Author: admin

  • The network effects of a university collapse

    The network effects of a university collapse

    Universities are bound together more tightly than ministers like to admit. They share credit lines, pension schemes, suppliers, and reputations. Contagion, once started, moves faster than policy can catch it.

    The question up until recently was the wrong one: could a university fail. The grown-up question is what happens next: to students who haven’t applied yet, to local communities, and to neighbouring universities. We have to begin with the obvious: students come first.

    Failure at one institution produces contagion effects, the magnitude of which depends on regional centrality and clustering. Government should focus on keeping that transmission reproduction number (or R number – remember that from Covid?) below one. This piece maps some of those transmission channels – I’ve modelled small changes to the bottom line of an average neighbouring university, based on student spend, pensions, interest rates and group buying.

    Our patient zero – that is, the first to fall – is a provider that is OfS-registered and regionally significant, and I have estimated the price shock for its financially average neighbour. Of course, I have to assume no rescue package from government (they have signalled as such).

    The calculations below are based on the average university using 2023–24 HESA data, excluding FE colleges with HE provision. Each percentage change is illustrative rather than predictive and actual outcomes will depend on local factors.

    Stay at home

    Student demand runs on policy signals and vibes as much as price. In 2024 we saw sponsored study visas fall year-on-year and dependants drop sharply, while PGT overseas remained twitchy.

    Throw a closure into that salad and you start to see conversion eroding. Bursary spend and fee waivers will rise to keep offers attractive. A percentage point here or there looks insignificant but adds up across multiple providers.

    International students will start looking elsewhere: Australia, Canada, Germany. Or they’ll just stay at home. Better to choose a sure thing than risk having your course disrupted halfway through. Home students may be similarly spooked – but have fewer alternatives.

    There are a few antidotes: multiple guaranteed transfer corridors, decent student protection plans, and teach-out clarity. And most importantly, comms that make sense to agents and parents.

    Illustrative hits to an average university elsewhere:

    • Additional bursary spend on international: £80m × 0.5% = £400k
    • Reduced international demand: £80m × 0.5% = £400k

    Protect the USS

    Multi-employer pension schemes, like USS and LGPS, can go very squiffy when a member exits. In that case, the rules force the member to pay a large exit bill called “Section 75”, and the sums can be eye-watering. It’s a standard expectation of a “last man standing” scheme.

    Trinity College, Cambridge wrote a cheque for about £30m to leave USS in 2019. USS has suggested that, for a sample of employers (mainly Oxbridge colleges), a crystallised bill could represent anywhere from 4 to 97 per cent of their cash and long-term investment balances, averaging around 26 per cent.

    In practice, an insolvent provider wouldn’t cough up, so other universities would absorb the orphan liability. But there isn’t a mechanical “spread the S75 bill this year” formula; it would show up, if at all, via the valuation and rate-setting process. The scheme is currently in surplus, so additional contribution costs are uncertain. Of course, not all universities are enrolled in USS, but the vast majority are enrolled in multi-employer schemes.

    Illustrative hit to a USS-enrolled university elsewhere:

    • Salary base: £181m × 72% = £130m
    • USS proportion: £130m × 70% (say) = £91m
    • 1 pp rate bump: £91m × 1% = £910k

    Save livelihoods

    Universities drive jobs, rents, transport and culture. Liverpool estimates £2.2bn GVA and 26,630 jobs supported nationwide, roughly one in fifty locally. Northampton reports £823m GVA and 10,610 jobs. National estimates put the sector above £116bn.

    Remove the local provider and the GVA virtuous circle turns vicious. Cafés lose footfall, landlords lose tenants (poor them), and pubs are no longer full of students. The extent depends on how rooted the provider is in its community.

    Government will find itself paying anyway. Either pre-emptively with small civic grants to keep key services alive, or retrospectively with bigger cheques after the rot sets in. Maybe it will finally put a stop to town and gown tensions.

    Illustrative hit to an average university elsewhere:

    • No direct cost to other universities
    • Material GDP and tax impacts for government
    • Likely need for community grants.

    Flatten the yield curve

    Lenders rarely treat a closure as an isolated blip; being hawkish, they would probably reprice the entire university category.

    Add 50 basis points to a £90m facility and you’ve created a recurring £450k drag until you refinance. All in all, that’s not a huge bite out of your cash flow, but it will certainly make you more cautious.

    To fix this, listen to your finance directors: stagger your maturities and fix your rates well in advance. Or, radical thought – stop yanking at your credit lines and make do with what you have.

    Illustrative hit to an average university elsewhere:

    • Additional interest costs: £90m × 0.50% = £450k

    Herd immunity

    Group buying is one of the few places with cash on the table. In 2023–24, the UK Universities Procurement Consortia (UKUPC) members put about £2.4bn through frameworks and reported roughly £116.1m (4.84%) in cashable savings. The Southern Universities Procurement Consortium (SUPC) talks about £575m of member spend and average levy rebates of around £30,000 per full member.

    If fewer universities use those routes, frameworks lose clout, and with that, discounts and rebates. The more volume that stays in the collective pot, the better the prices – but for critical services, it’s still wise to have a backup supplier in case one fails.

    Another group issue is shared services. Up until recently, they were seen as a poisoned chalice, but are now growing out of necessity. The usual worries are well-rehearsed: loss of control, infighting and VAT jitters. Still, some experiments, like Janet and UCAS, have been tremendously successful, although pricing relies on throughput.

    Shared IT, payroll, procurement or estates often come with joint and several obligations. If one partner hits trouble, you start to see real governance friction.

    The practical fixes are contractual. Ringfence any arrears so they do not spill onto everyone else, and rebalance charges on a published, defensible formula.

    Illustrative hit to an average university elsewhere:

    • Frameworked spend: £131m (total non-staff) × 60% (frameworked, say) x 4.84% (cashable savings) x 10% (diminution) = £380k.
    • Shared services: impossible to quantify.

    What ministers can do without a podium

    I’ve modelled small changes to the bottom line (again, illustratively) – in this example one university going under could cost others £2.5m, or 50 per cent of the average university’s 2023–24 surplus. This number isn’t rigorous or comprehensive, but serves as an interesting thought experiment.

    The rational response is a resolution regime that protects students and research, temporary liquidity for solvent neighbours, clear transfer routes when the worst happens, and deployment of short, targeted grants for civic programmes.

    A single collapse could probably be absorbed; a string of them could set off an irreversible domino effect with far-reaching consequences. Ministers need to plan for this now – or else risk a very hefty civic bailout.

    Source link

  • The Experts in My Neighborhood – Teaching in Higher Ed

    The Experts in My Neighborhood – Teaching in Higher Ed

    This post is one of many, related to my participation in  Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery workshop.

    The topic of how expertise is no longer valued today is often discussed. I realize that I am walking through well-trodden pathways, as I bring it up in these reflections on experts today. In The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters, Tom Nichols writes:

    These are dangerous times. Never have so many people had access to so much knowledge, and yet been so resistant to learning anything.

    In today’s post, I want to think less about the societal and educational concerns I have about the death of expertise and more about how I might continue to attempt to inculcate habits that can keep me from dying that same death, myself. Part of that practice involves finding and curating many experts to help shape my thinking, over time.

    PKM Roles from Harold Jarche

    For this topic, Jarche invites us to use a map of personal knowledge mastery (PKM) roles to determine where we currently reside and where we would like to go, in terms of our PKM practice. He offers this graphic as part of his Finding Perpetual Beta book:

    On the Y axis, we can sort ourselves into doing high or low amounts of sharing. As I wrote previously, my likelihood of sharing is in direct relation to the topic I’m exploring. However, as Jarche recommended social bookmarking as one way of sharing, perhaps I was selling myself short when I categorized myself as not likely to share anything overly controversial. I have over 35 thousand digital bookmarks on Raindrop.io and add around 10-20 daily. However, I’m more likely to be categorized as highly visible sharing in terms of the Teaching in Higher Ed podcast and the topics I write about on the Teaching in Higher Ed blog.

    On the X axis, our activities are plotted on a continuum more toward high or low sense-making. A prior workshop participant of Jarche’s wrote:

    We must make SENSE of everything we find, and that includes prioritising–recognising what is useful now, what will be useful later, and what may not be useful.

    Given my propensity for saving gazillions of bookmarks and carefully tagging them for future use, combined with my streak of weekly podcast episodes airing since June of 2014, when it comes to teaching and learning, I’m doing a lot of sense-making on the regular.

    These are the (NEW) Experts in My Neighborhood

    Taking inspiration from Sesame Street’s People in Your Neighborhood and from Jarche’s activity related to experts, I offer the following notes on experts. When I searched for people within teaching and learning on Mastodon, I found that I was already following a lot of them. I decided to then look at who people I already follow are following:

    • Ethan Zuckerman – UMass Amherst, Global Voices, Berkman Klein Center. Formerly MIT Media Lab, Geekcorps, Tripod.com
    • Sarah T. Roberts, Ph.D. – Professor, researcher, writer, teacher. I care about content moderation, digital labor, the state of the world. I like animals and synthesizers and games. On the internet since 1993. Mac user since they came out. I like old computers and OSes. I love cooking. Siouxsie is my queen.
      • I was intrigued by her having written a content moderation book called Behind the Screen. I know enough about content moderation to know that I know pretty much nothing about content moderation.
      • She hasn’t posted in a long while, so I’m not sure how much I’ll regularly have ongoing opportunities to see what she’s currently exploring or otherwise working on

    Other Things I Noticed

    As I was exploring who people I follow are connected with on Mastodon, I noticed that you can have multiple pinned posts, unlike other social media I’ve used. Many people have an introduction post pinned to the top of their posts, yet also have other things they want to have front and center. One big advantage to Bluesky to me has been the prevalence of starter packs. The main Mastodon account mentioned an upcoming feature involving “packs” around twenty days ago, but said that they’re not sure what they’ll call the feature.

    Sometimes, scrolling through social media can be depressing. I decided that the next time I’m getting down on Mastodon, I should just check out what’s happening on the compostodon hashtag. It may be the most hopeful hashtag ever.

    The Biggest Delight From the Experience

    Another person who was new to me as an expert on Mastodon was JA Westenberg. According to JA Westenberg’s bio, Joan is a tech writer, angel investor, CMO, Founder. A succinct goal is also included on the about page of JoanWestenberg.com:

    My goal: to think in public.

    As I was winding down my time doing some sensemaking related to experts, I came across a video from Westenberg that was eerily similar to what Jarche has been stressing about us making PKM a practice. I can’t retrace my steps for how I came across Joan’s video on Mastodon, but a video thumbnail quickly caught my eye. Why You Should Write Every Day (Even if You’re Not a Writer) captured my imagination immediately, as I started watching. In addition to the video, there’s a written article of the same title posted, as well.

    As I continue to pursue learning through the PKM workshop, I’m blogging more frequently than I may ever have (at least in the last decade for sure). Reading through Joan’s reactions to the excuses we make when we don’t commit to writing resonate hard. We think we don’t have time. How about realizing we’re not writing War and Peace, Joan teases, gently. Too many of us get the stinking thinking that we don’t have anything good to say or that this comes naturally to people who are more talented and articulate than we are. Joan writes:

    Writing every day is less about becoming someone who writes, and more about becoming someone who thinks.

    Before I conclude this post, I want to be sure to stress the importance I’m gleaning of not thinking of individual experts as the way to practice PKM. Rather, it is through engaging with a community of experts that we will experience the deepest learning. A.J. Jacobs stresses that we should heed his advice:

    Thou shalt pay heed to experts (plural) but be skeptical of any one expert (singular)

    By cultivating many experts whose potential disagreements may help us cultivate a more nuanced perspective on complex topics. When we seek to learn in the complex domain, the importance of intentionality, intellectual humility, and curiosity becomes even more crucial. Having access to a network of experts helps us navigate complexity more effectively.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Totley Hall Training College

    Higher education postcard: Totley Hall Training College

    Back in 1943 the UK government knew that more school teachers would be needed. The school leaving age was to be raised: this and other planned changes meant that 70,000 extra teachers would be needed over the coming years. The teacher training colleges then in place trained 7,000 a year, so there was a problem.

    The solution? Emergency Training Colleges. A compressed curriculum was piloted at Goldsmiths College, and in five years about 50 such colleges produced about 35,000 teachers. But it was a short-term scheme, and many of the colleges were wound up after 1950 or 1951.

    Nevertheless, there continued to be a need to grow base capacity to train teachers. The emergency colleges had dealt with the immediate shortfall, but with more children attending schools every year, there was still work to be done. Some of the emergency colleges became regular training colleges, and some local authorities established new colleges of their own. And this is where Totley Hall enters the stage.

    Not shown on the card is Totley Hall, built in 1623 and in 1949 passed to Sheffield Council. This was to be the heart of a new training college – the Totley Hall Training College of Housecraft. Its mission: training domestic science teachers.

    There’s a wonderful account of the college’s foundation and development, written by Anna Baldry, who was one of the first lecturers at the college. It’s well worth a read. Highlights include her nerves at interview; problems with electricity blackouts; HMI inspections; the admission of men; its opening by Violet Attlee; and some lovely photographs.

    More prosaically, the college had by 1963 become the plain Totley Hall Training College, focusing on training primary teachers. In 1967 men were admitted; in 1969 the best students could continue to study for a fourth year to gain a Bachelor of Education (BEd) degree from the University of Sheffield, rather than the Certificate in Education. And in 1972 – there being simultaneous vacancies in the principalships – Totley Hall Training College and the nearby Thornbridge Hall Training College were merged, to form the Totley/Thornbridge College of Education.

    In 1976 the College became part of Sheffield Polytechnic, which was renamed Sheffield City Polytechnic – and this in turn became Sheffield Hallam University in 1992, and I’ve written about it here.

    Here’s a jigsaw of the card.

    The card was posted, but I can’t read the postmark, so don’t know when. The 3p stamp shows it was after decimalisation. If it was in 1971 or 1972 it was sent first class; if it was 1973 it was sent second class. Those are the only options for that stamp.

    An engagement? A wedding? A pools win? A baby? What do we think?

    Source link

  • Virginia lawmakers call for audit of UVA’s Justice Department deal

    Virginia lawmakers call for audit of UVA’s Justice Department deal

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Two Democratic leaders in the Virginia Legislature are questioning the legality of the University of Virginia’s recent deal with the U.S. Department of Justice and calling for an independent review of its constitutionality.
    • In an eight-page letter this week, state Sens. Scott Surovell and L. Louise Lucas said the agreement “directly conflicts with state law, commits the University to eliminate legislatively mandated programs, subjects the University President to personal certification requirements and potentially places UVA in violation of its statutory obligations.”
    • The pair requested UVA Interim President Paul Mahoney and Rachel Sheridan, the head of UVA’s board, to formally respond by Nov. 7. UVA did not immediately respond to questions Thursday.

    Dive Insight:

    On Oct. 22, Mahoney signed a four-page agreement with the DOJ to eventually close five investigations into UVA. In exchange, the public university agreed to adhere to the DOJ’s sweeping July guidance against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and provide the agency with quarterly compliance reports.

    In their letter, Surovell and Lucas lambasted Mahoney and Sheridan for “a fundamental breach of the governance relationship” between the university and the state.

    “This agreement was disturbingly executed with zero consultation with the General Assembly, despite the fact that the General Assembly controls the University and provides the bulk of its government funding,” they said, arguing the lack of legislative involvement could violate state statute.

    When announcing the deal, UVA said Mahoney struck the deal with input from the university’s governing board, whose members were “kept apprised of the negotiations and briefed on the final terms before signature.” Since the agreement doesn’t include a financial penalty, it did not require a formal vote from the board, the university said in an FAQ.

    Along with the board, Mahoney has said he struck the deal with input from the university’s leadership and internal and external legal counsel.

    Surovell and Lucas questioned if Jason Miyares, Virginia’s Republican Attorney General and an ally of President Donald Trump, had counseled the university about the deal. 

    Miyares — who fired UVA’s longtime legal counsel upon taking office in 2022 — is up for reelection in November with Trump’s endorsement, a backing Lucas and Surovell cast as an “inherent conflict of interest.” 

    It is unclear, they said, if Virginia’s top lawyer is “competent and capable of providing truly independent legal advice to Virginia’s public universities in this area of the law.”

    Virginia public colleges “need legal counsel who will zealously defend state sovereignty and institutional autonomy — not counsel whose political fortunes are tied to the very administration applying the pressure,” they said.

    The two lawmakers, along with Democratic state Sen. Mamie Locke, previously threatened UVA’s state funding if the university agreed to the Trump administration’s separate higher education compact, which offered preferential access to grant funding in exchange for unprecedented federal oversight. UVA turned it down five days before announcing its deal with the DOJ.

    Lucas and Surovell aren’t the only Virginia legislators to question the integrity of the UVA-DOJ deal. State Del. Katrina Callsen and Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, Democrats who represent UVA’s district, condemned it as subjecting the university “to unprecedented federal control.”

    In an Oct. 23 letter, the pair told Mahoney and the board that their approval of the agreement calls “into grave question your ability to adequately protect the interests and resources entrusted to you by the Virginia General Assembly.”

    “Your actions fail to leave the University free and unafraid to combat that which is untrue or in error,” they said. “By agreeing to these terms, UVA risks betraying the very principles you espouse in your letter: academic freedom, ideological diversity, and free expression.”

    Callsen and Deeds called on UVA leadership to reverse the deal and “reject further federal interference.”

    When asked on Thursday if Mahoney or the board had responded, Deed’s office referred to a story published by The Cavalier Daily, the university’s independent student newspaper.

    In a letter shared with The Daily, Mahoney and Sheridan said that they “respectfully disagree” with Deeds and Callsen’s assessment, adding that the deal is the “culmination of months of engagement” with the DOJ and other federal agencies over multiple civil rights investigations.

    They also said the institution’s deal with the federal government differs significantly from the “lengthy lists of specific obligations” agreed to by Columbia and Brown universities.

    “Our agreement is different — if the United States believes we are not in compliance, its only remedy is to terminate the agreement,” they said.

    Source link

  • Education Department tightens debt relief program for public servants

    Education Department tightens debt relief program for public servants

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education on Thursday released final regulations that will bar organizations the agency deems as having a “substantial illegal purpose” from being a qualifying employer for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
    • The Trump administration’s new rule will exclude organizations from the PSLF program that it determines to be “supporting terrorism and aiding and abetting illegal immigration,” among other activities, according to Thursday’s announcement. 
    • Several advocacy groups immediately vowed to challenge the rule in court. They and other opponents argue the agency is politicizing the PSLF program and will use the new rule to remove organizations with goals not aligned with the Trump administration, such as providing gender-affirming care or supporting undocumented immigrants. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Congress created the PSLF program in 2007 to allow college graduates who work for government employers, including school districts, and certain nonprofits to receive debt relief on their student loans after making a decade of qualifying payments. 

    Many borrowers initially struggled to get relief through the program due to confusing eligibility requirements and loan servicer issues. As of April 2018, for example, just 55 workers had received debt relief through PSLF, according to a report that year from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    To address the problems, the Biden administration eased some of the program’s requirements in October 2022 for one year. The administration also released regulations that expanded which loan payments counted toward PSLF beginning in 2023. 

    By October 2024, over 1 million workers had received relief through the program during the Biden administration, the White House said at the time. 

    But in a March executive order directing the Education Department to change PSLF’s eligibility requirements, President Donald Trump accused the prior administration of abusing the program by relaxing its requirements. Trump also contended that the program sent tax dollars to “activist organizations” that harm national security and undermine American values. 

    The Education Department’s final rule, which takes effect July 2026, is meant to carry out the executive order. It will bar organizations from the PSLF program if the Education Department determines they illegally: 

    • Aided and abetted violations of federal immigration law. 
    • Aided and abetted illegal discrimination. 
    • Supported terrorism or engaged in violence “for the purpose of obstructing or influencing Federal Government policy.”
    • Engaged in “chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children” —  a common conservative description of providing gender-affirming care for transgender minors.  
    • Engage in the “trafficking of children” across state lines to emancipate them from their parents. 
    • Have a pattern of violating state laws. 

    The U.S. education secretary will determine whether employers have a “substantial illegal purpose” based on “a preponderance of the evidence,” which can include final federal or state court rulings or settlements in which organizations admit they engaged in illegal activities, according to an agency fact sheet. 

    Employers who are notified of such a finding will have an opportunity to respond and appeal. 

    They will also be able to “enter into a corrective action plan” with the Education Department to avoid being blocked from the program, according to an agency fact sheet. However, if they lose access to PSLF, they will only be able to reapply after 10 years. 

    If an organization is blocked from the program, loan payments made by its employees will still count toward their PSLF’s 10-year clock until the Education Department’s finding takes effect, according to a fact sheet. 

    “However, any payment made after an employer is deemed no longer eligible for PSLF will not be counted toward the number of payments to forgiveness,” the department said in the 185-page final rule, set to be published on Friday. “This approach ensures that workers who have served in good faith are not punished, while also protecting taxpayers by preventing benefits from flowing to unlawful conduct in the future.” 

    Student advocacy and nonprofit groups have decried the new rule. 

    Aaron Ament, president of the National Student Legal Defense Network, vowed in a Thursday statement to sue in the next few days. 

    “Instead of supporting first responders, healthcare workers, and teachers working to make our country a better place, the Trump Administration is punishing public servants for their employers’ perceived political views,” Ament said. 

    Democracy Forward and Protect Borrowers, two other advocacy groups, likewise said they would challenge the rule in court. In a joint statement Thursday, they said the rule would allow the Education Department to target organizations that support immigrants, provide gender-affirming care and protect the free speech rights of protesters. 

    “This new rule is a craven attempt to usurp the legislature’s authority in an unconstitutional power grab aimed at punishing people with political views different than the Administration’s,” they said.

    Source link

  • Making the Most of College Fairs and High School Visits

    Making the Most of College Fairs and High School Visits

    A Practical Framework for Admissions Leaders to Reach More Students, More Meaningfully

    College fairs and high school visits have long been the bread and butter of admissions outreach. But are they still relevant in a digital age saturated with webinars, virtual tours, and TikTok campus tours?

    The answer is a resounding yes! The 2025 E-Expectations survey of college-bound high school students shows they rate these experiences as helpful and impactful, with fairs standing out as one of the most widely used resources in the college search (RNL, Halda, & ModernCampus, 2025).

    Here is the catch: just showing up is not enough. The latest research tells us that the true impact of fairs and visits depends on how thoughtfully they are designed, where institutions decide to spend their travel dollars, and, maybe most importantly, whether the students and families who need access the most are actually being reached (Huerta, 2020; Institute for Higher Education Policy [IHEP], 2021).

    This blog brings together three key perspectives, each offering a piece of the puzzle:

    • The student voice: What the latest E-Expectations data reveals about how students use and value fairs and visits.
    • Practice-level insights: What enrollment professionals and researchers like Huerta (2020) have learned about structuring these events so they support, rather than overwhelm, students.
    • Policy and systems view: How institutional budgets, recruitment, travel, and school selection practices shape which communities are included, or left out (IHEP, 2021; Niche, 2023).

    By weaving these perspectives together, my goal is simple: to offer admissions leaders a practical framework, a clear and actionable checklist, for designing and delivering college fairs and high school visits that truly serve the full range of students and families you want to reach.

    What students say about fairs and visits

    2025 E-Expectations Trend Report: Explore the online experiences, behaviors, and expectations of college-bound high school students2025 E-Expectations Trend Report: Explore the online experiences, behaviors, and expectations of college-bound high school students

    In the 2025 E-Expectations survey, 80% of respondents attended a college fair, and 85% of those found it helpful (RNL, Halda, & ModernCampus, 2025). Helpfulness peaks in 10th grade but stays strong from 9th (82%) through 12th (85%). First-generation students also find fairs helpful (86%).

    High school visits tell a similar story. Niche (2023) reports that over 70% of students say meeting an admissions representative at their school influenced their decision to consider a college. Campus visits are even more powerful: 85% said a visit nudged them to apply or enroll. The message is clear: students want in-person engagement even in the digital age.

    However, college recruiters visit suburban and affluent schools more often, leaving rural, urban, and first-generation students with fewer recruiter visits (Niche, 2023). If your travel schedule seems stuck on the same comfortable zip codes year after year, you are seeing this problem play out firsthand. The right students are not always getting the right opportunities.

    Reimagining college fairs for equity

    College fairs and campus visits are only helpful when they reach the students who actually need them. Huerta (2020) does not sugarcoat the gaps: “traditional college fairs often disproportionately serve White and affluent students, while low-income, first-generation, and students of color are left out of these critical opportunities for exposure and access” (p. 3).

    How can fairs and visits have a greater impact? Preparation is everything, especially for first-generation students. The right support before the fair can make all the difference. Huerta (2020) says it plainly: “Pre-fair activities such as setting up professional emails, preparing questions, or even taking short career tests equip students to maximize the limited time they have with recruiters” (p. 5). With a plan, the fair is less overwhelming and more empowering.

    What about addressing affordability questions during these activities? Huerta (2020) is clear: “Workshops on financial aid, scholarships, and affordability should be at the center of college fair programming, not optional add-ons” (p. 6). Put cost and aid front and center, and you not only build trust, you tackle one of the biggest barriers families face. If you have ever watched a parent’s shoulders relax after a frank talk about financial aid, you know this is not just theory—it is practical, high-impact work.

    Now picture a fair that feels like a true community event, a place where everyone belongs. Huerta (2020) recommends an equity checklist: multilingual resources, childcare, transportation, and intentional outreach. Suddenly, the fair is not just another recruitment event; it is a space where families actually feel welcome (p. 7). You are not just handing out brochures, you are opening doors.

    Enrollment and admissions implications

    • Go beyond the usual feeder and affluent schools and make a conscious effort to reach overlooked students.
    • Prepare students and families with guides and resources before the visit.
    • Strengthen access with multilingual support, childcare, and transportation options.
    • Measure success by engagement of underserved groups of students, not just attendance.

    Rethinking recruitment policies through the institutional lens

    Zooming out, let us talk about how big-picture policies and budgets shape everything from your team’s travel routes to who gets a seat at the table.

    Travel budgets shape access

    Recruitment travel is costly and eats up a large chunk of resources. Public institutions report spending a median of $536 per recruited student and close to $600,000 a year on enrollment management vendors (IHEP, 2021). Almost one-fifth of recruitment budgets go toward travel for high school visits and college fairs (p. 9). Every travel dollar is a map, deciding which schools and communities get face time with colleges.

    Over-investment in feeder and affluent schools

    IHEP (2021) does not mince words: colleges target suburban and affluent schools, reinforcing privilege, while rural, low-income, Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and AAPI students are left seeing fewer recruiters (p. 11). Nearly nine million students live in rural areas, but cost and assumptions about mobility keep colleges away (IHEP, 2021, p. 11). If you have ever skipped a rural or urban school because “it is too far” or “students from there do not enroll anyway,” you are not alone, but the pattern has real consequences.

    The “iron triangle” of prestige, revenue, and access

    IHEP (2021) calls the balancing of academic profile, revenue, and access the “iron triangle” of recruitment. Too often, access gets squeezed out by prestige or dollars. One example? The out-of-state recruitment push for higher tuition, which can crowd out in-state, low-income, and racially diverse students—the very populations public institutions were built to serve (IHEP, 2021, p. 10). There is a real tension here: the pressure to chase rankings and revenue versus the public mission to expand access.

    Enrollment and admissions implications

    Audit travel strategies so you don’t overlook rural, urban, and high first-generation schools.
    Resist the urge to chase rankings or revenue at the cost of access.
    Measure equity ROI to look at who you reached and not just enrollment numbers.
    Honor the public mission—for public institutions, especially, recruitment travel should put in-state, underrepresented, and transfer students first.

    The “Comprehensive Equity Checklist” for college fairs and high school visits

    (Adapted from Huerta, 2020; IHEP, 2021; Niche, 2023)

    If you are looking for a place to start, here is a checklist you can use to make sure your next fair or visit is as equitable and impactful as possible:

    Access and Inclusion

    • Provide multilingual materials (flyers, signage, applications, financial aid guides).
    • Offer live interpretation services for families with limited English proficiency.
    • Ensure transportation options (buses, metro passes, shuttles) for students and families.
    • Provide childcare or family-friendly spaces so parents and guardians can attend.
    • Make fairs and visits physically accessible (ADA-compliant venues, inclusive spaces).

    Student and Family Preparation

    • Equip students with pre-fair tools: professional email setup, question prompts, résumé templates, and career interest surveys.
    • Offer prep sessions for families on navigating fairs, admissions language, and understanding financial aid.
    • Provide clear expectations before high school visits (e.g., topics covered, documents to bring).

    Financial Aid and Affordability Resources

    • Make financial aid and scholarship workshops central, not optional, at fairs.
    • Ensure recruiters can clearly explain the cost of attendance, aid packages, scholarships, and ROI.
    • Share state aid and local scholarship resources during visits.
    • Provide simple, multilingual financial aid guides for families to take home.

    Recruiter Diversity and Training

    • Send representatives who reflect racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity.
    • Train recruiters in cultural competency, equity, and family engagement strategies.
    • Encourage authentic, student-centered conversations rather than scripted pitches.
    • Pair senior admissions leaders with feeder schools while ensuring new schools also receive attention.

    Event and Visit Design

    • Avoid overwhelming “information overload” by structuring fairs with breakout sessions (e.g., Paying for College 101, Essay Writing Tips, Navigating Campus Visits).
    • Set up reflection areas where students can take notes and debrief.
    • Schedule visits that reach all grade levels, not just seniors, to build early awareness (9th–10th grade especially).
    • Balance large-scale fairs with smaller, targeted events for first-generation and underserved students.

    Travel Strategy and School Selection

    • Audit recruitment travel annually: which schools are visited and which are left out (rural, urban, high first-generation, under-resourced)?
    • Intentionally expand beyond feeder and affluent schools to reach underserved communities.
    • Balance in-state versus out-of-state recruitment to honor institutional missions and equity commitments.
    • Use hybrid and virtual visits to reach schools where travel is limited.

    Data, Metrics and Accountability

    • Collect and analyze participation data disaggregated by race, income, geography, and first-generation status.
    • Track equity ROI: not just attendance numbers, but who was reached and how engagement expanded access.
    • Report back annually to leadership with both quantitative metrics (schools visited, demographics reached) and qualitative feedback (student and counselor satisfaction).
    • Equitable recruitment means more than showing up. It requires intentional design, inclusive practices, and accountability. This checklist can help you ensure that your fairs and visits open doors, instead of reinforcing barriers.

    The bottom line: Opportunity by design

    College fairs and high school visits remain powerful entry points for students exploring higher education. The data is clear: students find them helpful, and when done well, these moments spark interest, build trust, and create momentum in the college search process. But as the research shows, the true impact depends on how these events are implemented and who gets to participate. Fairs that overwhelm students or focus only on affluent schools, and travel that bypasses rural or first-generation communities, risk narrowing opportunity rather than expanding it.

    Admissions leaders hold both the keys and the responsibility to change this. Rethink what success looks like. Expand your travel map beyond traditional feeder schools. Center on affordability and preparation on every visit. Use a comprehensive checklist to plan. If you do, you will reach more students, more meaningfully. Measure the value of college fairs and high school visits by the quality of the student and family experience, the strength of your partnerships with counselors, and the breadth of the communities you serve. In doing so, you will not just make the most of fairs and visits, you will reaffirm your mission to open doors of opportunity for every student who is ready to walk through them.

    Talk with our marketing and recruitment experts

    RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges.  Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:

    • Student search strategies
    • Omnichannel communication campaigns
    • Personalization and engagement at scale

    Request now

    References

    Source link

  • 180 ransomware attacks plague education sector worldwide in 2025 through Q3

    180 ransomware attacks plague education sector worldwide in 2025 through Q3

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The education sector saw 180 ransomware attacks worldwide in the first three quarters of the year — a 6% year-over-year increase from the 170 attacks recorded in 2024, according to Comparitech data released Thursday. The findings include both confirmed and unconfirmed attacks. 

    • Most of the 2025 ransomware attacks — 95 out of 180 — were in the U.S. Some 35 of those 95 attacks have been confirmed by the targeted schools so far. The number of confirmed attacks is expected to climb in the coming months, as breaches are often reported some time after an attack. 

    • Still, the past two quarters marked the first dip in attacks since the start of 2024, which could indicate “a more positive outlook for the education sector,” according to the cybersecurity and online privacy product review website.

    Dive Insight:

    The ransom demand across all 180 attacks globally averaged $444,400. 

    “This definitely isn’t the time to get complacent,” said Rebecca Moody, head of data research at Comparitech, in an email to K-12 Dive on Thursday. “These attacks, and their subsequent breaches, remain a dominant threat. That’s why it’s imperative schools and colleges of all sizes take key steps to try and mitigate their risks.”

    Many of the confirmed attacks resulted in systems going offline, leading to network disruptions and classes being cancelled for days or weeks. The incidents led to stolen data more often than not, with an average of 2.6 terabytes worth of data stolen per attack. 

    In South Carolina’s Cherokee County School District, for example, a confirmed March attack affected systems for around a week and resulted in 624 gigabytes of data allegedly stolen. Last month, the school district reported that data from 46,000 people was impacted. 

    A 2023 Comparitech report estimated the cost of ransomware attacks on K-12 and higher education institutions globally at over $53 billion in downtime between 2018 and mid-September 2023. 

    To prevent ransomware attacks, Moody said schools should keep systems up to date, patch vulnerabilities as soon as they’re flagged, and conduct regular cybersecurity training for employees. 

    “A worst-case scenario plan should also be in place because, as gangs continue to exploit vulnerabilities via third parties, even schools with the best cybersecurity standards can be left vulnerable if the third parties they’re working with are targeted,” said Moody.

    Likewise, cybersecurity experts suggest that school districts implement phishing tests, establish a backup network and tap into state and federal support such as cybersecurity advisors to prevent and respond to ransomware attacks. 

    Phishing, which often seeks to trick staff into revealing login credentials, can target high-profile employees more often than others, such as those working in human resources, business, the superintendency and other administrative roles with access to sensitive data.

    Source link

  • Schools brace for SNAP benefits lapse

    Schools brace for SNAP benefits lapse

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

    Dive Brief:

    • A prolonged federal government shutdown is causing some school systems and government agencies to provide outreach and extra supports for low-income families and children affected by the likely expiration of benefits.
    • Advocates for low-income families are warning that childhood hunger will increase when funding expires Nov. 1 for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — the nation’s largest federal food assistance program.
    • While SNAP benefits are of immediate concern, some school systems, advocates and policymakers also said they are worried about the long-term sustainability of free-or reduced-price school lunch programs, as well as access to Head Start services if the shutdown isn’t resolved soon.

    Dive Insight:

    About 39% of SNAP recipients are children under the age of 18, according to the National Education Policy Center.

    The National School Boards Association is “deeply concerned” that more children will go hungry with the suspension of SNAP benefits, said Verjeana McCotter-Jacobs, the group’s executive director and CEO, in a Thursday statement.

    “Schools are doing everything they can to provide safe, stable environments where students can learn and thrive — but they cannot do it alone,” McCotter-Jacobs said.

    Some school districts, such as Washington’s North Kitsap School District and Colorado’s Adams 12 Five Star Schools, are messaging their communities about how they and their partners are supporting families and children in need through school meal benefits and local resources.

    The federal government shutdown began Oct. 1 when Congress could not agree on a fiscal year 2026 budget. While most daily school operations were not expected to be impacted by a short-term government closure, the longer the shutdown lasts, the more impacts to school services there could be, according to K-12 organizations.

    During the shutdown, federal agencies have furloughed staff, hampering federal assistance to states and districts. At the U.S. Department of Education, about 95% of the non-Federal Student Aid staff were furloughed during the first week of the closure, according to the agency’s shutdown contingency plan from Sept. 28. 

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP and the National School Lunch Program, said in an Oct. 1 memo to regional and state directors of Child Nutrition Programs that funding for the school lunch program would be available at least through October.

    Even though SNAP is used as a proxy for school meal eligibility, the School Nutrition Association said the expiration of SNAP benefits will not affect children’s eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals. 

    The association is, however, encouraging its members to plan for increased participation among children whose families lose their SNAP benefits and to look into community-based support for struggling families, said SNA spokesperson Diane Pratt-Heavner.

    According to Pratt-Heavner and an FAQ updated by SNA on Oct. 27, several states reported having inadequate funding to cover school nutrition programs in October early during the shutdown and said reimbursements to districts could be delayed should the shutdown extend beyond Nov. 1. 

    Pratt Heavner said since then, SNA has been hearing from state agencies that their issues were addressed. Additionally, in an Oct. 24 memo, USDA said it had transferred funds to the Child Nutrition Program to carry out the National School Lunch Program and other activities, according to SNA. 

    School meals served in October are reimbursed by USDA in November and the November meals are reimbursed in December, according to Pratt-Heavner. SNA is continuing to monitor the situation, Pratt-Heavner said.

    In Maryland, an Oct. 9 letter to districts from State Superintendent of Schools Carey Wright said that if the federal government shutdown continued through November, the state education department would seek state approval to reimburse claims for November. If the shutdown goes into December, districts may be asked to rely on available food service fund balances to support the programs until the shutdown ends, the letter said.

    This week, 25 states and the District of Columbia sued the USDA claiming the agency unlawfully suspended SNAP benefits for November during the government shutdown, according to reporting by Grocery Dive.

    Meanwhile, Head Start advocates are sounding alarms that more than 65,000 children in 41 states and Puerto Rico will lose access to the early childhood program for youngsters from low-income families starting Nov. 1 due to the funding impasse.

    The National Head Start Association is calling on Congress to resolve the budget debate now. “With each passing day of the shutdown, families are pushed closer to crisis,” said Yasmina Vinci, NHSA’s executive director, in an Oct. 27 statement.

    Source link

  • Zodiac Sign Assigned Seating? This Teacher Says It Works

    Zodiac Sign Assigned Seating? This Teacher Says It Works

    Source link

  • Australian MPs defend education reforms as Bill progresses through parliament

    Australian MPs defend education reforms as Bill progresses through parliament

    Australia’s Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025  has cleared its second reading in the House and will progress without amendment.

    Following the government’s unsuccessful attempt in 2024 to pass reforms through a previous ESOS amendment Bill, minister for education Jason Clare has reintroduced legislation aimed at “strengthening the integrity of the international education sector”.

    Speaking in parliament on October 29, Clare said the Bill will make it “harder for bad operators to enter or remain in the sector, while also supporting the majority of providers, who do the right thing”.

    “These changes safeguard our reputation as a world leader in education, both here and overseas,” he added.

    Assistant minister for international education Julian Hill addressed some of the key points of debate in the sector regarding the Bill, including changes that relate to 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.

    Hill claimed this increased transparency will help providers “identify reputable agents”.

    “Education agents, counsellors, consultants – whatever they’re called in different countries – overall play a really important and constructive role,” he said.

    “But the evidence is overwhelming, from universities but also from the reputable private providers in the higher education sector and the vocational training sector, that the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market.”

    The evidence is overwhelming… the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market
    Julian Hill, assistant minister for international education

    The legislation looks to enable the banning of commissions to education agents for onshore student transfers – a measure that has been widely debated in the sector lately.

    “I absolutely understand there are some in the sector who don’t like this part of the Bill,” said Hill.

    “But, overwhelmingly, the feedback which I’ve received over years now from the reputable private providers in VET and higher education is to please do something about the behaviour of the agent commissions because they are buying and selling students.”

    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.

    “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,” said Hill.

    “That’s because Australians, and all of the reputable providers and universities delivering transnationally, guarantee to the world that, when one of our Australian providers delivers a course offshore, that course is delivered to exactly the same quality standard as if the student were in Australia. That’s our promise to the world.”

    “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.”

    Hill stressed that the recent expansion of transnational education (TNE) has been highly beneficial for the economy, Australia’s soft power, and, in particular, for strengthening links with Southeast Asia – a priority region for the government as it seeks to deepen trade, education and diplomatic ties.

    “But, if one of our providers does the wrong thing in a given market, it wrecks our reputation for everyone,” warned Hill.

    The Bill did face some criticism during proceedings, including from independent MP for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, who widely supports the Bill but raised concerns about new ministerial powers to cancel a class of courses or course registrations. Spender hopes these powers are used “sparingly and with clear safeguards”.

    “These powers mark a departure from existing arrangements, where cancellations are overseen by independent regulators, like TEQSA and ASQA. Under the Bill, the minister is no longer required to consult these bodies. Instead, the minister may only consult such persons or entities as the minister considers appropriate. This is a significant centralisation of power and one that carries risk.”

    “The minister may cancel courses due to systemic issues, but that threshold is vague. More worryingly, courses may simply be cancelled because they seem to offer limited value to Australia’s current or future skill needs, a narrow test which is also open to interpretation.”

    According to Spender, this overlooks the fact that more than 60% of international students return to their home countries.

    “As education expert Andrew Norton points out, why should their course choices be limited by the labour market needs of a foreign country?” she asked.

    The new Bill closely mirrors last year’s version but drops the proposed hard cap on international student enrolments that contributed to the earlier Bill’s failure in parliament. Instead, the government is managing new enrolments through its National Planning Level, a de facto cap that sets target limits for providers.

    Under these limits, publicly funded universities that diversify away from traditional markets and expand into Southeast Asia may become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places. Those that demonstrate strong student housing arrangements may also become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places.

    Source link