Education
Texas killed in-state tuition for undocumented college students – what happened next? | Texas
Ximena had a plan.
The 18-year-old from Houston was going to start college in the fall at the University of Texas at Tyler, where she had been awarded $10,000 a year in scholarships. That, she hoped, would set her up for her dream: a PhD in chemistry, followed by a career as a professor or researcher.
“And then the change to in-state tuition happened, and that’s when I knew for sure that I had to pivot,” said Ximena, who is from Mexico but has attended schools in the US since kindergarten. (The Guardian and its partner the Hechinger Report, which produced this story, is using her first name only because she fears retaliation for her immigration status.)
In June, the Texas attorney general’s office and the Trump administration worked together to end the provisions in a state law that had offered thousands of undocumented students like Ximena lower in-state tuition rates at Texas public colleges. State and federal officials successfully argued in court that the longstanding policy discriminated against out-of-state US citizens who paid a higher rate. That rationale has now been replicated in similar lawsuits against Kentucky, Oklahoma and Minnesota – part of a broader offensive against immigrants’ access to public education.
At UT Tyler, in-state tuition and fees for the upcoming academic year total $9,736, compared to more than $25,000 for out-of-state students. Ximena and her family couldn’t afford the higher tuition bill, so she withdrew. Instead, she enrolled at Houston Community College, where out-of-state costs are $227 per semester hour, nearly three times the in-district rate. The school offers only basic college-level chemistry classes, so to set herself up for a doctorate or original research, Ximena will still need to find a way to pay for a four-year university down the line.
Her predicament is exactly what state lawmakers from both political parties had hoped to avoid when they passed the Texas Dream Act, 2001 legislation that not only opened doors to higher education for undocumented students but was also meant to bolster Texas’s economy and its workforce in the long term. With that law, Texas became the first of more than two dozen states to implement in-state tuition for undocumented students, and for nearly 24 years, the landmark policy remained intact.
Conservative lawmakers repeatedly proposed to repeal it, but despite years of single-party control in the state legislature, not enough Republicans embraced repeal even as recently as this spring, days before the Texas attorney general’s office and the federal Department of Justice moved to end it.
Now, as the fall semester approaches, immigrant students are weighing whether to disenroll from their courses or await clarity on how the consent agreement entered into by the state and justice department affects them.
Immigration advocates are worried that Texas colleges and universities are boxing out potential attendees who are lawfully present and still qualify for in-state tuition despite the court ruling – including recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program, asylum applicants and temporary protected status holders – because university personnel lack immigration expertise and haven’t been given clear guidelines on exactly who needs to pay the higher tuition rate.
At Austin Community College (ACC), members of the board of trustees are unsure how to accurately implement the ruling. As they await answers, they have so far decided against sending letters asking their students for sensitive information in order to determine tuition rates.
“This confusion will inevitably harm students because what we find is that in the absence of information and in the presence of fear and anxiety, students will opt to not continue higher education,” said Manuel Gonzalez, vice-chair of the ACC board of trustees.
Policy experts, meanwhile, warn that Texas’s workforce could suffer as talented young people, many of whom have spent their entire education in the state’s public school system, will no longer be able to afford the associate’s and bachelor’s degrees that would allow them to pursue careers that would help propel their local economies. Under the Texas Dream Act, beneficiaries were required to commit to applying for lawful permanent residence as soon as possible, giving them the opportunity to hold down jobs related to their degrees. Even without legal immigration status, it’s likely they will still work – just in lower-paying, under-the-radar jobs.
“It’s so short-sighted in terms of the welfare of the state of Texas,” said Barbara Hines, a former law school professor who helped legislators craft the Texas Dream Act.
The legislation was first introduced in the state’s lower chamber by retired army national guard Maj Gen Rick Noriega, a Democrat who served in the Texas legislature from 1999 to 2009, after he learned of a young yard worker in his district who wanted to enroll at the local community college for aviation mechanics but could not afford out-of-state tuition.
Noriega called the school chancellor’s office, which was able to provide funding for the student to attend. But that experience led him to wonder: how many more kids in his district were running up against the same barriers to higher education?
So he worked with a sociologist to poll students at local high schools about the problem, which turned out to be widespread. And Noriega’s district wasn’t an outlier. In a state that has long had one of the nation’s largest unauthorized immigrant populations, politicians across the partisan divide knew affected constituents, friends or family members and wanted to help. Once Noriega decided to propose legislation, a Republican, Fred Hill, asked to serve as a joint author on the bill.
The legislation easily passed the Texas house, which was Democratic-controlled at the time, but the Republican-led senate was less accommodating.
“I couldn’t even get a hearing,” said Leticia Van de Putte, the then state senator who sponsored the legislation in her chamber.
To persuade her Republican colleagues, she added several restrictions, including requiring undocumented students to live in Texas for three years before finishing high school or receiving a GED. (Three years was estimated as the average time it would take a family to pay enough in state taxes to make up the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition.) She also included the clause mandating that undocumented students who accessed in-state tuition sign an affidavit pledging to pursue green cards as soon as they were able.
Van de Putte turned to Texas business groups to hammer home the economic case for the bill. And she convinced the business community to pay for buses to bring Latino evangelical conservative pastors from Dallas, San Antonio, Houston and other areas to Austin, so they could knock on doors in support of the legislation and pray with Republican senators and their staff.
After that, the Texas Dream Act overwhelmingly passed the state senate in May 2001, and the then governor, Rick Perry, a Republican, signed it into law the following month.
Yet by 2012, a new slew of rightwing politicians was elected to office, many philosophically opposed to the law – and loud about it. Perry’s defense of the policy came back to haunt him during the 2012 Republican presidential primary, when his campaign was dogged by criticism after he told opponents of tuition equity during a debate: “I don’t think you have a heart.”
Still, none of the many bills introduced over the years to repeal the Texas Dream Act were successful. And even the current Texas governor, Greg Abbott, a Republican border hawk, at times equivocated on the policy, with his spokesperson saying in 2013 that Abbott believed “the objective” of in-state tuition regardless of immigration status was “noble”.
By 2017, the same year Trump began his first term, polling showed a plurality of Texans in support of in-state tuition for undocumented students. More recently, research has indicated time and time again that Americans support a pathway to legal status for undocumented residents brought to the US as children.
But arguments against in-state tuition regardless of immigration status also grew in popularity: critics contended that the policy is unfair to US citizens from other states who have to pay higher rates, or that undocumented students are taking spots at competitive schools that could be filled by documented Americans.
The justice department leaned on similar rhetoric in the lawsuit that killed tuition equity in Texas, saying the state law is superseded by 1996 federal legislation banning undocumented immigrants from getting in-state tuition – over US citizens – based on residency.
In Texas, the sudden policy change is causing chaos. Even the state’s two largest universities, Texas A&M and the University of Texas, are using different guidelines to decide which students must pay out-of-state rates.
“Universities, I think, are the ones that are put in this really difficult position,” said Luis Figueroa, senior director of legislative affairs at the advocacy group Every Texan. “They are not immigration experts. They’ve received very little guidance about how to interpret the consent decree.”
Meanwhile, young scholars are facing difficult choices. One student, who asked to remain anonymous because of her undocumented immigration status, wondered about her future.
The young woman, who has lived in San Antonio since she was nine months old, had enrolled in six courses for the fall at Texas A&M-San Antonio and wasn’t sure whether to drop them. It would be her final semester before earning her psychology and sociology degrees, but she couldn’t fathom paying for out-of-state tuition.
“I’m in the unknown,” she said, like “many students in this moment.”
-
This story was originally produced by the Hechinger Report, a non-profit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education
The Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC), created in response to last year’s Australian Universities Accord, has begun interim operations and will act as an independent steward for the system, overseeing implementation of reforms aimed at lifting participation, improving equity, and strengthening links between vocational and higher education.
Addressing an audience gathered at the Australian Student Equity Symposium in Sydney, Australia’s education minister Jason Clare said ATEC will ensure long-term reform of the sector and prevent policy momentum from being lost to shifting political cycles.
Clare said reform agendas often lose focus when governments or ministers change. “Almost always, when a big piece of thinking is done to reform or transform a part of the economy, governments will pick off parts of it and then the caravan moves on,” he said.
“I want to make sure that’s not the case here,” he said, reinforcing that ATEC will provide continuous oversight, keeping governments focused on both the unfinished business of the Accord and emerging sector challenges.
While the Accord laid the foundations, Clare stressed it cannot answer every question for the future. “The Accord is a product of a big piece of work in 2023 and it doesn’t necessarily have all the answers for 2030 or 2035,” he said. “This gives us a living process to constantly provide feedback… not just what haven’t we done in the Accord that we need to do, but what else should we be thinking of doing.”
ATEC will negotiate compacts with universities covering funding, purpose, and institutional mission. “At the nitty gritty level, it’s about money, but it’s also about purpose and focus,” said Clare.
“In the future, we do have an ecosystem which looks different than it does today, not worse, better, but different and potentially a little bit more specialised.”
ATEC will also play a central role in Australia’s international education sector, according to assistant minister for international education Julian Hill.
Speaking at the Education Consultants Association of Australia, Hill said the Commission will oversee mission-based compacts requiring institutions to outline their own strategies for international enrolments, rather than imposing one-size-fits-all caps.
Institutions will need to show how they are diversifying, how they’re contributing to national priorities, and how their growth is sustainable
Jason Clare, education minister
“Institutions will need to show how they are diversifying, how they’re contributing to national priorities, and how their growth is sustainable,” said Hill.
The Commission will monitor reliance on specific markets, regional provision, student housing, and overall sustainability, ensuring international growth aligns with broader national objectives.
ATEC is currently operating in an interim capacity and, subject to the passage of legislation, is expected to be fully operational by 2026. The Commission is designed to support a more coordinated and sustainable higher education system, ensuring that reforms progress steadily and that institutions balance domestic and international priorities in line with national policy objectives.
September 11, 2025 —
The Digital Literacies Lab in the Faculty of Education, in collaboration with the Media Lab in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Manitoba, presents a hybrid speaker series (in-person and online) that will explore the potential and ethical challenges of generative artificial intelligence technologies in education, and the role of digital literacies in this context.
Through engaging talks and workshop-style discussions, this series aims to foster critical dialogue, inspire innovation, and support educators, researchers, and students in navigating the evolving role of AI in teaching, learning, and educational policy. Join us as we delve into opportunities and complexities of artificial intelligence and the role of digital literacies in education and beyond.
Join in-person viewing in the Digital Literacies Lab (RM 328, Education Building) or the Faculty of Arts Media Lab (233 University College) with post-workshop discussions.
All workshops will be streamed on Zoom, with three of the four presenters joining online. Complete event information for each workshop and registration for online viewing can be found here.
Workshops include:
Sept 23 (6:00pm – 7:30pm) – “Generative AI: Implications and Applications for Education” with Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis
Oct 21 (6:00pm – 7:30pm) – “The End of the World as We Know It? AI, Post-Literate Society and Education” with Allan Luke
November 25 (6:00pm – 7:30pm) – “Assessment Literacy in the Age of AI” with Michael Holden (in person presentation at 328 Education building)
Dec 2 (6:00pm – 7:30pm) – “Digital Literacies as Literacies of Repair” with Rodney H. Jones
In the rapidly evolving realm of education technology, artificial intelligence is reshaping how students absorb and retain knowledge, prompting educators and researchers to scrutinize its long-term effects. Recent studies highlight both transformative potential and subtle pitfalls, as AI tools like chatbots and personalized learning platforms become classroom staples. For instance, a Boise State University professor, Jenni Stone, recently explored these dynamics in an article for The Conversation, emphasizing how AI might inadvertently hinder deep learning by providing quick answers that bypass critical thinking.
Stone’s analysis draws on empirical data showing that while AI excels at delivering customized content, it can reduce students’ engagement with complex problem-solving. Her work, published amid a surge of 2025 research, aligns with findings from a Microsoft Education Blog report, which surveyed educators and found that 68% believe AI enhances teaching efficiency but warns of overreliance eroding foundational skills.
Personalized Learning’s Double-Edged Sword
This tension is evident in global trends, where AI-driven adaptive systems tailor lessons to individual paces, potentially boosting outcomes for diverse learners. A study in the journal Education Sciences, conducted at Romania’s National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, polled 85 students and revealed that 72% reported improved academic performance through AI tools, yet 45% expressed concerns about diminished critical analysis abilities. The research underscores AI’s role in democratizing education, particularly in underserved regions, by offering real-time feedback that human teachers might not scale.
However, the Bucharest study also flags ethical dilemmas, such as data privacy and algorithmic biases that could exacerbate inequalities. Echoing this, a World Economic Forum piece from 2024, updated with 2025 insights, argues that AI in “Education 4.0” promotes equity by preparing students for AI-integrated workplaces, but only if implementations prioritize human oversight.
Market Growth and Institutional Shifts
The economic impetus is undeniable, with market projections painting a bullish picture. According to a Maximize Market Research report featured on OpenPR, the global AI in education sector is poised to balloon from $4.17 billion in 2023 to $53.02 billion by 2030, driven by tools automating administrative tasks and fostering interactive learning. This growth is fueled by investments in smart tutoring systems, as noted in Netguru’s blog on AI’s educational impact, which details how such technologies are streamlining everything from grading to curriculum design.
Yet, institutional adoption varies widely. A UNESCO report from early 2025, discussed during their Digital Learning Week, convened global leaders to address AI’s inclusive potential, stressing the need for policies that ensure human-centered futures. The report warns that without ethical frameworks, AI could widen digital divides, a sentiment mirrored in student perspectives from EDUCAUSE Review, where firsthand accounts with tools like ChatGPT reveal enhanced creativity but limited depth in understanding.
Educators’ Evolving Roles
Teachers are at the forefront of this shift, transitioning from lecturers to facilitators in AI-augmented environments. Insights from THE Journal’s 2025 predictions highlight experts forecasting AI’s dominance in personalized tutoring, potentially reducing teacher workloads by 30% while demanding new skills in AI literacy. Posts on X, formerly Twitter, reflect public sentiment, with users like tech influencers noting AI’s inevitability in education, comparing it to calculators’ integration and urging curricula to evolve rather than resist.
A ScienceDirect systematic review from 2024, extending into 2025 analyses, synthesizes over 100 studies showing AI’s prowess in tracking progress but cautions against replacing human interaction. This is particularly relevant in higher education, where AI aids in identifying at-risk students early, as per the U.S. Department of Education’s AI report.
Challenges in Skill Development
Deeper concerns emerge around cognitive impacts. Stone’s Conversation piece delves into experiments where AI-assisted groups showed short-term gains in creativity but struggled with original ideation without prompts, suggesting a “crutch effect.” Complementing this, a GPA Calculate Tools analysis on generative AI usage indicates that in 2025, 75% of students employ these tools, correlating with higher grades yet lower retention of core concepts.
International examples amplify these findings. China’s nationwide integration of AI into curricula, as reported on X by figures like Mario Nawfal, aims to build a tech-savvy workforce, embedding AI from primary levels to universities. However, critics argue this could prioritize rote efficiency over innovative thinking.
Future Directions and Policy Imperatives
Looking ahead, balancing AI’s benefits with safeguards is crucial. The UNESCO-convened discussions in 2025 advocate for global standards, emphasizing teacher training and equitable access. A student’s viewpoint in EDUCAUSE Review questions if systems can keep pace, proposing AI as a collaborator rather than a replacement.
Ultimately, as AI permeates education, ongoing research like that from Boise State and international bodies will guide its trajectory. By fostering thoughtful integration, stakeholders can harness AI to elevate learning without compromising the human elements that define true education.
-
Business2 weeks agoThe Guardian view on Trump and the Fed: independence is no substitute for accountability | Editorial
-
Tools & Platforms1 month ago
Building Trust in Military AI Starts with Opening the Black Box – War on the Rocks
-
Ethics & Policy2 months agoSDAIA Supports Saudi Arabia’s Leadership in Shaping Global AI Ethics, Policy, and Research – وكالة الأنباء السعودية
-
Events & Conferences4 months agoJourney to 1000 models: Scaling Instagram’s recommendation system
-
Jobs & Careers2 months agoMumbai-based Perplexity Alternative Has 60k+ Users Without Funding
-
Podcasts & Talks2 months agoHappy 4th of July! 🎆 Made with Veo 3 in Gemini
-
Education2 months agoVEX Robotics launches AI-powered classroom robotics system
-
Education2 months agoMacron says UK and France have duty to tackle illegal migration ‘with humanity, solidarity and firmness’ – UK politics live | Politics
-
Funding & Business2 months agoKayak and Expedia race to build AI travel agents that turn social posts into itineraries
-
Podcasts & Talks2 months agoOpenAI 🤝 @teamganassi