Blog

  • Labour takes steps to bring higher education and local skills closer together

    Labour takes steps to bring higher education and local skills closer together

    The post-16 white paper promised to strengthen statutory guidance on local skills improvement plans (LSIPs), including “clearer expectations on higher education providers to engage” and a move to make the plans cover skills all the way up to level 8.

    This greater roles for universities in LSIPs was gestured at in Skills England’s ministerial guidance, and even announced by Labour in opposition.

    Now, the revised guidance has been published – and the push for higher education providers to play a more central role has indeed materialised.

    This is a local shop

    LSIPs were introduced in the Skills and Post-16 Education Act under the last government as employer-owned priorities and actions around skills needs and the provision of technical education in a designated local area of England. Some 38 different plans were approved by the Secretary of State in summer 2023, with annual progress reports following – you can find them all on this page if you don’t mind navigating through some confusingly designed websites.

    That legislation also introduced mechanisms to assess how well education providers were contributing to the plans – for example, accountability agreements for further education colleges. For higher education institutions, the only mention of accountability in the old guidance was an enjoinder to make a note of activity related to LSIP priorities in strategic plans. The previous government framing around LSIPs was notably quiet on the role of higher education, as we’ve noted before – which is not to say that many HE institutions didn’t get involved, to greater or lesser extents (the progress reports linked above demonstrate this, though in a non-systematic way).

    LSIPs cover a three-year period, so a new round in summer 2026 is Labour’s big chance to reshape them in its preferred fashion. Today’s guidance is to be used for an LSIP draft submitted by the end of March, and – pending government approval – the new plans will be published in or around June next year.

    The areas covered by LSIPs, and the corresponding employer representative bodies (ERBs), have also been shifting – today we get the latest areas confirmed, now sensibly contiguous with local authority areas. An additional wrinkle that Labour announced in last year’s devolution white paper is for so-called strategic authorities (“mayoral and non-mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities, and the Greater London Authority”) to take joint ownership of LSIPs, along with ERBs. Eventually everywhere will be in a strategic authority – one day – but today’s guidance is in many places split depending on whether the LSIP is or is not in a more devolved part of England.

    Best laid plans

    LSIPs are a complicated undertaking at the best of times – as the government puts it, they “unite employers, strategic authorities, higher education, further education and independent training providers and wider stakeholders in solving skills challenges together.” Their effectiveness in really driving change remains unproven but – in theory – they respond to calls for a skills system that is planned at a local rather than central government level (or one that is not planned at all).

    The new guidance confirms just quite how complex an endeavour putting a plan together has become. New LSIPs will need to join up with the industrial strategy and its sector plans, “as far as they relate to industries within the local area.” This will also create synergies (or cross-purposes) with the new local growth plans for mayoral authorities announced at the spending review, which focus on economic development, and the Local Get Britain Working Plans (GBWPs) which are supposed to be looking at “broader causes of economic inactivity.”

    The guidance references a need for a read-across to the clean energy jobs plan (the LSIPs legislation placed a requirement on the plans to consider the environment), but this presumably will equally apply all the other forthcoming workforce strategies – now renamed as jobs plans, keep up – that different sectors are being obliged to come up with for purposes of linking migration and skills.

    And in perhaps the most notable shift of all, the new Labour version of the LSIP is instructed to pay heed to the post-16 white paper, and specifically the new prime ministerial targets for participation in higher-level learning. This is even presented as the first bullet point in the list of what the Secretary of State will take into account in the approval process. Reading between the lines, it looks like the government will be wanting plans which are relatively bullish on the growth of provision, including – but not only – at levels 4 and 5.

    Skills England is tasked with monitoring and oversight, as well as providing copious data to inform the plans’ development.

    Get HE in

    As set out in the new guidance at least, each LSIP will function as a little microcosm of the more coherent and cooperative education and skills landscape that Labour is swinging for in its white paper vision. Whether the plans can really drive these reforms, or simply reflect their framing, is another question – but there’s similar language about asking both further and higher education providers to lean in and

    work together in support of the ambitions set out in their respective LSIP, creating a more coherent post-16 education system with better pathways and opportunities to progress from entry up to higher level skills, enabled by the Lifelong Learning Entitlement.

    As mentioned, LSIPs will now be required to run the full gamut of technical education from entry level up to level 8, having previously been limited to level 6 provision as a cut-off. Asking employers and local areas to think about postgraduate-level skills needs is a bit of a watershed moment, even if the government itself seems to have only limited appetite for much policy change, and it will be fascinating to see what comes of it.

    Perhaps it’s the paucity of much proper government support for the higher education sector in recent years which leads me to celebrate this, but the language in the guidance around higher education’s fit within local systems feels spot on, in terms of how the sector would like itself to be understood:

    Higher education providers (HEPs) are focal points for higher level technical skills, research and innovation. The differences in mission, specialisms and strategic objectives between different types of institutions mean that HEPs can add unique value to local skill systems in a variety of ways, including through industry partnerships, research-led innovation, and national and international development initiatives; as well as feeding in higher education specific intelligence, such as graduate outcomes or skills pipeline data, to complement and add to further education and employer data.

    What getting stuck in looks like

    Both HE and FE providers will be expected to play a role in LSIP governance. Core elements of the new plans will need to include details of how both types of providers have been engaged in shaping the priorities and actions, as well as identifying challenges, and set out how they will support implementation and review progress.

    The potential actions included within LSIPs are varied, but it’s anticipated that they will speak to both improving the local skills “offer” – including changes that higher and further education providers can make to better align provision with the skills needs of the area and to simplify access – and to raise awareness of existing provision, helping both employers and learners to better understand what’s available.

    On the latter, there’s a nice moment where the guidance makes a genuinely sensible suggestion:

    Where engagement between higher education providers and LSIPs has not previously taken place, ERBs (and Strategic Authorities) may find engaging with the heads of careers and employability (who tend to work on skills development and measuring skills impact) a useful starting point.

    Higher education institutions will be “expected” (more on that later) to help ERBs and local government structures help map higher technical skills needs, share information about what they currently offer, and reflect on how their provision can be more responsive. And help with evaluation, and use their subject expertise and industry links to help develop the technical skills of staff elsewhere. And employ their national and international reach to gather best practice. It’s almost as if universities are teeming hives of resource and capable people, rather than ivory towers intent on remaining aloof from their local areas.

    Plus there’s an expectation for collaboration with further education and with other higher education providers to, “where appropriate”,

    create a more strategically planned response to skills needs, leading to improved local and regional coverage and coordination.

    It all sounds very nice if it works – and it all helps to flesh out the how of the white paper’s grand but largely un-operationalised ideas.

    Who’s accountable then?

    In its promises to give universities a “seat at the table” in LSIPs, it sounded like there was the possibility of Labour introducing a degree of accountability for higher education institutions, in the same way that applies to further education colleges (both through accountability agreements with DfE, and in a growing emphasis on local skills in Ofsted inspections). Research from the Association of Colleges has previously highlighted universities’ lack of formal accountability within the LSIP system as a mild bone of contention among stakeholders.

    This hasn’t happened – as far as accountability applies to higher education institutions’ role in the plans, it will remain limited to an expectation that activity is recorded in strategic or business plans, as was previously the case. There is now also encouragement for HEIs to “publicly communicate their role in the LSIP in other ways.” What we do get much more of is an emphasis on those responsible for the plans to seek out and involve the higher education sector.

    We therefore run up against the same issues that dog Labour’s HE agenda elsewhere – there might be an attractive vision of collaboration and coherence, which all things being equal the sector would be well-disposed towards, but at a time of maximum turmoil and with incentives pointing in other directions, can it really gel? Otherwise put: is dedicating enormous resource, goodwill and strategic direction to local needs a prudent choice for institutions battling to survive, or would they be better off focusing on recruiting every single last international student they can get their hands on for the rest of the Parliament? To which we might also add that the retrenchment in higher education civic work that seems to be taking place in some areas has likely already damaged some of the required structures and led to the loss of needed expertise.

    It’s a similar story elsewhere in the system: local government structures have never been more stretched, devolution-related reforms are still in their infancy, and while employer groupings may be well-placed to say what skills they would like more of, are they really effective stewards of fiendishly complicated local projects involving multiple actors and spotty data?

    A set of 39 well thought through and carefully monitored LSIPs at the heart of a responsive ecosystem of employers, HE and FE, and local government – each with one eye on the industrial strategy, and another on an area’s own specific character – would do wonders for Labour’s education and skills agenda. But the conditions need to be in place for it to emerge, and right now it feels like quite the reach.

    Source link

  • Students face dropout risk in Trump cuts – Campus Review

    Students face dropout risk in Trump cuts – Campus Review

    Work study works, doesn’t it?

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Why PR May Be One of Higher Ed’s Most Urgent Strategies Right Now 

    Why PR May Be One of Higher Ed’s Most Urgent Strategies Right Now 

    Trust in colleges and universities is slipping. Public narratives about higher education are being shaped without institutional input. At the same time, search behaviors that marketing teams have spent years refining are being rapidly overtaken by artificial intelligence and that shift is fundamentally altering how visibility is earned and maintained. If institutions do not begin treating public relations as a strategic imperative they risk being left out of the conversations that define relevance. 

    The urgency becomes clearer when we look at the data. According to our 2026 Landscape of Higher Education Report, 74% of Americans in 2010 believed college was “very important” to success. By 2025, that number has dropped to just 35%, as shown in Gallup’s latest trend data. Meanwhile, the percentage of people saying college is “not too important” has increased fivefold. These are not isolated shifts in public opinion. They are broad signals that confidence in higher education is diminishing and with it, the sector’s influence in shaping the future workforce and civic landscape. The reality that this is not business as usual, but what comes next, is becoming harder for leadership teams to ignore. 

    Despite this, many institutions continue to rely on messaging frameworks and digital strategies that were designed for a web environment that no longer exists. 

    AI Is Rewriting the Rules Quietly and Quickly 

    Search behavior is evolving at a pace that is difficult to match and artificial intelligence is now redefining what visibility looks like. EducationDynamics’ Q3 2025 data shows that nearly 43% of all Google searches end without a click. In other words, users are getting their answers directly from AI-generated summaries, often without ever reaching an institution’s website. 

    That change does not diminish the importance of websites or blog content, but it does alter how they function. Pages that were once primary destinations are now source material feeding large language models and search algorithms. The value of that content is not in clicks alone, but in its ability to influence what AI tools surface in response to user questions. 

    The AI Visibility Pyramid featured in our 2026 Landscape of Higher Education Report illustrates how visibility is earned in this new environment. At its foundation is owned content, which includes blogs, faculty profiles, explainer articles and program pages. These assets contribute essential signals that shape how AI systems understand and rank institutional authority. However, they are not sufficient on their own. They must be elevated and validated through external sources to carry meaningful weight in this ecosystem. 

    Owned content becomes most effective when it is distributed and linked through credible channels. Media coverage, thought leadership placements and backlinks from high-authority outlets all play a critical role in reinforcing an institution’s visibility and shaping its reputation in the broader information landscape. What matters most is not just what institutions say about themselves, but where and how those messages are repeated, cited and trusted. 

    For leaders building their broader growth roadmap, the dynamics of AI, trust and visibility align directly with the strategies outlined in The 2026 Growth Strategy Higher Ed Needs Right Now and in the 2026 Higher Education Digital Marketing Trends and Predictions. 

    We Cannot Let the Work Go Unseen 

    The transformational work happening within higher education is substantial, but it is often not reaching the audiences who need to see it most. Whether it is a first-generation student securing a high-impact internship, a research partnership influencing policy or faculty-led innovation with industry implications, these stories are powerful proof points of institutional value. Yet too often, they remain confined within internal channels or are overlooked altogether. 

    Public relations plays an essential role in ensuring this work does not go unseen. Visibility must be actively cultivated, not assumed. Trust is built not only through consistent messaging, but through third-party validation that reinforces an institution’s credibility and relevance. As AI becomes the first layer of search for many users, the presence of credible, external proof will determine whether institutions are even included in the digital conversation. 

    The absence of that visibility has consequences. When institutions are not showing up in external media, not being cited in trusted sources and not contributing to narratives beyond their own platforms, they become harder to discover and easier to overlook. That decline in visibility often coincides with declines in public trust, prospective student interest and donor engagement. Reversing those trends begins with being present and recognized in the places that matter most. 

    For many colleges and universities, that also means grounding PR strategy in data from resources like the EducationDynamics’ Marketing and Enrollment Management Benchmarks, which tracks how visibility, demand and student behavior are shifting across the sector. 

    Public Relations Is Not a Press Release Function 

    In many institutions, public relations remains anchored to a traditional calendar of announcements tied to internal milestones. Press releases about new buildings, faculty honors, strategic plans and major gifts continue to dominate the output. While these updates have their place, they rarely break through the broader noise or shift the public narrative in a meaningful way. The same structural constraints that can keep marketing from leading, as we describe in Marketing Can’t Lead If Shackled by Structure, often limit what PR is allowed to be. 

    Today, public relations must function as a core strategic asset, not a service center. Its value lies in its ability to translate institutional mission and outcomes into public narratives that are credible, compelling and consistent with the institution’s brand. These stories should not be reactive, nor should they be generic. They should be aligned with the brand pillars that define what the institution stands for and where it is headed. 

    Institutions that claim leadership in areas like social mobility, research innovation or workforce readiness must make those claims evident through the stories they place and the voices they elevate. It is not enough to state the promise. It must be demonstrated through ongoing, credible engagement that reflects those themes in national and regional conversations. 

    This is where owned content and earned media intersect. Blogs, faculty profiles and campus features continue to matter, but they must be intentionally positioned and supported through media outreach and content distribution that expand their reach. 

    According to Muck Rack’s 2025 Generative Pulse report, more than 95% of the sources cited by generative AI tools are unpaid. Of those, 27% are journalistic, with the most frequently cited outlets including Reuters, NPR, the Associated Press, The New York Times and Bloomberg. These platforms are not pulling directly from institutional press centers. They are reflecting content that has been validated, shared and linked widely across trusted networks. 

    For institutions that want to shape public perception, these are the environments where visibility must be earned. That means placing stories where they will be seen, cited and shared. It also means ensuring that those stories reflect the strategic priorities and differentiators that define the institution’s place in a competitive market. 

    Leaders do not have to guess where to begin. EducationDynamics’ market research solutions and consulting services are built to help institutions translate insight into narrative strategy, then connect that strategy to measurable revenue and reputation outcomes. 

    Public relations is no longer optional. It is an infrastructure investment in how institutions are discovered, described and believed. It builds the signals that matter most to both human audiences and machine-driven systems. It is not enough to have a good story. It must be findable, credible and aligned with the identity the institution wants to project. 

    What Leadership Should Do Now 

    For presidents, CMOs and enrollment leaders, treating PR as infrastructure starts with a few concrete moves: 

    • Audit your external visibility 
      Compare how you are described on your own channels with how you show up in search results, media coverage and AI summaries. Identify the gaps between the story you tell and the story the market sees. 
    • Align PR with brand and enrollment goals 
      Build PR around a small set of institutional themes, such as social mobility, research impact or workforce readiness, that reinforce your brand and support priority programs. Measure success in terms of visibility, inquiry growth and reputation, not just clips. 
    • Prioritize a short list of voices and proof points 
      Elevate a consistent bench of leaders, faculty and partners who can speak to your themes with credibility. Match their stories to concrete outcomes, such as student trajectories, employer partnerships or policy influence. 
    • Resource PR to lead, not just respond 
      Shift PR from a press release calendar to a proactive pipeline of narratives aimed at the outlets, conversations and audiences that matter most. Integrate that work with marketing, enrollment and crisis leadership, as we emphasize in Leadership Matters During Crisis. 

    These steps move PR from a communications activity to a strategic system that shapes how your institution is discovered and believed. 

    Leadership Cannot Afford to Miss This Moment 

    The question is no longer whether an institution is doing meaningful work. It is whether that work is being seen, cited and valued in the right places. Institutions that fail to show up in earned media, in search results and in national conversations are not simply underexposed. They are at risk of becoming irrelevant, not because they have failed to deliver, but because they have failed to be discovered. 

    The stakes of that visibility gap increase during times of disruption. The same is true for the sector’s own story. EducationDynamics’ In the News presence and Insights hub illustrate how consistent, strategic visibility can reinforce a clear point of view and a challenger mindset in the market.  

    This is not a short-term communications problem. It is a long-term visibility challenge. For colleges and universities that want to remain vital to the communities they serve, public relations may be one of the most urgent and strategic tools available right now. When PR is aligned with full-funnel marketing services, enrollment strategy and market intelligence, it becomes a force multiplier for both revenue and reputation. 

    Discover how we help institutions proactively shape their narrative in an AI-driven world. Contact the PR experts at EducationDynamics for a personalized discussion. 

    Source link

  • Australia’s providers and peak bodies have their say on education reforms

    Australia’s providers and peak bodies have their say on education reforms

    The Bill, which contains a suite of integrity-focused reforms that will impact Australia’s international and higher education sectors, is progressing through parliament.

    With that, stakeholders have been weighing in. Here are some of the key points raised in submissions, focusing on education agents, TEQSA powers, and consultation concerns.

    Changes for education agents

    The Bill is set to tighten oversight of education agents by broadening the legal definition of who qualifies as an agent and introducing new transparency requirements around commissions and payments.

    Universities Australia urged the government to adopt a definition of education agent that “captures only those receiving commission for the direct recruitment of students on behalf of Australian institutions”, arguing this would provide greater certainty to universities and ensure compliance requirements remain proportionate.

    The International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) also raised concerns that the proposed definition remains overly broad. In its submission, the association warned that, without clearer definitions and published guidelines, existing arrangements – such as subcontracted marketing services or partnerships with education businesses – could inadvertently fall within the scope of education agent, increasing compliance burdens and legal risks.

    For these reasons, IEAA reiterated its earlier recommendation that the definition be adapted from the National Code 2018, or that an exemption schedule be developed covering government agencies, TNE partners, and contracted marketing firms.

    TEQSA-related changes and powers

    Elsewhere, the legislation also sets out that education providers will require authorisation from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) – Australia’s national higher education regulator – to deliver Australian degrees offshore.

    The Bill will also give TEQSA clearer authority to monitor, and, if necessary, restrict or revoke offshore higher-education delivery, backed by new reporting obligations requiring providers to notify TEQSA of key changes to offshore operations and submit annual reports on all offshore courses, with specific details yet to be defined.

    Julian Hill, the federal government’s assistant minister for international education, recently defended this part of the Bill saying: “All that this part of the Bill is doing is making sure that TEQSA, as the regulator, has a line of sight to what providers are doing offshore – that’s all.

    “Right now, TEQSA, as the regulator, simply doesn’t have the data-flow to know reliably which providers are delivering in which markets… There’s no more power; there’s no more red tape; it’s simply saying: ‘You need to get authorisation.’

    “It’s straightforward. Everyone who is currently delivering automatically gets authorised. But then they just have to tell the regulator, so that they can run their normal risk-based regulation.”

    In its submission, IEAA said it supports the changes, providing they “do not penalise existing Australian education providers’ partnership arrangements/contracts with their offshore partners”.

    However, IEAA suggests a “phased implementation timeline that allows for some providers who are mid-way through contract signing with offshore partners to not be unnecessarily caught up, delayed or burdened by this new measure suddenly being enforced”.

    IEAA also argued that the Bill’s nine-month decision period for TEQSA – which could be stretched to 18 months if extended – is too long, warning that such delays would hinder providers’ ability to respond to opportunities and innovate. A three- to six-month timeframe would be more appropriate, it said, noting that long approval windows could deter offshore partners already navigating lengthy timelines for establishing new TNE agreements.

    Requiring notifications for every change in course offerings would impose a significant – and unnecessary – administrative burden without delivering meaningful regulatory benefit
    Go8

    The Group of Eight also raised TEQSA’s new requirements in their submission, writing: “There is no material difference between courses offered by Monash University onshore in Australia and those at Monash Malaysia. Requiring notifications for every change in course offerings would impose a significant – and unnecessary – administrative burden without delivering meaningful regulatory benefit.”

    Go8 said that without further clarity on reporting requirements, it is “difficult to determine whether this aligns with the intended light-touch approach” that the government has signalled.

    “For self-accrediting universities, reporting obligations should be kept to an absolute minimum and clearly linked to risk mitigation, ensuring compliance does not create unnecessary administrative burden. Importantly, reports should not request information that TEQSA can access through existing systems,” said Go8 in its submission.

    Sector consultation

    A lack of consultation was a major point of contention during last year’s debate on the previous iteration of the Bill, and several submissions argue that this continues to be a concern.

    English Australia acknowledged the “extensive engagement” undertaken by Hill, as well as ongoing consultation by the Department of Education – and noted that several improvements had been made since the 2024 version, including the removal of proposed enrolment caps.

    However, the ELICOS peak body added that “the vast majority of feedback” provided during the inquiry has been ignored and that the limited consultation that characterised the earlier Bill has “equally marked the drafting of the current version”.

    English Australia urged the government to pause the Bill to allow time for a collaborative and robust consultation with the sector peak bodies, and also to allow time for economic modelling on the cumulative impact of its provisions on the international education sector and the wider economy.

    Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) takes a similar stance, describing engagement on matters within this Bill as “challenging”.

    “ITECA has been unequivocal in lending support to measures that will genuinely enhance integrity objectives,” wrote ITECA CEO Felix Pirie in its submission.

    “As you will appreciate, ITECA cannot lend such support in the absence of collaborative and open dialogue, especially when the sector is ambushed by the tabling of legislation in the parliament. Improved integrity must be delivered through improved integrity and transparency in government processes, decision-making and collaborative engagement with the sector.

    Pirie and his team are recommending that should the reforms pass, they be subject to review by an external reviewer within two years of commencement of those provisions.

    All submissions can be viewed at this link.

    Source link

  • McMahon Breaks Up More of the Education Department

    McMahon Breaks Up More of the Education Department

    McMahon has said the recent government shutdown proved that the Education Department isn’t necessary.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images | Pete Kiehart for The Washington Post via Getty Images

    The Education Department is planning to move TRIO and numerous other higher education programs to the Labor Department as part of a broader effort to dismantle the agency and “streamline its bureaucracy.”

    Instead of moving whole offices, the department detailed a plan Tuesday to transfer certain programs and responsibilities to other agencies. All in all, the department signed six agreements with four agencies, relocating a wide swath of programs. 

    For instance, the Labor Department is set to take over most of ED’s higher education programs, which include grants that support student success, historically Black colleges and universities, and other minority-serving institutions. Meanwhile, the State Department will handle Fulbright-Hays grants as well as those administered by the International and Foreign Language Education office. Indian Education and programs for tribal colleges are moving to the Interior Department. 

    Several of the offices that have overseen these grant programs were gutted in recent rounds of layoffs, but any staff members who are still managing them will move to the other agencies. ED also has sought to defund some of the grants, deeming them unconstitutional, so it’s not clear what is moving to the other agencies.

    The agreements were signed Sept. 30—the day before the government shut down. ED officials expect the transition to take some time.

    No programs, however, have been moved from the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of Federal Student Aid or the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. The department is still “exploring the best plan” for those offices, a senior department official said in a press call Tuesday afternoon.

    “These partnerships really mark a major step forward in improving management of select programs and leveraging these partner agencies’ administrative expertise, their experience working with relevant stakeholders and streamlines the bureaucracy that has accumulated here at ED over the decades,” the senior department official said. “We are confident that this will lead to better services for grantees, for schools, for families across the country.”

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon hinted at the sweeping announcement in a social media post Tuesday morning. The secretary posted an ominous video of a ticking clock followed by President Ronald Reagan urging Congress to dissolve the Department of Education. The video ended with a flickering screen that read “The Final Mission,” an echo of her first letter to Education Department staff in which she outlined how she would put herself out of a job.

    President Donald Trump directed McMahon in March to close down her department “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

    Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, applauded the announcement  describing it as a “bold, decisive action to return education where it belongs—at the state and local level.”

    “The Trump Administration is fully committed to doing what’s best for American students, which is why it’s critical to shrink this bloated federal education bureaucracy while still ensuring efficient delivery of funds and essential programs,” she said in a statement. 

    These moves are the most significant steps McMahon has taken beyond the layoffs to comply with the president’s directive.

    Congress has pressed McMahon multiple times to acknowledge that neither she nor the president can fully shut the department down without lawmakers’ approval. But when addressing these concerns, McMahon has made a point to note that shutting the department and its programs down entirely is different than dismantling bureaucracy and co-managing operations with other cabinet-level departments.

    The department official echoed this Tuesday when talking with reporters, saying that policy and statutory oversight of the programs will still rest with employees at the Department of Ed. But execution of processes, particularly as it pertains to grants, will be managed by other agencies.

    “Education has broad authority under several statutes to contract with other federal agencies to procure services, and the department has had that authority since its inception,” the official said. “We at the Department of Ed have engaged with other partner agencies over 200 times through [inter-agency agreements] to procure various services of other partner agencies over the years—even the Biden administration did it.”

    The department has already moved Career, Technical and Adult Education to the Department of Labor. McMahon has said that effort was essentially a test run to see how other agencies could handle the department’s responsibilities. Democrats in Congress have decried the plan to move CTE to Labor as illegal. 

    Many of the department’s offices have already experienced dramatic disruptions this year, as McMahon used two reductions in force to cut the head count of her staff by more than 50 percent. The latest mass layoff, which took place during the government shutdown, has since been enjoined by a federal court. President Trump also agreed to return affected employees to “employment status” administration when he signed a stopgap bill to temporarily end the 43-day shutdown. 

    But it remains unclear whether those staff members have returned or will ever return to work. Multiple sources told Inside Higher Ed that the language of the bill may allow Trump to leave employees on paid administrative leave until the bill is no longer effective on Jan. 30 and then re-administer the pink slips.

    Prior to Tuesday’s announcement, many higher education experts as well as current and former ED employees were hesitant to declare the department dead. Some said as long as the department and its functions remain codified, it will still be alive. But one former staff member put it this way: “If you take the major organs out of a human, do you still have a human or do you have a corpse?” 

    Amy Laitinen, senior director of the higher education program at New America, a left-leaning think tank, said moving the offices to other federal agencies would not save tax dollars.

    “It fractures and weakens oversight of those dollars, it’s duplicative and it’s wasteful,” she said. “How are you tracking student outcomes to ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent when all of the entities responsible are scattered to the wind? For example, separating the agency in charge of financial aid policy (OPE) from the entity responsible for financial aid implementation (FSA) makes no sense.”

    Source link

  • How one young woman broke free of a media addiction

    How one young woman broke free of a media addiction

    I knew every word to the saddest songs on my playlist. Not because I loved music, but because depression had become my language. I was 14, lying in my room with my family just beyond the door, close enough to hear their voices, far enough that they might as well have been in another country.

    I had been expelled from school months earlier. “Disciplinary issues,” they called it. My family’s disappointment sat heavy in our home, unspoken but everywhere. We lived together, ate together, but there was no closeness, no one I could talk to.

    I tried to find help. I downloaded mental health apps, desperate for someone, anyone, to talk to. Every single one wanted money: subscriptions, fees, payments I couldn’t afford. I stared at those payment screens feeling like I was drowning, watching help float just out of reach.

    That’s when the screen became my only escape. It started two years earlier, in Primary 6, when house workers casually showed me explicit images on their phones. I was just a child; curious, confused, not understanding what I was seeing. Then it continued at school with friends, and something awakened in me that I didn’t know how to name or control.

    Now, alone and depressed, pornography became my refuge. Not because it made me happy, but because for a few minutes, it made me feel something other than suffocating sadness. It was free. It was always available. And unlike everyone in my life, it didn’t judge me.

    A cycle begins

    I didn’t wake up one morning and decide to be addicted. At first, it felt harmless, a way to escape. I told myself, It’s just this once. I’m in control. But addiction is a liar. Soon, it wasn’t me making the choices, the choices were making me.

    I became a professional actor: smiling, joking, saying “I’m fine.” Inside, I was drowning. Mornings brought disgust and broken promises. “This is the last time,” I would whisper. By evening, I was back in the same cycle.

    Being a Christian made it worse. How could I worship on Sunday and fall back into the same pit during the week? I carried my Bible with trembling hands, wondering: Does God still want me? Is He tired of forgiving me?

    What made everything harder was the silence; not just mine, but from my entire community.

    In many African homes, conversations about struggles don’t happen. Children are raised to “be strong,” “obey,” and “not bring shame.” So, when addiction creeps in, we already know: I can’t tell my parents because we know the response is often punishment and disappointment rather than compassion and feeling secure.

    The things we don’t discuss

    My family was no different. We shared meals, went to church together. But I couldn’t tell them about the depression that made me want to die, or the addiction consuming me. Not because they were cruel, but because we’d never learned how to talk about things that hurt.

    In many communities, struggles like pornography are labeled as spiritual weakness rather than human pain. Youth are told to “pray harder” while root wounds remain untouched. Girls especially face pressure to be “good daughters” because any confession can bring family shame.

    After my expulsion, I carried not just my own shame, but my family’s disappointment, the fear of being labeled a failure, the burden of disgrace.

    Addiction thrives in that silence. It feeds on fear; fear of punishment, of shame, of losing respect. So, we hide behind grades, church attendance, fake smiles. Inside, we are prisoners.

    For Christians struggling with addiction, the battle isn’t linear. One day you pray and feel close to God; the next, guilt crashes down. You confess, repent, hope but relapse comes again. I can’t get free. I’m weak. I keep failing.

    Faith meets struggle.

    Each fall reinforces the lie that you’re beyond redemption. You watch others grow in faith and compare your hidden failures to their visible victories. The church can make this harder. Fear of gossip or rejection stops you from seeking support. If they knew, would they still respect me?

    I struggled with this constantly. Sundays brought worship and hope. By Tuesday, I’d be back in the cycle, convinced I’d disappointed God one too many times. Everyone seemed to have faith figured out while I failed again and again.

    It’s strange having a full contact list but feeling completely alone. People assume you’re fine. “You’re always smiling,” they say. That image becomes a trap. If you break the mask, they might judge.

    The worst I’ve discovered is that the more people around you, the lonelier you feel. Addiction thrives in isolation. Your mind becomes a battlefield of self-condemnation and guilt. You wonder if anyone could love you as you are not as the image you show.

    When you reach out, friends often laugh it off or assume you’re exaggerating. Each failed attempt reinforces that isolation is safer than vulnerability. Trust issues build. You question whether anyone can handle your truth.

    Small steps forward 

    I haven’t stopped struggling. But I’ve discovered steps that help me keep moving forward. God’s presence never left me, even when I couldn’t feel it. Even in the darkest moments, there was a whisper: You are not finished. I’m still here.

    I’ve learned to pray honestly. One night I prayed: “God, I’m tired. I failed again.” That messy prayer brought relief. God doesn’t need eloquence, He wants honesty.

    Scripture became my anchor: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). These words remind me that weakness doesn’t disqualify me.

    I’ve sought godly friendship. Sharing my struggle with a mentor brought prayer, guidance, and relief I hadn’t felt in years. Accountability isn’t about judgment; it’s about having allies who speak truth when you’re too weary.

    I celebrate small wins: resisting harmful content one morning, admitting a relapse to a friend, choosing honesty over shame. These moments prove God is working, even if change feels slow.

    Most importantly, I keep returning to God. After rough weeks, I kneel and whisper, “I’m here again, God,” and find quiet peace. The journey isn’t linear, but persistent return is how healing begins.

    Lessons and hope 

    Silence makes struggle worse; speaking lifts the burden. Faith doesn’t remove struggle, but gives hope and a path forward. Vulnerability is strength. Grace works in the mess. Small wins matter.

    If you feel trapped by addiction, shame or loneliness: you are not alone, and your story isn’t finished. God sees every hidden struggle, every tear, every relapse, every moment you’ve smiled while breaking inside. His love is stronger than any fear or guilt you carry.

    Change may be slow. You may stumble again. But every honest step toward God, every whispered prayer, every confession is victory. The times you felt weakest may be when God was shaping your heart for strength.

    Do not be discouraged by setbacks. Healing is a process. God’s timing is perfect, his grace persistent. You are not defined by your struggles; you’re defined by the God who pursues you relentlessly and turns brokenness into testimony.

    To my fellow young Africans carrying battles in silence: I see you. Your pain is real. The silence in your home is real. But so is God’s grace, the possibility of healing, and the chance that your story could be the hope someone else needs.

    I am still on this journey. There are days when old habits call, when depression threatens, when I feel eight years of struggle. But I’m learning that every day I turn back to God, I choose life over death, hope over despair, truth over silence.

    Remember: hope is not passive. It’s a daily choice to trust that God sees you, values you and has a purpose for you. Your story is not over. It is still being written, and your struggles are chapters, not the conclusion. Break the silence. Reach out. Trust that there is grace enough for every fall, love enough for every shame and hope enough for every tomorrow.

    You are not alone.

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why might someone turn to media, like pornography, as a way to escape depression or loneliness?

    2. Why do you think media addiction is so difficult to break from?

    3. If you knew of someone with an addiction, how might you help them free themselves from it?

    Source link

  • School bus driver shortage improves slightly with bump in hiring, pay

    School bus driver shortage improves slightly with bump in hiring, pay

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Higher hourly wages are credited for modest growth in the number of school bus drivers over the past year, but employment in the field remains down 9.5% compared to 2019 staffing levels, according to a recent analysis from the Economic Policy Institute.
    • The median hourly wage for school bus drivers was $22.45 on Aug. 1, a 4.2% increase year over year when accounting for inflation.
    • Nonetheless, the K-12 staffing outlook overall shows instability as school systems continue adjusting to the end of federal COVID-19 emergency funding and as changes implemented by the Trump administration put more fiscal pressures on state and local school systems, EPI said.

    Dive Insight:

    Employment for all K-12 positions is up 1.4% from August 2019 to August 2025, EPI found.  Custodian positions dropped 12.4%, joining school bus drivers among those seeing the largest decreases. Slots for paraprofessionals, on the other hand, increased 16.5% during the same period, according to EPI. 

    The recent wage growth for school bus drivers is not the typical pattern seen over the past 15 years, EPI said. In fact, from Nov. 1, 2012, through June 1, 2015, school bus drivers saw negative year-over-year wage growth. Negative growth also occurred for this role in July 2018, November 2018 and September 2019.

    EPI said the split-shift schedule required for the beginning and end of school days makes it difficult to recruit bus drivers. Moreover, school bus drivers — along with paraprofessionals, custodians and food service workers — tend to receive low pay. These jobs also are disproportionately held by women, Black and brown workers, and older employees, according to a 2024 EPI report.

    School bus driver employment has grown by about 2,300 jobs over the past year. This growth is due to state and local government school bus driver employment, which saw an increase of nearly 9,900 drivers since the fall of 2024. Private-sector school bus employment fell by 8,200 jobs over the same period.

    The institute’s most recent report said it’s hard to draw meaningful conclusions about the school bus driver wage growth over the last few years due to COVID-influenced changes in the labor market, as well as difficulty collecting labor data during the pandemic. 

    Still, EPI said “the wage growth for school bus drivers in the last year stands out as a much-needed investment in this critical segment of the education workforce.”

    Several schools in Pennsylvania and one school system in Ohio closed for at least a day this school year due to school bus driver shortages, according to local news reports. Other localities have consolidated bus routes or made other adjustments to respond to driver shortages.

    Source link

  • Texas v. Texas: State AG sues higher ed board over work-study programs

    Texas v. Texas: State AG sues higher ed board over work-study programs

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing his state’s higher education coordinating board to end three work-study programs, alleging they are “unconstitutional and discriminatory” against religious students. 
    • Under the rules established by the Texas Legislature, the programs require participating employers to provide students with nonsectarian work. Two of the programs also make students attending seminary or receiving religious instruction ineligible to participate.
    • The lawsuit filed Wednesday alleges that those provisions amount to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board “prohibiting participants from engaging in sectarian activities, including sectarian courses of study, to be eligible to receive state benefit.” He asked a state judge to bar the board from administering the programs.

    Dive Insight:

    Paxton argued in the lawsuit that the state work-study programs — all of which are need-based — exclude otherwise eligible students “based solely on the religious character of their course of study,” violating the First Amendment. 

    Texas is home to at least 14 seminary schools, according to The Association of Theological Schools.

    The work-study programs also “effectively eliminate religious organizations with only sectarian employment opportunities from participating,” Paxton said.

    The state board did not immediately respond to questions Monday.

    The three programs being contested are:

    • The Texas College Work-Study Program.
    • The Texas Working Off-Campus: Reinforcing Knowledge and Skills Internship Program, better known as the TXWORKS internship.
    • The Texas Innovative Adult Career Education, or ACE, Grant Program.

    The work-study program and TXWORKS internship partially fund jobs for eligible students to help them pay for college. The ACE program provides grants to nonprofits “for use in job training, vocational education, and related workforce development” for eligible students, according to the lawsuit.

    All the programs are geared toward low-income students, though some also target other demographic groups as well, such as ACE’s focus on veterans.

    In a Friday statement, Paxton called the laws governing the programs “anti-Christian” and said they should “be completely wiped off the books.”

    This is not the first time Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, has sought to overturn Texas state law through the courts. In June, he worked with the Trump administration to have a federal judge strike down Texas’ decades-old law offering in-state tuition rates to undocumented students.

    Paxton’s lawsuit comes after a federal judge earlier this year struck down a Minnesota law that excluded some religious colleges from participating in a publicly funded dual enrollment program.

    Minnesota’s dual enrollment program previously barred colleges from participating if they required students to sign faith statements. In August, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel ruled that the law infringed on the colleges’ constitutional rights by making them choose between participating in the program and practicing their religion.

    Source link

  • Preparing for a new era of teaching and learning

    Preparing for a new era of teaching and learning

    Key points:

    When I first started experimenting with AI in my classroom, I saw the same thing repeatedly from students. They treated it like Google. Ask a question, get an answer, move on. It didn’t take long to realize that if my students only engage with AI this way, they miss the bigger opportunity to use AI as a partner in thinking. AI isn’t a magic answer machine. It’s a tool for creativity and problem-solving. The challenge for us as educators is to rethink how we prepare students for the world they’re entering and to use AI with curiosity and fidelity.

    Moving from curiosity to fluency

    In my district, I wear two hats: history teacher and instructional coach. That combination gives me the space to test ideas in the classroom and support colleagues as they try new tools. What I’ve learned is that AI fluency requires far more than knowing how to log into a platform. Students need to learn how to question outputs, verify information and use results as a springboard for deeper inquiry.

    I often remind them, “You never trust your source. You always verify and compare.” If students accept every AI response at face value, they’re not building the critical habits they’ll need in college or in the workforce.

    To make this concrete, I teach my students the RISEN framework: Role, Instructions, Steps, Examples, Narrowing. It helps them craft better prompts and think about the kind of response they want. Instead of typing “explain photosynthesis,” they might ask, “Act as a biologist explaining photosynthesis to a tenth grader. Use three steps with an analogy, then provide a short quiz at the end.” Suddenly, the interaction becomes purposeful, structured and reflective of real learning.

    AI as a catalyst for equity and personalization

    Growing up, I was lucky. My mom was college educated and sat with me to go over almost every paper I wrote. She gave me feedback that helped to sharpen my writing and build my confidence. Many of my students don’t have that luxury. For these learners, AI can be the academic coach they might not otherwise have.

    That doesn’t mean AI replaces human connection. Nothing can. But it can provide feedback, ask guiding questions, and provide examples that give students a sounding board and thought partner. It’s one more way to move closer to providing personalized support for learners based on need.

    Of course, equity cuts both ways. If only some students have access to AI or if we use it without considering its bias, we risk widening the very gaps we hope to close. That’s why it’s our job as educators to model ethical and critical use, not just the mechanics.

    Shifting how we assess learning

    One of the biggest shifts I’ve made is rethinking how I assess students. If I only grade the final product, I’m essentially inviting them to use AI as a shortcut. Instead, I focus on the process: How did they engage with the tool? How did they verify and cross-reference results? How did they revise their work based on what they learned? What framework guided their inquiry? In this way, AI becomes part of their learning journey rather than just an endpoint.

    I’ve asked students to run the same question through multiple AI platforms and then compare the outputs. What were the differences? Which response feels most accurate or useful? What assumptions might be at play? These conversations push students to defend their thinking and use AI critically, not passively.

    Navigating privacy and policy

    Another responsibility we carry as educators is protecting our students. Data privacy is a serious concern. In my school, we use a “walled garden” version of AI so that student data doesn’t get used for training. Even with those safeguards in place, I remind colleagues never to enter identifiable student information into a tool.

    Policies will continue to evolve, but for day-to-day activities and planning, teachers need to model caution and responsibility. Students are taking our lead.

    Professional growth for a changing profession

    The truth of the matter is most of us have not been professionally trained to do this. My teacher preparation program certainly did not include modules on prompt engineering or data ethics. That means professional development in this space is a must.

    I’ve grown the most in my AI fluency by working alongside other educators who are experimenting, sharing stories, and comparing notes. AI is moving fast. No one has all the answers. But we can build confidence together by trying, reflecting, and adjusting through shared experience and lessons learned. That’s exactly what we’re doing in the Lead for Learners network. It’s a space where educators from across the country connect, learn and support one another in navigating change.

    For educators who feel hesitant, I’d say this: You don’t need to be an expert to start. Pick one tool, test it in one lesson, and talk openly with your students about what you’re learning. They’ll respect your honesty and join you in the process.

    Preparing students for what’s next

    AI is not going away. Whether we’re ready or not, it’s going to shape how our students live and work. That gives us a responsibility not just to keep pace with technology but to prepare young people for what’s ahead. The latest futures forecast reminds us that imagining possibilities is just as important as responding to immediate shifts.

    We need to understand both how AI is already reshaping education delivery and how new waves of change will remain on the horizon as tools grow more sophisticated and widespread.

    I want my students to leave my classroom with the ability to question, create, and collaborate using AI. I want them to see it not as a shortcut but as a tool for thinking more deeply and expressing themselves more fully. And I want them to watch me modeling those same habits: curiosity, caution, creativity, and ethical decision-making. Because if we don’t show them what responsible use looks like, who will?

    The future of education won’t be defined by whether we allow AI into our classrooms. It will be defined by how we teach with it, how we teach about it, and how we prepare our students to thrive in a world where it’s everywhere.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • College Students Want Work-Based Learning Experiences

    College Students Want Work-Based Learning Experiences

    The economy is uncertain, but eight in 10 undergraduates somewhat or strongly agree that their college is preparing them with the skills, credentials and experiences they need to succeed in today’s job market. At the same time, most students are stressed about the future. Their biggest stressors vary but include not being to afford life after graduation, not having enough internship or work experience to get a job, and feeling a general pressure to succeed. That’s all according to new data from Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey of more than 5,000 two- and four-year students with Generation Lab.

    What can colleges do to help? The No. 1 thing Student Voice respondents want their institution to prioritize when it comes to career readiness is help finding and accessing paid internships. No. 2 is building stronger connections with potential employers. Colleges and universities could also help students better understand outcomes for past graduates of their programs: Just 14 percent of students say their college or university makes this kind of information readily available.

    About the Survey

    Student Voice is an ongoing survey and reporting series. Our 2025–26 cycle, Student Voice: Amplified, gauged students’ thoughts on trust, artificial intelligence, academics, cost of attendance, campus climate, health and wellness, and campus involvement.

    Some 5,065 students from 260 two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit, responded to this main annual survey about student success, conducted in August. Explore the data captured by our survey partner Generation Lab here and here. The margin of error is plus or minus one percentage point.

    Shawn VanDerziel, president and CEO of the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), said there’s “no doubt that the college experience equips students with a lifelong foundation for the general job market,” so it’s “heartening to hear” they have confidence that their academic programs are setting them up to succeed.

    The challenge, however, “often becomes putting that learning and experience into the job market context—translating and articulating the experience that is meaningful to employers,” he added.

    Beyond helping students frame what they’ve learned as competencies they can clearly communicate to prospective employers (who are increasingly interested in skills-based hiring), colleges also need to scale experiential learning opportunities. NACE has found that paid internships, in particular, give students a measurable advantage on the job market, and that Gen Z graduates who took part in internships or other experiential learning opportunities had a more favorable view of their college experience than those who didn’t. These graduates also describe their degree as more relevant to their eventual job than peers who didn’t participate in experiential learning.

    While paid internships remain the gold standard for experience, student demand for them vastly outstrips supply: According to one 2024 study, for every high-quality internship available, more than three students are seeking one. Other students can’t afford to leave the jobs that fund their educations in order to take a temporary internship, paid or unpaid; still others have caring or other responsibilities that preclude this kind of experience. VanDerziel said all of this is why some institutions are prioritizing more work-based learning opportunities—including those embedded in the classroom.

    Many institutions are “working toward giving more of their students access to experiential learning and skill-building activities—providing stipends for unpaid experiential experiences and ensuring that work-study jobs incorporate career-readiness skills, for example,” he said. “There is positive movement.”

    One note of caution: Colleges adding these experiences must ensure that they have “concrete skill-building and job-aligned responsibilities in order to maximize the benefits of them for the students,” VanDerziel added.

    Here are the career readiness findings from the annual Student Voice survey, in five charts—plus more on the experience gap.

    1. Program outcomes data is unclear to students.

    Across institution types and student demographics, a fraction of respondents (12 percent over all) say they know detailed outcomes data for their program of study. A plurality of students say they know some general information. Just 14 percent indicate this information is readily available.

    outcomes-1h0n25opyx3xz4p
    View online

    1. Students remain lukewarm on career services.

    Similar to last year’s survey, students are more likely to describe career services at their institution as welcoming (31 percent) than effective (17 percent), knowledgeable about specific industries and job markets (15 percent), or forward-thinking (9 percent). Career centers across higher education are understaffed, which is part of the reason there’s a push to embed career-readiness initiatives into the curriculum. But those efforts may not be made plain enough, or come across as useful, to students: Just 8 percent of respondents this year indicate that career services are embedded in the curriculum at their institution. Double that, 16 percent, say that career services should be more embedded in the curriculum. Three in 10 indicate they haven’t interacted with career services, about the same as last year’s 30 percent.

    1. Students still want more direct help finding work-based learning opportunities.

    Also similar to last year, the top thing students want their institution to prioritize regarding career readiness is help finding and accessing paid internships. That’s followed by stronger connections with potential employers and courses that focus on job-relevant skills. A few differences emerge across the sample, however: Adult learners 25 and older are less likely to prioritize help finding internships (just 26 percent cite this as a top need versus 41 percent of those 18 to 24); their top want is stronger connections with potential employers. Two-year college students are also less likely to prioritize help finding internships than are their four-year peers (30 percent versus 41 percent).

    1. Most students are worried about life after college, but specific stressors vary.

    Just 11 percent of students say they’re not stressed about life postgraduation, though this increases to 22 percent for students 25 and older and to 17 percent among community college students. Top stressors vary, but a slight plurality of students (19 percent) are most concerned about affording life after college. Adult learners and community college students are less likely than their respective traditional-age and four-year counterparts to worry about not having enough internship or work experience.

    1. Despite their anxiety, students have an underlying sense of preparation for what’s ahead.

    Some 81 percent of all students agree, strongly or somewhat, that college is preparing them with the skills, credentials and experiences they need to succeed in today’s job market. This is relatively consistent across institution types and student groups, but the share decreases to 74 percent among students who have ever seriously considered stopping out of college (n=1,204).

    The Widening Experience Gap

    Students increasingly need all the help they can get preparing for the workforce. For the first time since 2021, the plurality of employers who contributed to NACE’s annual job outlook rated the hiring market “fair,” versus good or very good, on a five-point scale. Employers are projecting a 1.6 percent increase in hiring for the Class of 2026 when compared to the Class of 2025, comparable to the tight labor market employers reported at the end of the 2024–25 recruiting year, according to NACE.

    Economic uncertainty is one factor. Artificial intelligence is another. VanDerziel said there isn’t meaningful evidence to date that early-talent, professional-level jobs are being replaced by AI, and that even adoption of AI as a tool to augment work remains slow. Yet the picture is still emerging. One August study found a 13 percent relative employment decline for young workers in the most AI-exposed occupations, such as software development and customer support. In NACE’s 2026 Job Outlook, employers focused on early-career hiring also reported that 13 percent of available entry-level jobs now require AI skills.

    The August study, called “Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence,” frames experience as a differentiator in an AI-impacted job market. In this sense, AI may be widening what’s referred to as the experience gap, or when early-career candidates’ and employers’ expectations don’t align—a kind of catch-22 in which lack of experience can limit one from getting the entry-level job that would afford them such experience.

    Ndeye Sarr, a 23-year-old engineering student at Perimeter College at Georgia State University who wants to study civil and environmental engineering at a four-year institution next fall, believes that her studies so far are setting her up for success. Earlier this year, she and several Perimeter peers made up one of just 12 teams in the country invited to the Community College Innovation Challenge Innovation Boot Camp, where they presented RoyaNest, the low-cost medical cooling device they designed to help babies born with birth asphyxia in low-resource areas. The team pitched the project to a panel of industry professionals and won second-place honors. They also recently initiated the patenting process for the device.

    Ndeye Sarr, a young Black woman wearing a black head scarf and a pink blouse under a dark jacket.

    Ndeye Sarr

    “This has helped me have a bigger vision of all the problems that are happening in the world that I might be able to help with when it comes to medical devices and things like that,” Sarr said, adding that faculty mentorship played a big role in the team’s success. “I think that’s what we’re most grateful for. Perimeter College is a pretty small college, so you get to be in direct contact with most of your mentors, your professors, which is very rare in most settings. We always get the support we need it anytime we’re working on something, which is pretty great.”

    RoyaNest was born out of a class assignment requiring students to design something that did not require electricity. Sarr said she wishes most courses would require such hands-on learning, since it makes class content immediately relevant and has already helped put her in touch with the broader world of engineering in meaningful ways. This view echoes another set of findings from the main 2025 Student Voice survey: The top two things students say would boost their immediate academic success are fewer high-stakes exams and more relevant course content. And, of course, there are implications for the experience gap.

    Sometimes you can even be in your senior year, and you will be like, ‘I don’t think I have all these skills!’ Even for an entry-level job, right?”

    —Student Ndeye Sarr

    “Mostly it’s like you go to class, and they will give you a lecture because you have to learn, and then you go do a test,” Sarr said of college so far. “But my thinking is that you can also do those hands-on experiences in the classroom that you might have to do once we start getting into jobs. Because when you look at the job descriptions, they expect you to do a lot of things. Sometimes you can even be in your senior year, and you will be like, ‘I don’t think I have all these skills!’ Even for an entry-level job, right?”

    This challenge also has implications for pedagogy, which is already under pressure to evolve—in part due to the rise of generative AI. Student success administrators surveyed earlier this year by Inside Higher Ed with Hanover Research described a gap between the extent to which high-impact teaching practices—such as those endorsed by the American Association of Colleges and Universities—are highly encouraged at their institution and widely adopted (65 percent versus 36 percent, respectively). And while 87 percent of administrators agreed that students graduate from their institution ready to succeed in today’s job market, half (51 percent) said their college or university should focus more on helping students find paid internships and other experiential learning opportunities.

    In addition to the national innovation challenge, Sarr attended the Society of Women Engineers’ annual conference this year, where she said the interviewing and other skills she’s learned from Perimeter’s career services proved helpful. Still, Sarr said she—like most Student Voice respondents—worries about life postgraduation. Top concerns for her are financial in nature. She also feels a related pressure to succeed. Originally from Senegal, she said her family and friends back home have high expectations for her.

    “You pay a lot of money to go to college, so imagine you graduate and then there’s no way you can find a job. It’s very stressful, and I am from a country where everybody’s like, ‘OK, we expect her to do good,’” Sarr said. But the immediate challenge is paying four-year college expenses starting next year, and financing graduate school after that.

    “I want to go as far as I can when it comes to my education. I really value it, so that’s something I am very scared about,” she said. “There’s a lot of possibilities. There are scholarships, but it’s not like everybody can get them.”

    VanDerziel of NACE said that, ultimately, “Today’s labor market is tough, and students know it. So it doesn’t surprise me that they are feeling anxiety about obtaining a job that will allow them to afford their postgraduation life. Many students have to pay back loans, are uncertain of the job market they are going to be graduating into and are concerned about whether their salary will be enough.”

    This independent editorial project is produced with the Generation Lab and supported by the Gates Foundation.

    Source link