $99,000 for a family of four). Children with special needs or learning English may also qualify.

Program cost $317 million under the 2024-2025 budget cover nearly 28,000 children, and almost all of the funding will go toward reimbursing providers. The state also allocated $91 million for the Head Start Supplemental Assistance program, which is an expansion of an existing federal program for families earning 100 percent of the federal poverty level ($33,000 for a family of four).

Governor Josh Shapiro’s proposed spending plan raises both of these fundswhich adds $7.5 million to the former and $2 million to the latter.

Philadelphia expanded its free kindergarten offer more than eight years ago, outside state and federally funded programs, using beverage taxes. Though educational achievements remained stablethe program is there not without challenges.

Khan, who praised the improvements in his district since Philadelphia’s pre-K expansion, said prioritizing investments in quality education was a “very conscious decision” for the Democratic House majority, pointing to past state spending.

“We still have significant investment to make in our schools, but this is a priority,” Khan said. “When we invest in education, we know it is one of the wisest investments we can make.”

He also pointed to the need for additional sources of revenue – a common theme of Shapiro’s budget proposals. But as the governor seeks to legalize and tax recreational marijuana along with a tax on skill-based gaming, Khan pointed to taxes on natural gas companies and Pennsylvania’s wealthiest residents.

“The companies that are extracting it, for this rich gas that we have here in Pennsylvania, they are not paying their fair share,” Khan said. “We have an impact fee, but we don’t have a clearance fee. It’s not hundreds of millions of dollars, it’s billions of dollars for the Commonwealth that could be used to fund something like a universal pre-K program.”

Khan is a sponsor, along with lead sponsor Rep. Chris Pielli (R-Chester), of the company House Bill 2129 to create this severance tax. Texas — another immense natural gas-producing state — collected $2.13 billion in severance tax revenue in 2024, according to a note in the bill.

House Bill 833sponsored by Khan, would impose an additional tax on income over $1 million. Massachusetts has generated more than $2.2 billion through similar efforts, according to a note to the bill.

“Why can’t we do this here in Pennsylvania? We need to look at other sources of income that exceed what we currently provide. Because right now, working people are the ones who really have to shoulder the burden and it should be more equitable,” Khan said.

A coalition of Democratic-led states is suing the Trump administration over a fresh federal requirement that will force colleges to report detailed admissions data, including race, gender, test scores and financial aid for individual students.

The mandate is an expansion of a 40-year-old system known as IPEDS and follows a 2023 Supreme Court decision banning race-based admissions. The lawsuit argues that the fresh requirement could threaten student privacy and unduly burden universities.

The Trump administration’s requirement comes after data suggests the Supreme Court’s ruling has already changed campus demographics: At several elite universities, the number of black students has declined, while the number of students of Asian descent has increased at some schools. Researchers say it could take years to fully understand how college admissions patterns are changing.

For about 40 years, the federal government’s primary means of collecting data and information has been: colleges and universities across the United States there was a database called Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

IPEDS data include information on college enrollment, graduation rates, and financial aid, and some of this data has been used in college and university policies and research.

In August, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum directing the Department of Education to exploit IPEDS data to track whether colleges consider race in college admissions decisions.

Trump’s directive was preceded by a 2023 Supreme Court ruling Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvardwhich prohibited colleges from directly considering race in college admissions decisions.

The Trump administration is not only seeking demographic data from IPEDS, but is also implementing a fresh reporting mandate for four-year colleges – the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) – to report detailed admissions data such as race, gender, test scores and financial aid levels.

According to the lawsuit, colleges were supposed to begin meeting the fresh reporting requirements this year, with responses due March 18.

A coalition of 17 states, led by Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking to block the fresh mandate. The states argue that the ACTS survey imposes onerous reporting obligations on universities and requires institutions to collect data that they have not collected in the past and that they may not be compelled to disclose for student safety.

The lawsuit said the administration seeks to “fundamentally change IPEDS, transforming it from a credible tool for methodical statistical reporting to a mechanism for law enforcement and furthering partisan political goals.”

States also argue that the fresh requirement is rushed, forces colleges to collect data over months that would normally take years, and creates the risk of reporting errors.

Other states named as plaintiffs include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. It names U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Director of Management and Budget Russell Vought as defendants.

Federal officials argue that additional reporting in the fresh study is necessary to ensure transparency and confirm that colleges are complying with the Supreme Court ruling.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling, the decline in black college enrollment has been greatest in: highly selective private universities.

Associated Press analysis of the 20 sampled colleges found that almost all saw a decline in the number of Black freshmen compared to 2023. At Harvard, the number of Black students dropped from 18% in 2023 to less than 12% in subsequent classes. Princeton’s decline was from about 9% to about 5% black freshmen in the next admissions cycle.

Several universities saw higher numbers of students of Asian descent in the years immediately after the ruling. At Harvard, the percentage of Asian American freshmen rose from 37% to about 41%. Some institutions have seen even greater changes – one analysis showed Asian student enrollment rising from 26% to 45% between 2023 and 2025 at selected universities.

Scientists suggest that A cascading effect more black and Latino students at public universities as admissions to selective schools declines and enrollment in less selective colleges. Data from the fall 2024 college admissions cycles show that overall Black and Latino admissions are up about 8% at flagship public universities.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at: sequenceira@stateline.org.

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat — a non-profit news website devoted to changes in education in public schools.

School choice advocates and two Philadelphia lawmakers are calling on Gov. Josh Shapiro to opt into a federal tax credit scholarship program that would cover private school tuition and other education expenses.

But Shapiro is delaying his decision until President Donald Trump’s administration publishes regulations defining the extent of states’ control and responsibility over the federal program.

Shapiro and other Democratic governors’ strategy of postponing a yes-or-no decision on tax cuts reflects wave of political pressure they stand face to face.

Tax credit supporters say governors who reject the program are simply losing funds that will go to other states instead of helping their students. But passing a Trump administration-backed measure that promotes private school choice could clash with the ideological preferences of Democratic officials and many of their voters.

Pennsylvania already approves two tax credit scholarship programs: the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit and the Education Improvement Tax Credit. Both provide tax breaks to companies that donate to organizations that provide students with scholarships at private schools.

But the federal program does not rely on state funding. A new federal tax credit that was passed last summer as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill would reimburse taxpayers for donations of up to $1,700 a year to organizations that award scholarships.

Through the program, donations assist pay for more than just private school tuition. Supporters say these scholarship funds can be used for tutoring, after-school programs, educational technology and other educational expenses for both private and public school students.

But there are still many unanswered questions.

The U.S. Treasury is developing rules to determine the amount of authority states will have over the program. These rules could be spelled out what benefits public school students can gain along with private school students, or states could require scholarship organizations to serve only low-income families or prohibit them from discriminating against LGBTQ students and teachers.

The rules may also specify how the federal program may or may not combine with existing state tax credit grants.

A spokesman for Shapiro said in a statement Thursday that his office is “awaiting federal guidance on key issues regarding the operation of this program, including which students will be eligible and how this federal initiative will interact with existing programs.”

Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans who support the tax break presented their positions at a press conference on Thursday.

“If Pennsylvania does not agree, residents will still be able to seek compensation [tax] funds, but their contributions will go to scholarships in other states,” state Rep. Martina White, a Republican who represents part of Philadelphia, said at a news conference Thursday. “In other words, Pennsylvania taxpayers will assist fund scholarships elsewhere while our students need it.”

Democratic state Sen. Anthony Williams, who represents Philadelphia, was not present Thursday but sent a statement supporting the federal program.

“If Pennsylvania decides to opt out, we can say with certainty that the first $1,700 in federal taxes for every Pennsylvania taxpayer will leave the state and go to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, to the IRS,” Jorge Elorza, CEO of Democrats for Education Reform, said at a news conference. “Who knows what will happen to the money when it gets there?”

But Susan Spicka, executive director of the public education group Education Voters PA, told Chalkbeat that it is “wildly irresponsible for anyone to urge Pennsylvania to join the federal voucher program before the Treasury has issued rules governing how the program will operate.”

Spicka said that without these rules, it’s unclear how much it will cost taxpayers for the state to implement and oversee the program.

Without clear accountability measuresSpicka worried that the program could open the door to “extraordinary opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse.”

Carly Sitrin is the Chalkbeat Philadelphia Bureau Chief. Contact Carly at csitrin@chalkbeat.org.

WASHINGTON — A federal court order last month effectively repealing the Biden-era student loan repayment plan ended years of chaos for more than 7 million student borrowers enrolled in the program.

The Savings for Valuable Education Plan, or SAVE, was a cornerstone of the Joe Biden administration’s loan forgiveness efforts but has been embroiled in legal challenges from several GOP-led states.

The department said that on July 1, federal loan servicers will begin sending notices to borrowers advising them to enter into a legal repayment plan within 90 days. Borrowers who do not change their plan within 90 days specified by the servicer will automatically be placed on the modern plan.

Agency issued guidelines to borrowers at the end of March, informing them of the schedule and encouraging them to switch to the modern plan.

Here’s what borrowers should know as they take next steps:

How did we get here?

The program, introduced in 2023, was intended to reduce monthly loan installments for borrowers and write off the remaining debt after a specified period of time.

However, millions of borrowers experienced chaos and confusion as they were forced to deal with elaborate court rulings, interest accruing on their debt, and constant uncertainty about the fate of the plan.

Borrowers were placed in interest-free forbearance in 2024 faced legal suspension and the faculty was reopened charging interest regarding the debt of program participants in August 2025.

President Donald Trump’s administration in December announced a proposed agreement to complete the plan.

The agreement follows a legal challenge to the plan filed in 2024 by Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma.

Federal judge dismissed this lawsuit in slow February, thwarting the administration’s efforts to thwart the plan.

But a federal appeals court overturned the decision of the lower court in March, effectively ending the SAVE plan.

Was the SAVE plan about to be eliminated?

Republican Congressional Mega Tax and Spending Cuts Act signed into law by Trump in July 2025 includes a sweeping overhaul of the federal student loan system.

Part of the GOP’s “big, beautiful” bill phased out the SAVE plan by July 2028.

I’m in SAVED. What are my modern repayment options?

Borrowers have several modern repayment options and can switch to a modern plan before receiving notification from a federal loan servicer.

One option involves an income-based repayment (IBR) plan, which ties borrowers’ loan repayments to their earnings.

Borrowers also have the option to enter into two repayment plans under the “big, beautiful” GOP law – the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) and the Tiered Standard Plan – which go into effect on July 1.

Preston Cooper, senior fellow for higher education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, noted that whether IBR or RAP is a better option for borrowers depends on their specific situation.

“I recommend that if you are earlier in your repayment and have a much higher interest due to a higher balance, the Repayment Assistance Plan is your best choice,” Cooper said.

“If you are in the later stages of repayment and are closer to the 20 or 25 years in which you can qualify for forgiveness, income-driven repayment is probably a better choice,” he added.

Borrowers can also opt for several other repayment options, such as income-driven repayment plans and pay-as-you-earn.

However, these two plans will be eliminated by July 2028 under the Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law, meaning borrowers will have to change their plans again in two years.

What other steps can I take in the meantime?

Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, said the best thing a borrower can do is “just be proactive.”

“Make sure at a very basic level you have access to your account, you know all the basics of your situation, and then compare the plan options you will have,” said Zampini, whose organization aims to advance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education.

Zampini also noticed this Federal Student Aid Loan Simulator as a good source of information for borrowers to get specific numbers to compare across plans.

“If there is a plan you want to transfer to that is already open and available, if it is one of the older plans, get started now if you can afford it,” she said. “And then if you want to wait for the new plan to open…find out what your estimated payment will look like and then set yourself a reminder for July to check back and look at the enrollment process once the plan opens.”

In the face of the “complete dissonance and chaos” that borrowers have experienced at SAVE, Zampini said the department has “really shirked its responsibility to at least keep borrowers informed and give them clear information about what’s happening, when it’s happening, and what the implications are going to be on their payments and the nature of their budgets and what they need to do and when.”

What about the plan to eliminate the department?

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and general counsel at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, told States Newsroom she is “extremely concerned that borrowers won’t be able to figure out what to do, will miss the deadline, end up on a plan they can’t afford, and then fall into default, which obviously has incredibly burdensome consequences.”

The end of SAVE also comes as the Trump administration continues its efforts to disband the Department of Education, including through a series of interagency agreements that shift some of its responsibilities to other departments.

According to the latest agreement, Treasury Department will assume Education’s responsibility for collecting defaulted federal student loans – the first step in a multi-phase process for the Treasury Department to assume the entire approximately $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

“The specifics of the plan with Treasury are currently about debt collection, but the overarching mission to disband the Department of Education right now means there are no people to supervise service staff,” Yu said.

Part of the administration’s efforts to dismantle the agency included reduction in strength launched in March 2025, which covered wide areas of the department including Federal student aidor FSA.

Yu also highlighted the nonpartisan report in March Government Accountability Officewhich concluded that staff reductions at the FSA have impacted the government’s ability to determine how well student loan servicers are doing their jobs.

This the story was originally published by WESA. It is not available for republication.

Pennsylvania lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are working to draft guidelines to govern how schools utilize artificial intelligence in the classroom while developing protections for student privacy and data.

At least 35 states have published guidelines on artificial intelligence in education, according to the nonpartisan State Education Commission. Although the Pennsylvania Department of Education does scratched some of the questions and considerations school districts should consider when implementing AI tools, no official guidance has been issued.

“Pennsylvania is woefully behind on AI policy,” House Education Committee Chairman Pete Schweyer (R-Allentown) told WESA.

“ With that in mind, I think what [minority chair Bryan Cutler and I] from Democrats and Republicans alike, from teachers and stakeholders, is anyone opposed to incorporating AI into the classroom,” Schweyer continued. “Everyone is generally concerned about ethical use, student privacy, student data – making sure kids learn how to use it as a technology and not misuse it for other reasons.”

Members of the House Education Committee were in Pittsburgh on Tuesday to gather feedback on future artificial intelligence legislation from local educators and national experts.

Mark Holtzman, superintendent of the Hempfield Area School District, said state involvement is needed to provide guardrails for schools willing to implement artificial intelligence technology.

“I think whether it’s a limited list of vendors, whether it’s ideas and concepts that you don’t want to cross … there should be something there, without a doubt, that helps us start that basic conversation,” he said.

Holtzman said artificial intelligence is already built into the tools students and teachers utilize every day. The district has partnered with Carnegie Mellon University to pilot an AI-powered weapons detection system at five entrances to the high school.

“This is the future. This is what artificial intelligence brings,” Holtzman said. “When we talk about how important this is, it also has an impact on school safety.”

But school leaders also say teachers need more AI training, as well as investment, to ensure equitable access to technology in every school district.

Mark Stuckey, chief technology officer for Pittsburgh Public Schools, urged lawmakers to establish a framework requiring artificial intelligence companies to be lucid about how they collect student data and how they train their models.

“AI bias, student data privacy and teacher preparation are not hypothetical risks,” Stuckey said. “There are current challenges.”

Teachers say that artificial intelligence should improve qualifications, not automate

During the hearing, representatives from the country’s two largest teachers unions – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers – encouraged the committee to create measures to prohibit artificial intelligence from replacing teachers.

Robin Vitucci of the AFT National Artificial Intelligence Teaching Academy said teachers can utilize the technology to perform administrative tasks, plan lessons and differentiate lessons to meet students’ needs.

“But it should be used simply to elevate the profession, not to automate it,” Vitucci said.

Last year, proposed cyber charter school caused an uproar when its leaders suggested using AI-based learning and tutors to deliver lessons to students. Government officials rejected the proposal, stating in their decision that there was insufficient evidence that such a model would be effective.

In her testimony Tuesday, Avonworth math teacher Melissa Costantino-Poruben called for a ban on all charter schools that rely on artificial intelligence teaching and for districts to be prohibited from replacing teachers with artificial intelligence.

Costantino-Poruben said educators need time to familiarize themselves with AI tools so they can utilize them safely and effectively.

“I think we really need to give our teachers time to learn and play with AI tools so that they can then find value in them and apply them in their classrooms,” she said.

On Wednesday, lawmakers will hear additional testimony from higher education leaders at Carnegie Mellon University.

Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced two bills that would restrict immigration enforcement in K-12 schools across the commonwealth.

Identical proposals introduced in each chamber would require school districts to adopt policies prohibiting employees from allowing federal immigration agents or local law enforcement agents assisting them to enter most school property without a signed court order.

While agents will be able to enter designated public areas on school grounds, such as the lobby, employees will be required to refuse further entry, including areas of the facility where students board or exit buses and cars, without a warrant. School staff will also be required to ask any agent applying for entry to provide identification and contact details.

The measure would also prohibit school officials from sharing students’ identifying information, including bus routes and family immigration status, with federal agents or law enforcement for the purpose of enforcing immigration laws. It would require school districts to provide annual training on the rules and implement a disciplinary process for employees who violate them.

The authors and co-authors of both bills are exclusively Democrats, and 41 have signed onto this bill Home version and 12 to Senate version.

“[Schools] should be a place of safety and learning where every child has access and can focus on their education without fear or disruption,” said Rep. Joe Hohenstein (R-Philadelphia), author of the House bill. “Families must trust that schools are sheltered places, but if immigration [enforcement] entering or raiding these schools, or even threatening to do so, undermines the trust that this institution places in families.”

A spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not respond to a request for comment.

Aaliya Wafa, a high school student from Pittsburgh who moved to the U.S. from Afghanistan in 2022, spoke in favor of the measures at a press conference on Monday.

“When I came here, I hoped I would be safe, that I would have a great education and a better life,” she said. “Since then, I have been working challenging at school every day and school is very significant to me. It is a place where I learn, where I improve… Sometimes students are afraid. They are worried about what might happen to them, their families or their community. When we are afraid, it is arduous for us to focus, learn and feel sheltered at school. School should be a place where every student feels sheltered and supported.

According to Maura McInerney, legal director at the Education Law Center, a Pennsylvania nonprofit, she is not aware of any incidents involving ICE agents attempting to enter Pennsylvania schools, but says federal agents have been seen near schools in many parts of the Commonwealth.

She stated that the fear it causes has already affected attendance, especially among students from immigrant families.

While the bills would not stop immigration enforcement near schools, she said she hoped they would provide peace of mind for students and families concerned about the situation reaching the schools themselves or where students board buses.

“We have heard time and time again from allies and community members about the fear and uncertainty that surrounds everyday interactions,” McInerney said. “It is tragic that these very circumstances have interrupted the simple act of attending school. Schools should be a safe haven where every child feels welcome.”

She cited A questionnaire with more than 600 high school principals across the country, where nearly two-thirds of immigrant students missed classes in 2025 due to fears of federal immigration enforcement.

While I.C.E maintains that it does not conduct immigration enforcement activities on school propertylast year, the agency rescinded the “protected space” designation for previously protected areas such as schools and churches.

Judy Heath, a retired school social worker who spent most of her career in lower Bucks County, said she saw the impact that fear of immigration enforcement could have on students and worked with a citizen group in Montgomery County to facilitate officials craft a favorable resolution.

“Unfortunately, increased immigration enforcement may impact school attendance,” Heath said. “There is a legitimate concern that ICE may appear while children are waiting at bus stops, or ICE may appear on school grounds, playgrounds or school entrances – places that were, but are no longer, protected from ICE. We also know the detrimental impact school absenteeism and stress can have on our children’s futures, including on their academic performance, educational achievement, and mental and physical health.”

Despite helping to create local policy in her home county, Heath called for guidelines for all school districts statewide. Even in districts that have already created their own policies, confusion over how to enforce or communicate them can make them ineffective, she said.

Sen. Katie Muth (R-Montgomery), a supporter of the Senate bill, said many districts have already adopted policies similar to those outlined in her legislation. However, he still believes a statewide law is necessary to provide similar protections to immigrant students across the commonwealth.

“Having this bill as a state law would ease the burden on districts that want to do this, but would also be concerned about a lot of unnecessary and aggressive public comments at school board meetings,” she said.

She added that her district, the 44th Senate District, includes parts of Berks, Chester and Montgomery counties. She also said she has heard from teachers about immigration enforcement affecting their students’ families across the region.

“If you think this is just happening – these ICE raids and literally kidnapping people – it’s just a city problem or just a certain part of the state, Senate District 44 [includes] parts of three counties,” she said. “The number of calls I’m getting from teachers whose parents have been detained after dropping off their children at school is getting quite high. … Whether they’re immigrant children or not doesn’t matter. There are kids who are watching this, and their friends aren’t coming back to class and they’re just gone.