Author: admin

  • What’s Next for Texas A&M?

    What’s Next for Texas A&M?

    When Texas A&M University president Mark Welsh resigned amid an academic freedom controversy last week, he became the institution’s second leader to step down due to scandal in two years.

    Unlike his predecessor, Kathy Banks, who retired in 2023 after she was caught lying about a hiring scandal, Welsh remained popular on campus; faculty sent the Board of Regents letters of support last week following a controversy that prompted him to fire an instructor, and students rallied on his behalf. But he seemed to lose the support of the deep-red Texas Legislature: Several Republican lawmakers called for his dismissal after a discussion over gender identity between a student and a professor in a children’s literature class was captured on video and quickly went viral.

    In the short video, which has racked up more than five million views, a student questions whether an instructor is legally allowed to teach that there is more than one gender, which she suggests is “against our president’s laws.” Welsh initially defended the professor but quickly folded under considerable pressure from lawmakers, firing her and removing two administrators from their duties because they “approved plans to continue teaching course content that was not consistent” with the course’s description, he said in a Sept. 9 statement.

    Amid the fallout, the American Association of University Professors and free speech groups accused Texas A&M of stifling academic freedom and bending to conservative political pressure. (Welsh countered that the case wasn’t about academic freedom but “academic responsibility.”)

    But the incident also raises questions about what comes next for Texas A&M after legislators accused Welsh—a retired four-star general and former chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force—of spreading “leftist [diversity, equity and inclusion] and transgender indoctrination.”

    A Mixed Reaction

    Welsh largely skirted the controversy in a statement released Friday, his last day on the job.

    “When I was first appointed as President of Texas A&M University, I told then Chancellor John Sharp and our Board of Regents that I would serve as well as I possibly could until it was time for someone else to take over,” he wrote. “Over the past few days, it’s become clear that now is that time.”

    He added that serving as president for two years had been “an incredible privilege” and a “remarkable gift” and praised Texas A&M faculty, staff and students in his parting statement. On campus Friday, hundreds of supporters greeted Welsh outside an administrative building, according to social media and local coverage. The Texas A&M Student Government Association encouraged students and others to gather to “express gratitude” for Welsh’s service.

    While Welsh’s parting remarks were restrained, state legislators and faculty members have been more passionate—and outraged—as both groups look ahead to the coming presidential search.

    Leonard Bright, interim president of the Texas A&M AAUP chapter, told Inside Higher Ed that many faculty members had mixed feelings about Welsh. On the one hand, many professors viewed him as a stable leader who had served the university well since his time as dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, which he led from 2016 until he was appointed interim president in July 2023, before being given the permanent job later that year.

    On the other hand, Welsh’s dismissal of English instructor Melissa McCoul, the professor caught up in the gender ideology flap, raised questions about whether he would protect academic freedom. As Bright sees it, when Welsh’s job was threatened, he failed to stand up for academic freedom.

    Bright added that he was somewhat surprised by Welsh’s resignation, arguing that “as horrible” as the president’s recent actions were, he thought they had appeased the conservative critics and that “the board did not want to create further upheaval” given recent turnover at the top.

    But ultimately, only Welsh’s resignation would satisfy his fiercest critics.

    Brian Harrison, a Republican lawmaker and Texas A&M graduate, noted in posts on X following Welsh’s resignation that he had been calling for the board to fire the president for nine months.

    “Proud and honored to be the voice for millions of Texans who are fed up with being taxed out of their homes so their government can weaponize their money against them, their values, and their children by funding DEI and transgender indoctrination,” Harrison wrote on X on Friday.

    An LGBTQ+ Crackdown?

    Like all institutions in the state, Texas A&M has backed away from DEI as instructed by state law. But Welsh’s removal of McCoul for discussing gender identity in class is part of a broader retreat by Texas A&M from LGBTQ+ topics. That effort dates back to at least 2021, according to one anonymous source who previously told Inside Higher Ed they were discouraged from promoting LGBTQ+ materials in the university library’s collection when Banks was president.

    Last year Texas A&M cut its LGBTQ studies minor, alongside other low-enrollment programs, after Harrison led a charge against the program, calling it “liberal indoctrination.”

    Both the flagship and the Texas A&M system have also taken aim at drag shows.

    Texas A&M defunded an annual student drag show without explanation in 2022. West Texas A&M University president Walter Wendler canceled a student drag show in 2023, claiming it was demeaning to women. Earlier this year, the Texas A&M University system Board of Regents passed a resolution banning drag shows across all 11 campuses, only to get hit with a First Amendment lawsuit; a judge ruled against the system in March on free speech grounds.

    (Neither Texas A&M University or system officials responded to a request for comment.)

    Texas Hiring Trends

    With Welsh out of office, Texas A&M will soon begin a search for its next president. Chancellor Glenn Hegar announced Friday that an interim president will be named shortly, and in the meantime, James Hallmark, vice chancellor for academic affairs, will serve as acting president.

    Hegar, who has only been on the job since July, is a former Republican politician, one of several hired to lead a Texas system or university in recent months in what is shaping up to be a trend.

    Elsewhere in the state, the Texas Tech University system named Republican lawmaker Brandon Creighton as the sole finalist for the chancellor position. During his time in the Legislature, Creighton championed bills to crack down on DEI, restrict free speech at public institutions by banning expressive activities at night and undercut the power of faculty senates.

    The University of Texas at Austin also opted for a politico, hiring as president Jim Davis, former Texas deputy attorney general, who had worked in UT Austin’s legal division since 2018. Davis was promoted to the top job after a stint as interim president, a role he had held since February. Similarly, the UT system tapped former GOP lawmaker John Zerwas as its next chancellor.

    Recent hiring trends in Texas are beginning to mirror Florida, which has hired multiple former Republican lawmakers and other political figures with connections to Governor Ron DeSantis.

    As Texas A&M prepares to launch its search, faculty are calling for an open process.

    “The search should be transparent. It shouldn’t be primarily behind closed doors,” Bright said. “The faculty need to be involved. This is academia—this is about teaching, research and service.”

    Source link

  • School nurses: Keep K-12 vaccine mandates

    School nurses: Keep K-12 vaccine mandates

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The National Association of School Nurses is urging the continuation of vaccine mandates in K-12 schools to help protect children from preventable illnesses. The organization credits school vaccine requirements for significantly reducing the risk of disease outbreaks in schools and the broader communities. 
    • NASN and the Florida Association of School Nurses issued a joint statement last week condemning a recent announcement by Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo that the state would seek to eliminate vaccine requirements, including those for school-aged children.
    • The statement comes as national debate increases over vaccine safety. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel on Thursday recommended changing the inoculation guidelines for the first shot of the combined measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox vaccine for children ages 4 and younger to further prevent rare cases of fever-related seizures.

    Dive Insight:

    “Vaccination is one of the greatest public health achievements in American history,” the statement from NASN and FASN said. “It has eradicated or dramatically reduced the spread of numerous deadly and debilitating diseases. Thanks to vaccines, countless children — and vulnerable populations such as immunocompromised individuals and older adults — have been protected from preventable illnesses.”

    The NASN and FASN statement points to the rise in measles cases across several states earlier this year as a warning of what can happen when vaccination rates decline.

    In Florida, the elimination of vaccine mandates would occur through policy changes and legislation, Ladapo said. Earlier this month, Ladapo said Florida would be the first state to not require vaccinations, but the timeline for this is unclear.

    Currently, the state requires a variety of immunizations for participation in preschool and K-12, according to the Florida Department of Health.

    While the CDC recommends childhood vaccination schedules, school immunization requirements are typically set at the state level. However, many states use recommendations from CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to set school vaccine policies.

    According to the CDC, vaccination participation among kindergarteners in the U.S. decreased for all reported vaccines in the 2024-25 school year, compared to the previous school year.

    Data from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows all 50 states and Washington, D.C., require certain vaccinations for school attendance. Most states also give exemptions for religious or personal reasons. Only four states — California, Connecticut, Maine, and New York — allow only medical exemptions.

    According to a Sept. 12 paper from KFF, exemptions from school vaccination requirements, particularly non-medical exemptions, have increased in recent years. That coincides with shifts in attitudes about childhood vaccinations, which are likely fueled in part by vaccine misinformation, KFF said.

    At least 10 states this year have enacted legislation that could reduce childhood vaccination rates in those states. And at least one state — Colorado — made changes that could maintain or increase childhood vaccine rates, according to KFF.

    As vaccine skepticism seems to be increasing, polling shows reduced levels of support for school vaccine requirements. Just over half — 52% — of U.S. adults support their state requiring vaccinations as a condition of public or private school attendance, according to a report released in January by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. That’s down from 71% in 2019.

    About 1,077 U.S. adults were polled by Annenberg Public Policy Center for the 2025 survey.

    Source link

  • Education Dept. Subjects Harvard to More Financial Oversight

    Education Dept. Subjects Harvard to More Financial Oversight

    Harvard had a financial responsibility score of 2.8, well over the passing 1.5 required by the Education Department, in fiscal year 2023.

    John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

    The Education Department announced Friday that it placed Harvard University on heightened cash monitoring, a designation that allows greater federal oversight of institutional finances and is typically reserved for colleges in dire financial straits. 

    By all accounts, Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment, is not.

    “It’s harassment,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. “Harvard has the money, yes, but it is adding a headache. It’s adding staff. It’s interfering with students’ ability to access federal financial aid … The government’s making it harder for Harvard to support low-income students, which speaks to exactly what the administration’s goals are here—they’re not to help students, they’re not to improve education, they’re not even to address what they see as concerns at Harvard—they’re just to attack Harvard.”

    Institutions placed on heightened cash monitoring are asked to put up a letter of credit that serves as collateral for the Education Department if the institution closes, or to award federal financial aid from their own coffers before being reimbursed by the department, explained Robert Kelchen, head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Harvard has been asked to do both.

    According to a Friday news release from the Education Department, Harvard must put up a $36 million irrevocable letter of credit or “provide other financial protection that is acceptable to the Department,” department officials wrote. 

    “Students will continue to have access to federal funding, but Harvard will be required to cover the initial disbursements as a guardrail to ensure Harvard is spending taxpayer funds responsibly,” officials wrote. 

    The federal government froze $2.7 billion in federal grants for Harvard after the university rejected its sweeping demands in April. Harvard sued, and a judge ruled earlier this month that the freeze was illegal. The university has reportedly received some of the frozen funds, but the Trump administration says it’s still hoping to cut a deal with Harvard. 

    The release says three events triggered Harvard’s heightened cash monitoring designation: a determination by the Department of Health and Human Services that Harvard violated Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly allowing antisemitism on campus, accusations that the university isn’t complying with an ongoing investigation by the Office for Civil Rights, and the $1 billion in bonds Harvard has issued to make up for pulled federal funding. Harvard did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Friday. 

    “Today’s actions follow Harvard’s own admission that there are material concerns about its financial health. As a result, Harvard must now seek reimbursement after distributing federal student aid and post financial protection so that the Department can ensure taxpayer funds are not at risk,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “While Harvard remains eligible to participate in the federal student aid program for now, these actions are necessary to protect taxpayers.”

    The department also pointed to layoffs at Harvard and a hiring freeze instituted in the spring. Several other wealthy colleges have frozen hiring and shed staff this year, in part because of the administration’s actions related to federal funding. A few other universities have either issued bonds or taken out loans to get immediate cash. But so far, the department has made no public mention about putting those colleges on heightened cash monitoring.

    As of June 1, 538 colleges and universities were on heightened cash monitoring, federal data showed. About one-third of those colleges are private nonprofits, while about 42 percent are for-profit institutions. Most of the institutions—464 of them—are based in the U.S. 

    Many on the list are private institutions that have low financial responsibility composite scores, Kelchen said. This test assigns institutions a score between -1.0 and 3.0 based on the institution’s primary reserve ratio, equity ratio and net income ratio. To be considered financially responsible, an institution must score at least a 1.5, which Harvard does. 

    During fiscal year 2023, the latest for which data is publicly available, Harvard’s financial responsibility composite score was 2.8. Harvard’s estimated primary reserve ratio in fiscal year 2023 was 7.6, meaning that the university could operate for about seven and a half years by spending only its existing assets. By comparison, Hampshire College, another private, nonprofit college placed on heightened cash monitoring with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, had an estimated primary reserve ratio of 0.3, meaning it could continue operations for about four months before running out of expendable assets. Drew University, another institution on heightened cash monitoring and also with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, has a primary reserve ratio of -1.06.

    But beyond the financial responsibility score, there are plenty of reasons an institution can end up on heightened cash monitoring. Some institutions, including Hampshire and Arkansas Baptist College, were put on the list due to a late or missing compliance audit. Others have been put on the list while the department reviews their programs, or because their accreditation was revoked. But, “the department can also just specify that an institution is not financially responsible,” Kelchen said.

    The political motivation behind the move is clear, Fansmith said. 

    “To the extent that there is a problem—and to be clear, there are real problems—it’s not Harvard’s ability to pay their bills or meet their obligations. That’s a problem this administration has created,” he said. “They caused a situation, and then they are blaming Harvard for taking reasonable steps to address that situation. It’s also ironic when they send letters to Harvard using terms like ‘enormous’ and ‘massive’ and ‘colossal’ to describe Harvard’s endowment, and now they’re suddenly determining that they’re worried that Harvard is at financial risk … It is absolutely Orwellian.”

    Source link

  • In defense of fiery words

    In defense of fiery words

    Consensus is growing around the idea that words beget violence. Consider some of the things America’s political leaders have said in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week at Utah Valley University:

    “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism we’re seeing in our country today.” 

    “He actively fans the flames of division . . . regularly advocates violence for political retribution, and in more than one case, declares we are at war, not with a foreign adversary, but with each other.”

    “There are some deranged people in society, and when they see leaders using that kind of language so often now increasingly, it spurs them on to action.” 

    “They need to turn down the rhetoric.” 

    That is, in order, President Donald Trump, Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker on Trump’s response to political violence, Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton on Republican leaders.

    Throughout American history, especially during times of civil unrest, the government used the power of the state to criminalize what it perceived as advocacy of violence. For example, in 1927, the Supreme Court upheld Charlotte Whitney’s conviction for joining a socialist convention that advocated the overthrow of the government (Whitney v. California). 

    The Court reasoned that advocating violence could present “danger to the public peace and security,” and that the exercise of the state’s police powers therefore carries “great weight” in such instances. Similarly, Attorney General Pam Bondi recently suggested the federal government might bring “incitement” prosecutions of people who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

    As the potential for  political violence increases, what prevents the government from taking us back to 1927? What prevents the authorities from taking advantage of our fears and criminalizing advocacy of violence or even fiery rhetoric?

    BRANDENBURG v. OHIO

    The Supreme Court held the government cannot punish incendiary speech unless the intent and likely outcome is to cause “imminent lawless action”.


    Read More

    Enter Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the landmark Supreme Court ruling on incitement. The state convicted a Ku Klux Klan leader for a speech saying, “it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken” against the government if it continued to “suppress the white, Caucasian race.” The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding the First Amendment protects advocacy of violence unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

    Even if one assumes Brandenburg’s words called for violence, for the Supreme Court, his advocacy was too amorphous and the possibility of violence too remote for his prosecution to stay within constitutional bounds. 

    Similarly, in Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court reversed an anti-Vietnam War demonstrator’s conviction stemming from his promise to “take the fucking street later” in connection with his arrest at a protest. The Court held these words fell well below the high Brandenburg standard. Hess did not direct his words toward anyone in particular, nor did they suggest a threat of immediate violence. In establishing this high bar, the Court rejected Whitney’s formulation that advocacy of violence “at some indefinite future time” is punishable on grounds it might ultimately lead to violence. 

    The Court instead highlighted the difference between “mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force” and actual preparation for violent action. Thomas Jefferson once said that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” Without the Brandenburg distinction, a speaker emulating Jefferson could face jail for recognizing a moral necessity for the resort to force. 

    Brandenburg’s brilliance is its recognition that political discourse is messy.

    Without this distinction, Democratic states could criminalize calling pro-abortion politicians “murderers” on grounds such speech incites violence against those politicians. Republican states could criminalize calling President Trump a “Nazi” on the same grounds. Giving the government the power to lump such heated rhetoric together with speech advocating immediate lawlessness would grant it a cudgel against any speech it saw as threatening its own power — with free and passionate discourse becoming the ultimate victim. Brandenburg therefore allows breathing room necessary for robust public debate.

    The Supreme Court made clear in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that “strong and effective rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause.” In other words, it should not be up to the government to decide when rhetoric has gone too far. Brandenburg’s brilliance is its recognition that political discourse is messy: tone and language are deliberate choices integral to a speaker’s message. 

    Political leaders and citizens have every right to call out rhetoric that they believe is damaging to our public discourse. Brandenburg — and countless other First Amendment precedents — recognize that these calls, rather than the power of the state, are the most effective antidote to speech we find dangerous or offensive.

    Source link

  • ED Wants Grants to Advance “Patriotic Education”

    ED Wants Grants to Advance “Patriotic Education”

    The Trump administration has made another move that historians say is an attempt to sanitize American history, but one the administration argued is necessary to ensure students have respect for the country.

    On Wednesday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon outlined a new plan for how her department would promote “patriotic education” by adding it to the list of priorities that can drive decisions for discretionary grants, including those that support programs at colleges and universities.

    “It is imperative to promote an education system that teaches future generations honestly about America’s Founding principles, political institutions, and rich history,” McMahon said in a statement about the new proposal. “To truly understand American values, the tireless work it has taken to live up to them, and this country’s exceptional place in world history is the best way to inspire an informed patriotism and love of country.”

    According to the proposal, which is open for public comment until Oct. 17, “patriotic education” refers to “a presentation of the history of America grounded in an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of the American founding and foundational principles”; examines “how the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history”; and advances the “concept that commitment to America’s aspirations is beneficial and justified.”

    McMahon’s other priorities for grant funding include evidence-based literacy, expanding education choice, returning education to the states and advancing AI in education.

    With this latest proposal, the department wants to focus “grant funds on programs that promote a patriotic education that cultivates citizen competency and informed patriotism among and communicates the American political tradition to students at all levels.” That could include projects geared toward helping students understand the “founding documents and primary sources of the American political tradition, in a manner consistent with the principles of a patriotic education,” according to the proposal.

    ‘Narrow Conception of Patriotism’

    However, professional historians who have read the proposal told Inside Higher Ed that the department’s patriotic education push is a politically motivated power grab.

    “I agree that American history should be presented with accuracy and honesty, based on solid historical evidence, and doing so does inspire people,” said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. “But the department’s priority statement has a narrow conception of patriotism and patriotic education.”

    She said that’s especially evident given the Trump administration’s numerous other policy changes aimed at presenting a version of American history that downplays or ignores the darkest parts of the country’s past, such as race-based slavery, the disenfranchisement of women and African Americans, and codified racial segregation.

    “That context tells us that the administration is interested in telling an uncomplicated celebration of American greatness,” Weicksel said. “Doing that flattens the past into a set of platitudes that are not rooted in the broader historical context, conflicts, contingencies and change over time that are central to historical thinking.”

    In March, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” prohibiting federal funding for exhibits or programs that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.” That prompted a review of all exhibits hosted by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Park Service, both of which have since removed multiple artifacts that don’t support Trump’s patriotic history push, including several that underscore the brutality of slavery.

    And as the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding approaches, the government is in the process of planning commemorative civic education initiatives that advance its definition of patriotic history. To make that happen, it’s largely drawing on the input and expertise of conservative scholars and groups.

    The Education Department recently awarded $160 million in American history and civics grants for seminars for K–12 educators and students related to the Declaration of Independence anniversary next year. The agency didn’t specify which institutions got the money but previously said it would give priority to colleges and universities with “independent academic units dedicated to civic thought, constitutional studies, American history, leadership, and economic liberty,” which critics describe as conservative centers.

    In remarks at an event hosted by the Federalist Society and the Defense of Freedom Institute on Wednesday, McMahon criticized the state of civics education for students, citing a statistic that only 41 percent of young people say they love America.

    “That means the balance doesn’t love America,” she said. “Why don’t they love America? Why aren’t they proud to be Americans? It’s because they don’t know America. They don’t know the foundations, they don’t know the real history of our country … It’s really important that we teach respect for our flag, that we teach respect for our country.”

    While she did acknowledge that the Education Department can’t directly control curriculum, she noted that the department can use funding to encourage the types of education or programs it wants to see.

    The Education Department also announced Wednesday that it’s launching a coalition of 40 groups—including the conservative Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA, Hillsdale College and the American First Policy Institute—to spearhead the America 250 Civics Education Coalition, which is “dedicated to renewing patriotism.” (McMahon chaired the American First Policy Institute before she became secretary.)

    “We celebrate Lincoln for his greatness in recalling the nation to the principles of its birth, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the most beautiful political document in history,” Hillsdale president Larry Arnn said in a statement about the coalition. “It is time to repeat his work and the work of Jefferson and the Founders. We will work together to learn those principles, and for the love of them we will have a grand celebration.”

    ‘Pure Politics’

    But Weicksel with AHA said the government’s directives to omit parts of American history in classrooms, museums and other public spaces will undermine the public’s agency. “If citizens don’t have access to a historically accurate understanding of the past, how will they use that past to chart a new path for the future?”

    David Blight, a professor of history and Black studies at Yale University, said he interprets the department’s emphasis on patriotic education as “pure politics.”

    “It’s the politics of trying to use history to control people, including children, young people, the people who teach it, the people who write curriculum and the state legislatures that will design this stuff,” he said. “The government is trying to be a truth ministry.”

    While there have been other movements to control how the country remembers its history—including by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s and the United Daughters of the Confederacy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—Blight said these moves by the Trump administration are more powerful.

    “We’ve never had this come right from the White House, with the power of the executive branch and their control over so much money,” he said, urging educators to voice their opposition. “When federal money depends on pure ideology, we’re in very deep trouble, and that’s what they’re saying. That’s not even close to a democratic society.”

    Source link

  • Saudi and Australia forge new paths in education and research

    Saudi and Australia forge new paths in education and research

    During the visit, Al-Benyan met with Australia’s minister of education, Jason Clare, where discussions focused on expanding ties in higher education, scientific research, and innovation, with emphasis on joint university initiatives, including twinning programs and faculty and student exchanges designed to build stronger academic links between the two countries.

    The research collaboration was prominently featured on the agenda, with both sides highlighting opportunities in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, renewable energy, and health sciences. The minister also discussed investment opportunities in Saudi Arabia’s evolving education sector under Vision 2030, with a view to establishing local branches and research centers.

    Australia’s expertise in technical and vocational training was another focal point, as Saudi looks to enhance human capital development and equip its young population with the skills needed to succeed in the future labor market. Both ministers underlined the importance of supporting Saudi students in Australia by strengthening academic pathways and ensuring a welcoming educational and social environment.

    As well as his meeting with Clare, Al-Benyan held talks with professor Phil Lambert, a leading Australian authority on curriculum development. Their discussions centered on collaboration with Saudi Arabia’s National Curriculum Centre to develop learning programs that promote critical thinking, creativity, and innovation.

    The meeting reviewed best practices in student assessment, teacher training, and professional certification, aligning with global standards. Opportunities for joint research on performance evaluation and digital education methods were also explored with the aim of integrating advanced technologies into classrooms.

    Al-Benyan also took part in the Saudi-Australian Business Council meeting in Sydney, where he highlighted investment opportunities in the Kindgdom’s education sector in line with Vision 2030.

    Education is a key pillar globally and a central focus of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which aims to create a world class education system that nurtures innovation and drives future ready skills
    Sam Jamsheedi, president and chairman of the Australian Saudi Business Forum

    Conversations covered the launching of scholarship and exchange programs, advancing educational infrastructure and technologies, and promoting joint research in priority fields such as health, energy, and artificial intelligence, underscoring the importance of developing programs to enhance academic qualifications and support initiatives for persons with disabilities, while reaffirming Saudi Arabia’s commitment to supporting investors through regulatory incentives and strategic backing.

    “It was a pleasure to welcome the Minister of Education, His Excellency Yousef Al Benyan, as part of the official Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia delegation from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Australia,” said Sam Jamsheedi, president and chairman of the Australian Saudi Business Forum.

    “Education is a key pillar globally and a central focus of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which aims to create a world class education system that nurtures innovation and drives future ready skills.”

    “Our Council was proud to host a roundtable with leading Australian universities and training providers, giving Ministerial attendees first hand insights into Australia’s capabilities across higher education, vocational training, and research collaboration.”

    “Australian education already has a strong presence in the Kingdom, with a growing number of partnerships across early childhood education, schooling, technical training & university programs,” he added.

    Source link

  • Rethinking the OPM Model: Shifting from Outsourcing to Enablement

    Rethinking the OPM Model: Shifting from Outsourcing to Enablement

    Higher education is rapidly evolving, and so are institutional approaches to online program growth. We’re consistently finding that schools are no longer interested in handing over full control to third-party vendors. Rather, they want to build and enhance the internal capabilities of their teams, maintain ownership over their data and brand, and deliver a student experience uniquely aligned with their mission.

    This approach requires a flexible partner that’s focused on enablement vs. the traditional black-box outsource model.

    The traditional OPM model is flawed

    In my conversations with institutional leaders across the country, a common theme that keeps emerging is the frustration with traditional OPMs and the diminishing viability of this model. Leaders feel boxed in by long-term contracts, inequitable financial terms, a lack of visibility into performance data, and limited control over the student experience.

    What many institutions seek is a partner who will deeply integrate with their teams, augmenting their talent and resource gaps. An ideal partner will enhance the institution’s strengths, not replace them. In many cases, schools have ambitions to in-source certain areas of expertise over time and need support, guidance, and best practices to achieve this.

    More simply stated, many schools are seeking an enablement partner.

    What is enablement?

    At Collegis, we define enablement as helping institutions build their own internal strengths. It’s about equipping campus teams with the data, technology, and operational expertise they need to grow. This sets them up to thrive long after our work is done.

    Instead of taking the reins, we help institutions empower themselves to take ownership and control of their future over time. That distinction matters.

    Our model is intentionally modular and tech-agnostic, allowing partners to engage only the services they need, when they need them. There are no bundles to untangle or one-size-fits-all solutions to force-fit. In practice, we integrate ourselves in lockstep with the institutional teams and work alongside them as trusted collaborators. This contrasts with other models where external vendors operate in a black box.

    For us, enablement is about delivering lasting value, strengthening internal capacity, and helping institutions move forward and own their futures.

    A real-world example of enablement in action

    When institutions embrace this model, the outcomes are real and measurable.

    One example comes from a public institution that was working with an OPM on some of its online programs. They brought Collegis in to help build a foundation they could truly own, starting with data strategy and enrollment support tailored to their internal goals.

    Throughout our partnership, we’ve worked closely with their teams to refine processes, optimize student experience, openly share best practices, and enhance internal capabilities. The outcome? A 59% year-over-year increase in new online enrollments in the programs we support.

    It’s a powerful reminder of what institutions can achieve when they choose a partner who builds alongside them, not in place of them.

    Why ownership matters

    When institutions retain ownership of their tech stack, data, and student experience, they stay agile and in control. They’re able to pivot when needed, maintain high standards for compliance and privacy, and continuously improve outcomes across the student lifecycle.

    Our job at Collegis is to make that ownership attainable. We integrate with existing systems, design transparent reporting, and support processes that campus teams can run and refine on their own. True enablement means recommending and implementing sustainable practices that align with the mission and objectives of the institution.

    Redefining “partnership” in a new digital era

    Partnership today should mean transparency, collaboration, and shared purpose. And it should be built on trust.

    When institutions evaluate potential partners, I encourage them to ask:

    • Will we retain control of our data and decisions?
    • Is this a flexible relationship or a one-size-fits-all model?
    • Does this partner strengthen our internal teams?
    • How will this approach improve and enhance the impact of our staff?
    • Will this partnership contribute to the betterment of our student experience?

    Let’s build something that lasts

    Your institution shouldn’t have to choose between doing it all alone or giving it all away. There’s a better way forward that can empower your team, adapt to changing needs, and help you thrive in a competitive, fast-moving environment.

    You deserve a partner who helps you lead on your terms with clarity, control, and confidence. That’s the path Collegis is committed to support.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Matt Lachey is Associate Vice President of Partner Solutions at Collegis Education, where he leads strategic partnerships and custom solution design to help institutions address challenges in enrollment, operations, and technology. With 16+ years of higher education experience, Matt focuses on aligning institutional goals with scalable, performance-driven strategies. He works closely with senior leaders to design programs and processes that balance innovation with practicality, helping colleges improve experience, efficiency, and growth.

    Source link

  • Kimberly Harvey | The EDU Ledger

    Kimberly Harvey | The EDU Ledger

    Dr. Kimberly HarveyKimberly Harvey has been named Alfred University’s new vice president for Student Experience. Harvey will begin her duties Jan. 5, 2026.

    Harvey comes to Alfred from Nazareth University, where she spent more than five years leading efforts to strengthen the student experience through cross-campus collaboration focused on student well-being and belonging. Harvey began her tenure at Nazareth as Assistant Vice President for Student Engagement (2019-21) before serving three years as Associate Vice President for Student & Campus Life and Dean of Students. In March 2024 she was promoted to Associate Provost for Student Experience and Dean of Students.

    Harvey has a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from SUNY Fredonia, a master’s degree in college student personnel administration from Canisius University, and a Doctor of Education degree in educational leadership from the University of Rochester.

    Source link

  • US takes the lead on student satisfaction, survey finds

    US takes the lead on student satisfaction, survey finds

    Global student satisfaction has remained steady in 2025, but pressures on inclusivity, affordability and the quality of student life are beginning to show, according to the Global Student Satisfaction Awards: Summary Report 2025.

    Studyportals’ 2025 Student Satisfaction survey tracked responses from over 102,000 students around the world, with the US, Belgium and Austria leading the charge in overall satisfaction, ranked at 4.32, 4.29 and 4.28 stars out of five respectively.

    The biannual survey looked at reviews from students of 180 nationalities studying at institutions in 124 countries, recording an average satisfaction score of 4.18 out of 5. While stable compared to 2023 (when the last survey was published), this represents a slight dip of 0.71%.

    Meanwhile Pakistan, France, Ireland and Türkiye saw some of the steepest declines in satisfaction. The UK and India bucked the trend with improved scores, both climbing above the global average.

    Pakistan recorded the most significant drop since 2023’s survey (-11.3%), moving significantly further below the global benchmark. France also fell by -3.2%, Ireland by -2.4%, and Türkiye by -1.2%.

    By contrast, Finland (+3.3%) and the Netherlands (+0.2%) registered modest improvements, though both remain below the global average. The report warns that unless these downward trends are addressed, strong challengers like India and the UK could capture greater student interest.

    Students are more confident about career prospects, but increasingly concerned about diversity and their quality of life
    Edwin van Rest, Studyportals

    The report also tracked other factors such as admissions processes, career development, student diversity and student life.

    Winners were honoured across seven categories at an awards ceremony hosted by Studyportals in collaboration with Uni-Life and IELTS at a fringe event during last week’s European Association for International Education (EAIE) conference in Gothenburg.

    Key indicators revealed a mixed picture. Student diversity (-5.03%) and student life (-4.39%) suffered the largest declines, reflecting growing concerns around integration, housing shortages and rising costs in popular destinations. Admissions processes also weakened (-3.85%), with students calling for clearer communication, smoother transitions and more user-friendly digital systems.

    On the positive side, career development (+1.23%) recorded notable gains, with the US, India and Switzerland leading thanks to stronger links with employers, internships and industry engagement. Online classroom experience, long the weakest category, also improved modestly (+1.30%), particularly in the US, India and South Africa.

    Studyportals said the findings underline shifting student priorities. Employability outcomes and structured cross-cultural experiences are increasingly valued, while inclusivity and transparency remain pressing challenges.

    “These results show where universities are winning student trust, and where they risk losing it,” noted Edwin van Rest, CEO & co-founder of Studyportals. “Students are more confident about career prospects, but increasingly concerned about diversity and their quality of life.”

    Source link

  • Beech-side views: shuffling the decks

    Beech-side views: shuffling the decks

    No sooner had the UK government returned from its summer recess than a political scandal – culminating in the resignation of Housing Secretary Angela Rayner on 5 September – prompted Prime Minister Keir Starmer to initiate a significant ministerial reshuffle. As universities begin the new academic year, then, the sector is left wondering what this refreshed ministerial line-up means for higher education – and whether it signals a shift in policy direction, particularly around international student migration.

    “Phase two” begins

    Downing Street is already branding the reshuffle as the start of “phase two” of this government: a transition from a period of consultation and policy design to one of delivery and implementation. The new cabinet appointments also suggest a more strategic and coordinated approach to immigration enforcement and foreign policy – two areas that directly intersect with international education.

    Notably, Yvette Cooper moves from the Home Office to head the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), while Shabana Mahmood steps up from Justice to become Home Secretary. Together, these appointments point to a government intent on aligning domestic control with global influence, potentially reshaping the UK’s international education offer in the process.

    After all, the new Foreign Secretary brings to her role a clear understanding of the vulnerabilities in the immigration system and is unlikely to shy away from using the soft power of international education – while also guarding against its misuse. Meanwhile, the new Home Secretary’s track record of delivery and reform suggests a more assertive stance on migration control lies ahead, which could have direct implications for universities’ overseas recruitment prospects.

    Toughening up?

    Following a summer of public concern over rising immigration figures and asylum claims, the government is under pressure to act decisively. With Reform UK gaining traction in the polls ahead of next year’s local, Welsh and Scottish elections, the political stakes are high.

    Even before the reshuffle, international students were caught in the crossfire of media narratives linking student visas to fraudulent asylum claims, undermining public trust in institutional recruitment. Universities involved in overseas recruitment should brace themselves for increased scrutiny, with tighter monitoring of attendance, progression and sponsorship duties on the horizon, which could well pave the way for tougher sanctions on non-compliance.

    Robust compliance and risk management will be essential for institutions to maintain credibility – not just with government, but with the wider public. The Graduate Route, for instance, remains vulnerable to reform, whether through reduced duration, higher salary thresholds or even potential abolition.

    Lowering our ambitions?

    Although Bridget Phillipson remains as Education Secretary, the reshuffle suggests it won’t be business as usual at the Department for Education either, which is preparing to publish a new and updated version of the UK international education strategy. While last summer’s welcoming messages for international students raised hopes of renewed ambition in the international education arena, recent immigration concerns and political repositioning are likely to temper any growth targets that might have been in the offing.

    Instead of expansion, the new strategy may prioritise control, reflecting broader concerns about immigration and public confidence. This recalibration could also see a move away from bold recruitment targets toward a more cautious, compliance-driven approach.

    Seizing the moment

    Despite domestic pressures, the UK must not lose sight of its competitive edge in the global education market. As Canada and Australia tighten restrictions on international student recruitment – and the US grapples with visa delays and political uncertainty – the UK has a unique opportunity to position itself as a stable and attractive destination for global talent.

    Now is therefore the time for UK universities to take control of the narrative. The immigration debate must not be reduced to numbers alone, but we should make clear it is about reputation, research collaboration and global competitiveness. By maintaining a clear, credible and welcoming offer – underpinned by demonstrable quality and compliance – the UK can still thrive in a shifting international landscape.

    It’s in our gift to ensure the forthcoming international education strategy balances domestic concerns with international ambition, keeping the UK open to the world even as it inevitably tightens its borders.

    A reality check

    As the government enters its delivery phase, universities must remain alert to shifting political headwinds. International education may still be valued as a soft power asset, but its future depends on how well the sector navigates the tension between openness and oversight.

    The next international education strategy may not aim for new heights in student recruitment, but it’s in the sector’s interest to ensure the UK holds its ground in an increasingly precarious political world.

    The post Beech-side views: shuffling the decks appeared first on The PIE News.

    Source link