Category: Featured

  • Cops showing up at your door for political Facebook posts is absolutely intolerable in a free society

    Cops showing up at your door for political Facebook posts is absolutely intolerable in a free society

    This video is making the rounds — and it’s one every American should see.


    WATCH VIDEO: No one should have to fear that expressing a political opinion will lead to a knock on the door from the police.

    The video shows law enforcement showing up on the doorstep of Florida resident Raquel Pacheco. 

    What did she do? She criticized the mayor on Facebook. 

    Police coming to our doorsteps for lawful political speech — speech that doesn’t remotely rise to the level of incitement, harassment, or a true threat — is absolutely intolerable in a free society.

    The First Amendment means we have the right to criticize those in power. On Friday, we said as much to the Miami Beach Police Department.

    This isn’t the UK. Or China. Or Russia. This is America. No one should have to fear that expressing a political opinion will lead to a knock on the door from the police.

    See FIRE’s full letter to the Miami Beach Police Department.

    Source link

  • Five Ways Higher Ed Teams Can Improve AEO This Month

    Five Ways Higher Ed Teams Can Improve AEO This Month

    There’s a growing tension I’m hearing across higher education marketing and enrollment teams right now: AI is answering students’ questions before they ever reach our websites, and we’re not sure how, or if, we’re part of those answers.

    That concern is valid, but the good news is that Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) isn’t some futuristic discipline that requires entirely new teams, tools, or timelines. 

    In most cases, it’s about getting much more disciplined with the content, structure, and facts you already publish so that AI systems can confidently use your institution as a source of truth.

    And with some dedicated time and attention, there’s meaningful progress you can make starting today.

    Here are five actions higher ed teams can realistically take right now to improve how they appear in AI-powered search and answer environments.

    1. Run a Simple “Answer Audit” to Establish Your Baseline

    Before you can improve how you show up in AI-generated answers, you need to understand where you stand today, and that starts with asking the same questions your prospective students are asking.

    Identify Real Student Questions

    Select five to ten realistic, high-intent student questions, ideally pulled directly from admissions conversations, search query data, or inquiry emails. 

    Test Visibility Across Major Answer Engines

    Run those questions through a handful of major answer engines, such as:

    • Google AI Mode or AI Overviews
    • ChatGPT
    • Gemini
    • Perplexity
    • Bing Copilot or AI Overview search mode

    This isn’t a perfect science, as your geography and past search history does affect visibility, but it will give you a quick general idea.

    Document What Appears—and What Doesn’t

    For each query, document a few critical things:

    • Does your institution appear in the answer at all?
    • If it does, what information is being shared, and is it accurate?
    • How is your institution being described? Is the tone neutral, positive, or cautious, and does it align with how you want to be perceived?
    • Which sources are cited or clearly influencing the response (your site, rankings, Wikipedia, third-party directories)?

    Log this in a simple spreadsheet. What you’ve just created is your initial visibility benchmark, and it’s far more informative than traditional rankings or traffic reports in an AI-first discovery environment.

    Where We Can Help

    In Carnegie’s AEO Audit, we expand this approach across a much broader and more structured evaluation set. Over a 30-day period, Carnegie evaluates visibility, sentiment, and competitive positioning to show how often you appear, what AI engines are saying about your brand and programs, how you compare to peers, and where focused changes will have the greatest impact on AI search presence.

    >> Learn More About Carnegie’s AEO Solution. 

    2. Fix the Facts on Your Highest-Impact Pages

    If there’s one thing AI systems punish consistently, it’s conflicting or outdated information, and those issues most often surface on pages that drive key enrollment decisions.

    Identify Your Highest-Impact Pages and Core Facts

    Start by identifying ten to twenty priority pages based on enrollment volume, traffic, revenue contribution, or strategic importance. These typically include:

    • High-demand program pages
    • Admissions and application requirement pages
    • Tuition, cost, and financial aid pages
    • Visit, events, and deadline-driven pages

    These pages frequently influence AI-generated answers and early student impressions, and where inaccuracies can have an impact on trust and decision-making, particularly as search continues to evolve toward more experience-driven models.

    For each priority page, verify that the core facts are correct, complete, and clearly stated wherever they apply.

    Program Name and Credential Type

    Ensure the official program name and credential are clearly stated upon first mention. For example, fully spell out the name—Bachelor of Arts in English—in the first paragraph of the page and abbreviate to B.A. in English, Bachelor’s in English, and/or English major in future mentions.

    Delivery Format

    Clearly indicate whether the program or experience is offered on-campus, online, hybrid, or through multiple pathways.

    Time to Completion or Timeline Expectations

    Include full-time, part-time, and accelerated timelines, or key dates where applicable.

    Concentrations or Specializations

    List available concentrations or specializations clearly and consistently.

    Tuition and Fees

    Confirm how costs are expressed and whether additional fees apply.

    Admissions Requirements and Deadlines

    List requirements and deadlines explicitly, avoiding conditional or outdated language.

    Outcomes, Licensure, and Accreditation

    Document licensure alignment, accreditation status, and any verified outcomes data.

    Align Facts Across Every Source

    Once verified, align that information everywhere it appears, including:

    • Primary program, admissions, and visit pages
    • Catalog and registrar listings
    • PDFs, viewbooks, and other downloadable assets
    • Major program directories and rankings where edits are possible

    Signal Freshness with Clear Update Dates

    For content that is time-bound or interpretive—such as admissions pages, deadlines, visit information, policies, blog posts, and thought leadership—clearly signaling recency helps reduce confusion for both students and AI systems.

    In those cases, a visible “last updated” date can help establish confidence that information reflects current realities.

    The goal isn’t to add dates everywhere. It’s to be intentional about where freshness signals meaningfully support clarity, trust, and accuracy.

    3. Restructure a Small Set of Program Pages for AI Readability

    With your facts aligned, the next step is making sure your most important program pages are structured in a way that both humans and machines can easily understand.

    Use a Predictable Page Structure AI Can Parse

    Choose five to ten priority programs and apply a clear, predictable structure that answer engines can parse with confidence, such as:

    • Program overview
    • Who this program is designed for
    • What students will learn
    • Delivery format and scheduling
    • Time to completion
    • Cost and financial support options
    • Admissions requirements
    • Career pathways and outcomes
    • Frequently asked questions

    Add Information Gain to Differentiate Your Program

    Rely on descriptive headings and bullet points, and avoid unnecessarily complex language. Most importantly, include at least one element of information gain: a specific detail that differentiates the program, such as outcomes data, employer partnerships, or experiential learning opportunities.

    Answer Student Questions Explicitly with FAQs

    And if you want to influence AI-generated answers, you need to be explicit about the questions you’re answering—FAQ sections remain one of the most effective ways to do that.

    On each optimized program page, add four to six student-centered questions that directly address decision-making concerns. 

    Answers should be brief, factual, and supported by links to official institutional data wherever possible. 

    Use FAQ Schema Where Possible

    If your CMS and development resources allow, mark these sections up with FAQ schema so answer engines can more reliably identify and reuse them.

    If you don’t clearly answer these questions, AI will still respond, but it may not use your content to do so.

    4. Build a Net-New Content Strategy for AI Visibility

    Program pages matter, but institutions won’t win in AI search results by maintaining existing content alone.

    Why AI Systems Prefer Explanatory Content

    In practice, we’re seeing AI tools cite blog posts, explainers, and articles more often than traditional program pages, especially for the broader, earlier-stage questions students ask before they’re ready to search for a specific degree.

    That means AEO success requires more than restructuring what already exists. It requires a proactive content strategy that consistently publishes new points of expertise, experience, and trust around the topics students care about.

    The Types of Student Questions AI Is Answering

    For many institutions, that’s not just about program marketing. It’s about painting a credible picture of student life, outcomes, belonging, and the real-world value of higher education. The kinds of pieces AI systems surface tend to answer questions like:

    • What should I look for in an MBA program with an accounting concentration?
    • Is community college a good first step?
    • What kinds of jobs can I get in energy?
    • What does it mean to be an Emerging Hispanic-Serving Institution?

    In other words: content that helps students frame decisions before they compare institutions.

    Start with a Small, Intent-Driven Content Pipeline

    Start small. Choose five to ten priority student questions tied to your recruitment goals, informed by existing keyword research tools and site data from sources like Google Search Console.

    Use those insights to build a simple content pipeline that produces a handful of focused articles:

    • 3–5 new blog or explainer topics aligned to student intent
    • Outlines built around direct answers + structured headings
    • A short list of internal contributors or Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
    • Clear calls-to-action that connect early-funnel content to next steps

    This is one of the fastest ways to expand your presence in AI-generated answers, and to build brand awareness earlier in the funnel, when students are still defining what they want.

    Where We Can Help

    Our AEO solution for higher ed turns insights from the audit into sustained visibility gains. Our experts deliver ongoing content development, asset optimization, visibility tracking and technical guidance to build your authority and improve performance across AI-driven search experiences.

    >> Learn More About Carnegie’s AEO Solution. 

    5. Establish a Lightweight Governance and Maintenance Cadence

    One of the biggest threats to long-term AEO success in higher education isn’t technology, it’s organizational drift.

    You don’t need an enterprise-wide governance overhaul to make a difference. Start with something intentionally simple:

    • A defined list of high-impact pages (programs, tuition, admissions, financial aid)
    • A basic owner matrix outlining responsibility for updates
    • A short monthly review checklist
    • A quarterly content review cadence by college or school

    Even a modest governance framework can dramatically reduce conflicting information and ensure your most important pages remain current as programs evolve.

    Good enough beats perfect every time.

    The Bigger Picture

    AEO isn’t about chasing every AI update or trying to “game” emerging platforms. It’s about being consistently clear, accurate, and helpful in the moments when students are asking their most important questions.

    If you do these five things this month, you won’t just improve your institution’s visibility in AI-driven search, you’ll build trust at the exact point where enrollment decisions are being shaped.

    Ready to go deeper?

    Download The Definitive Guide to AI Search for Higher Ed for practical frameworks, examples, and checklists that will help your team move from experimentation to strategy without the overwhelm.

    Frequently Asked Questions About AEO in Higher Education

    What is Answer Engine Optimization (AEO)?

    Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) is the practice of improving how institutions appear in AI-driven search and answer environments like ChatGPT, Google AI Mode and Overviews, Gemini, and Perplexity. Instead of focusing only on rankings and clicks, AEO emphasizes clarity, accuracy, and structured content so AI systems can confidently cite and summarize your institution.

    How is AEO different from traditional SEO?

    SEO is designed to improve visibility in search engine results pages, while AEO focuses on how content is interpreted and reused by AI systems that generate direct answers. AEO prioritizes structured content, consistent facts, explicit question answering, and information gain over keyword density alone.

    Why does AEO matter for higher education institutions?

    Students increasingly ask AI platforms questions about programs, outcomes, cost, and fit before visiting institutional websites. AEO helps ensure your institution is accurately represented in those early discovery moments, when perceptions are formed and enrollment decisions begin taking shape.

    What types of content help improve AEO performance?

    AI systems tend to favor content that is clearly structured and informative, including program pages with consistent facts, FAQ sections, explainer articles, and blog posts that directly answer student questions. Content that demonstrates expertise, outcomes, and real-world context is more likely to be cited.

    Who can we help implement AEO for higher education?

    Institutions can begin improving AEO internally by auditing content, aligning program facts, and adding structured FAQs. For more advanced support, higher education–focused partners like Carnegie provide AEO audits, content optimization, technical guidance, and ongoing visibility tracking tailored to AI-driven search environments.

    Source link

  • Online Enrollment Strategy in a Search-Driven Market

    Online Enrollment Strategy in a Search-Driven Market

    Online enrollment now happens in a national, search-driven market where visibility, clarity, and trust determine which programs students consider. This article explains how search, AI-driven discovery, and brand clarity shape how students find online programs—and what institutions must do to compete.

    Why “Build It and They Will Come” No Longer Works

    Online learners aren’t discovering programs by chance. They’re searching, comparing, and shortlisting in a national marketplace—and higher education institutions that rely on legacy enrollment assumptions are being left out of the conversation.

    If it feels like launching new online programs used to be easier, you’re not imagining it.

    For years, online growth was driven by access and availability. Institutions moved programs online because learners couldn’t get what they needed locally. Demand outpaced supply. If you built something credible and made it available, enrollment followed.

    That era is over.

    Today’s online market is crowded, sophisticated, and national by default. Learners have more choices than at any point in the history of higher education. And they’re not discovering online programs by accident.

    They’re searching.
    They’re comparing.
    They’re shortlisting.

    Scarcity is gone. Choice defines the market.This is the mindset shift many institutions haven’t fully made yet. Online enrollment no longer rewards availability. It rewards visibility, clarity, and trust.

    The National Online Market Is Coming to You—Whether You’re Planning for it or Not

    Online Programs Compete Nationally, Not Regionally

    One of the most common disconnects I see with higher ed enrollment leaders is how competition is defined.

    We still talk about “peer institutions,” “regional competitors,” or “schools we usually go up against.” That framing made sense when geography mattered.

    Online learning changes that completely.

    Online removes physical boundaries for learners.  Institutions are no longer compared only to nearby or familiar schools—they’re compared to whoever shows up and feels credible in the moment of search. 

    Search and AI Collapse the Market Into a Single Comparison Set

    Search engines, paid ads, review platforms, and now AI tools collapse the entire online market into a single results page. 

    From the learner’s perspective, everything sits side by side.

    They’re not just asking, Who’s nearby? Or who they already know?
     They’re asking, Who looks credible? Who fits me? Who’s going to help me achieve my goals? 

    Whether institutions plan for it or not, they’re competing nationally—not just with similar schools, but with whoever shows up first and feels trustworthy in the moment of search.

    That’s the reality. Ignoring it doesn’t protect you from it.

    AI is Redefining How Students Are Discovering Online Programs

    Search as the Virtual Campus Visit

    For years, search and institutional websites have functioned as the virtual campus visit for online learners.

    They’ve been where legitimacy is established.
    Where perceived risk is reduced.
    Where prospective students quietly decide whether an institution feels credible, relevant, and worth further consideration.

    That hasn’t changed.

    AI Systems as the New Gatekeepers

    What’s changing now isn’t whether that evaluation happens digitally—it’s how it happens.

    AI-powered search and large language models (LLMs) are reshaping how students discover online programs. Learners are no longer just comparing lists of results or clicking through multiple websites. 

    Increasingly, they’re asking questions directly to AI systems and receiving synthesized answers that compress research, comparison, and judgment into a single moment.

    In that environment, higher ed institutions don’t just compete for clicks, they compete to be understood, recommended, and trusted by systems that summarize the online market on the learner’s behalf.

    That raises the stakes for clarity, credibility, and differentiation. Search visibility still matters, but so does how clearly your programs, outcomes, and value proposition are articulated across your site and content ecosystem. AI models draw from what they can easily interpret. Generic language, outdated messaging, or unclear positioning makes it harder for an institution to surface meaningfully, even if the program itself is strong.

    Institutions that adapt by tightening messaging, strengthening authority signals, and aligning their digital presence with how modern search works, give themselves a chance to compete. Those that don’t risk being filtered out before a learner ever reaches a form, a conversation, or an application.

    The Shortlist Problem: Where Online Enrollment Is Actually Won or Lost

    Here’s the part that often gets missed.

    Learners don’t compare dozens of institutions in depth. They narrow quickly.

    Why Brand Clarity Determines the Shortlist

    They build a shortlist of online programs that feel safe, credible, and aligned with what they’re trying to accomplish. Everything else falls away.

    That shortlist is where enrollment is actually won or lost.

    And brand clarity is what helps learners navigate the complexity. Not flashy marketing. Not volume. Clarity.

    Learners consistently associate “top online institutions” with recognizable brands and clear program identities—not necessarily the biggest schools or the ones with the most programs.

    You Don’t Need to Win Nationally—You Need to Compete for Attention

    This is an important reframe for leaders:

    You don’t need to win nationally.
    You do need to compete nationally for attention.

    The goal isn’t to be everything to everyone. The goal is to be unmistakably relevant to the right learners when they’re searching.

    Where “Build It and They Will Come” Still Shows Up

    None of this is about blame. The constraints are real.

    Budgets are flat. Teams are stretched. Expectations keep rising.

    The Gap Between Priority and Investment

    But when you look at how institutions are investing—or not investing—in online enrollment strategy, a pattern emerges.

    Only about 42% of leaders say strengthening brand is an online priority. Nearly three-quarters don’t use a dedicated online enrollment marketing partner. Close to 60% rely on general university marketing budgets to support online growth. And only about a quarter believe their staffing and budgets for online marketing are actually adequate.

    At the same time, more than 80% of leaders say online enrollment growth is a moderate or high priority. Nearly half say it’s a top institutional priority.

    That’s the contradiction.

    Online enrollment is strategically important, but investment hasn’t shifted to match how learners actually choose.

    In practice, many institutions are still operating with an implicit belief that strong online programs will eventually find an audience. That’s “build it and they will come”—just wearing modern clothes.

    What Competing in a National Online Market Actually Requires

    The good news is this: competing in a national, search-driven market doesn’t require unlimited budgets or national-scale ambition.

    It requires focus.

    Here’s what I’d do first.

    Compete on relevance, not reach.

    You don’t need to outspend national brands. You need to out-clarify them for specific learners. Relevance beats volume every time.

    Be explicit about who your online programs are for.

    If everyone is your audience, no one is. Clarity reduces friction for learners and improves performance across search, ads, and conversion.

    Align search, ads, and web strategies around learner and personalization.

    Marketing and enrollment can’t operate in silos here. What online learners search for, what they see in ads, and what they experience on your site all need to tell the same story.

    Treat brand clarity as enrollment infrastructure.

    Brand isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s what makes demand convert. If learners can’t quickly understand who you are and why you’re credible, efficiency breaks down across the funnel.

    National competition doesn’t require national ambition. It requires strategic focus.

    The New Reality of Online Enrollment

    Let’s be honest about what’s changed.

    The market has changed.
    Learners have changed.
    And online enrollment strategies have to change with them.

    Online growth used to be driven by access. Now it’s driven by discoverability and trust. Higher education institutions don’t get chosen because they exist. They get chosen because online learners can find them, understand them, and feel confident moving forward.

    You don’t have to do everything.
    But you do need an integrated plan that reflects how the online market actually works today.

    Because the era of “build it and they will come” is over. In a national, search-driven market, visibility and clarity aren’t marketing tactics. They’re enrollment fundamentals.

    If online enrollment growth is a priority, clarity has to start with how the market actually behaves. The Online Learner/Leader Analysis compares how prospective online learners search, evaluate, and shortlist programs with how institutional leaders are planning and investing today—revealing where alignment exists and where opportunity is being missed.

    Explore the analysis to see how your assumptions stack up against learner reality.

    Frequently Asked Questions About Online Enrollment Strategy

    How do students find online programs today?

    Students primarily discover online programs through search engines, paid ads, review platforms, and increasingly through AI-powered tools that summarize and compare options. Discovery happens nationally, not locally, and programs compete based on visibility, clarity, and credibility.

    What is an online enrollment strategy?

    An online enrollment strategy aligns search visibility, digital marketing, web experience, and brand clarity to help institutions compete for online learners in a national market. It focuses on helping the right students find, understand, and trust an institution’s programs.

    Why is visibility so important for online enrollment?

    Strong programs don’t succeed if learners can’t find or understand them. Visibility ensures institutions are present at the moment of search, while clarity and trust determine whether they make the learner’s shortlist.

    How is AI changing online enrollment marketing?

    AI-powered search tools are changing how learners research online programs by delivering synthesized answers instead of lists of results. Institutions now compete to be accurately understood and recommended by AI systems.

    How does Carnegie help institutions compete for online enrollment?

    Carnegie helps institutions compete by aligning enrollment strategy, brand clarity, search and digital marketing, and web experience—improving discoverability, credibility, and conversion across the online enrollment funnel.

    Source link

  • Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) Higher Ed

    Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) Higher Ed

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fundamentally reshaping how students discover colleges and universities, and how higher education institutions are evaluated before a single click ever happens.

    Instead of starting with traditional search engines and scrolling through results, many prospective students are turning to conversational platforms like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, and Google’s AI Overviews/Mode. They’re asking direct questions and having conversations about programs, outcomes, cost, campus experience, and long-term value—and trusting the answers they receive.

    The challenge for higher education leaders is clear: most institutions have little to no visibility into how AI engines describe them, or whether they appear in AI-generated answers at all. And as Neil Patel has noted, more than half of searches in 2025 result in no website visit. When AI provides the answer, invisibility means missing the earliest—and often most influential—stage of student exploration.

    Why AI Search Changes the Stakes for Higher Education

    AI-driven search compresses what used to be weeks of research into a single moment.

    When AI engines summarize programs, affordability, outcomes, and reputation into confident responses, students form impressions before admissions teams, websites, or campaigns ever have a chance to engage. Institutions that are missing, misrepresented, or underexplained in these answers lose influence before recruitment efforts even begin.

    For enrollment and marketing leaders, this represents a fundamental shift. Visibility is no longer only about traffic or rankings. It is about early perception, trust, and preference in moments that increasingly determine whether a student continues exploring or moves on.

    Introducing Carnegie’s Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) For Higher Ed

    Answer Engine Optimization, or AEO, is the practice of ensuring that AI platforms accurately interpret, summarize, and surface institutional information in response to real student questions.

    Carnegie’s AEO service helps colleges and universities influence how AI platforms understand their programs, content, and brand. Designed specifically for higher education, Carnegie’s AEO solution combines AI visibility technology with enrollment strategy, brand expertise, and decades of leadership in SEO, search, and performance-driven discoverability.

    Key Components of Carnegie’s Answer Engine Optimization (AEO)

    Carnegie approaches AEO as a system rather than a one-time tactic. The solution is built around two connected phases that work together to create clarity and sustain visibility over time.

    Establish Clarity with the AEO Audit

    The AEO Audit provides a clear, data-driven view of how your institution appears in AI-generated answers across priority topics, audiences, and competitors. 

    Over a 30-day period, Carnegie evaluates AI visibility, sentiment, and competitive positioning to answer key questions such as:

    • How often your institution appears in AI-generated responses
    • What AI engines say about your brand, programs, and outcomes
    • How your visibility compares to peers and aspirational competitors
    • Where narrative, content, and structural gaps limit discoverability
    • What actions will most effectively strengthen AI search presence

    Build and Sustain Visibility Through AEO Activation

    AEO Activation moves institutions from understanding to execution.

    Carnegie partners with internal teams to continuously improve how institutions are interpreted and surfaced across AI-driven search experiences. Activation includes:

    • Ongoing optimization of content, structure, and AI-facing signals
    • Refinement of institutional narratives to improve accuracy, trust, and clarity
    • Recommendations for technical enhancements that support AI interpretation and discovery
    • Content development to drive AI visibility
    • Continuous monitoring to adapt to platform changes and student behavior

    Together, these two phases ensure AEO is not a one-time assessment, but a sustained strategy, helping institutions remain visible, accurately represented, and competitive as AI-powered discovery continues to evolve.

    The AEO Audit: Your First Step to AI Search Visibility

    Most institutions begin AEO with one critical question: How do we currently show up?

    The AEO Audit establishes a baseline for AI visibility, perception, and competitiveness so teams can move forward with confidence rather than assumptions.

    Inside the AEO Audit: What You Will Learn

    AI Visibility Score

    A measurement of how frequently your institution appears across prompts for 30 days, covering programs, brand terms, outcomes, and high-intent queries.

    Line graph titled "Visibility Score" shows a score of 54% on February 1, with a downward then upward trend.

    Competitive Analysis & Share of Voice

    Insight into how your institution stacks up to peers and competitors in AI-generated answers.

    Table showing share of voice: six universities ranked, with percentages from 43% to 1%.

    Brand Sentiment Insights

    A view of how AI platforms describe your institution—positive, negative, or neutral—and how those narratives influence perception.

    Sentiment analysis chart: 90.77% positive, 6.45% neutral, 2.78% negative.

    Technical + Structural Evaluation

    A review of your website’s structure and content signals to identify barriers that may be preventing AI engines from surfacing your information accurately.

    AI tools in education, tech audit, ChatGPT, Gemini, higher education innovation, digital learning tools.
    Graph showing ChatGPT outperforming Gemini in technical audit for higher education.

    Strategic Roadmap

    A prioritized plan outlining the most impactful improvements, from content enhancements to technical recommendations and program-level opportunities.

    A content roadmap diagram showing "Article" and "PR" leading to a highlighted red "Blog" box.

    Ready to See How You Show Up in AI Search?

    AI-powered discovery is already shaping how students explore, compare, and choose colleges.

    The AEO Audit is the fastest way to understand how your institution is represented today and where opportunities exist to strengthen visibility, accuracy, and trust.

    If you are responsible for your institution’s enrollment growth, brand differentiation, or long-term strategy, this is the place to start.

    See how you show up in AI search.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is Answer Engine Optimization (AEO)?

    Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) is the practice of optimizing institutional content so AI platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews accurately interpret, summarize, and surface it in response to user questions.

    Why is AEO important for higher education institutions in 2026?

    AI search engines now shape how prospective students discover colleges, making AEO essential for institutions to maintain visibility and influence student decision-making in AI-generated results.

    Who benefits most from Carnegie’s AEO solution?

    Enrollment leaders, marketing leaders, presidents, and finance leaders benefit from AEO by gaining clarity into AI visibility, competitive positioning, and early-stage student perception.

    What makes Carnegie’s AEO approach different?

    Carnegie approaches AEO by pairing industry-leading AI visibility technology with deep higher education expertise. We combine large-scale AI monitoring and analysis with decades of leadership in search, SEO, and performance-driven discoverability—so institutions gain not just insight into how AI engines represent them, but expert guidance on how to improve accuracy, trust, and visibility over time.

    What is Answer Engine Optimization and how does it differ from traditional SEO?

    Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) optimizes content for direct citation by AI-powered platforms like ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews, focusing on structured, authoritative responses rather than search rankings alone.

    How do AEO strategies complement existing SEO and content marketing efforts?

    AEO extends traditional SEO by optimizing for AI-friendly structured formats, expanding institutional reach across both conventional search engines and emerging AI answer platforms simultaneously.

    Source link

  • The Future of Online Learning Is AI-Powered

    The Future of Online Learning Is AI-Powered

    AI-powered online learning is reshaping how higher education supports students, scales care, and prepares learners for an evolving workforce. This article explores how AI can help institutions close support gaps, improve outcomes, and lead intentionally in the future of online education—grounded in insights from Carnegie’s Online Learner & Leader Study.

    Online Learning Is Now Central to Institutional Strategy

    Higher education has always evolved in response to new tools, new learners, and new expectations. What makes this moment different is not just the pace of change, but the opportunity it presents.

    Online learning now sits at the center of institutional strategy. It is where access, innovation, workforce relevance, and financial sustainability intersect. And increasingly, it is where presidents and academic leaders have the greatest leverage to shape the future rather than react to it.

    AI is accelerating that shift toward AI-powered online learning. 

    Not as a disruption to fear, but as a capability to design for scale, support students more intentionally, and lead with clarity in a complex moment.

    This Moment Is About More Than Technology

    There is growing recognition that online learners are not a monolith. They are career builders, caregivers, degree completers, and explorers and they’re often balancing work, family, financial pressure, and uncertainty about what the future of work will demand.

    At the same time, higher education leaders are navigating an equally complex reality. Online enrollment growth is a priority. Budgets are not keeping pace. Staffing models were not designed for always-on, asynchronous, national audiences. Support teams are stretched thin.

    The result is a widening gap between what students need and what institutions can sustainably provide.

    This is not a failure of commitment. It is a structural mismatch.

    And it is precisely where AI creates a meaningful opportunity.

    AI as the Bridge Between Need and Capacity in Online Learning

    When leaders talk about AI in higher education, the conversation often jumps to tools, policies, or risk. Those matter. But they miss the larger shift underway.

    AI as Institutional Infrastructure

    AI is not just another system to adopt. It is a new layer of infrastructure.

    AI is like water. It should not live in a single pipe or department. It should flow through the entire institution—quietly, consistently, and in service of core needs.

    Nowhere is that more evident than in online student support.

    What Online Learners Say They Need

    Findings from Carnegie’s Online Learner & Leader Study demonstrated this clearly. Learners overwhelmingly said they value flexibility and autonomy. Most prefer asynchronous formats. But that same flexibility increases demand for timely, personalized, and reliable support—often outside traditional business hours. 

    Higher ed leaders in our study acknowledge the challenge. They also acknowledge the constraint: limited staffing and limited budgets.

    Scaling Support Without Replacing Human Connection

    This is where AI in online education can change the equation.

    Thoughtfully deployed AI support does not replace human connection. It scales it.

    AI enables institutions to provide consistent, responsive assistance for high-volume needs—course navigation, program policies, technology troubleshooting—while ensuring students can escalate to a human when it matters most. It helps institutions move from reactive support to proactive guidance. From fragmented touchpoints to a more seamless experience across the student lifecycle.

    Just as importantly, it allows institutions to do so in a way that is financially sustainable. By absorbing routine, high-volume interactions, AI frees human teams to focus on moments that require judgment, empathy, and expertise—protecting both the student experience and the institutional cost structure as online enrollment scales.

    In other words, AI becomes the connective tissue between student expectations and institutional reality.

    Differentiation Will Belong to the Institutions That Embed AI—Not Bolt It On

    As online options proliferate, differentiation has become harder to claim and easier to lose. Program quality remains foundational. But quality alone no longer determines which institutions students consider.

    Students navigate a crowded, search-driven marketplace. They look for clarity. Credibility. Signals that an institution understands their lives and is equipped for what comes next.

    AI as a Signal of Readiness and Relevance

    Increasingly, how institutions use AI in online education will be one of those signals.

    Not because students want novelty. But because they expect modern, technology-forward experiences that reflect the world they already inhabit.

    Integration Across the Student Lifecycle

    The institutions that stand apart will not be those with the most pilots or the flashiest tools. They will be the ones that integrate AI intentionally across systems:

    • Across the student lifecycle, from recruitment and onboarding to advising, persistence, and completion
    • Across support functions, ensuring consistency, transparency, and availability
    • Across academic and co-curricular experiences, reinforcing relevance and readiness

    This kind of integration sends a powerful message: we are prepared for this moment—and for the future our students are walking into.

    The inverse is also true. Institutions that delay or limit AI to isolated pilots risk falling behind not because of rankings or prestige, but because the lived experience they offer no longer matches learner expectations. Inaction is not neutral—it is a strategic choice with competitive consequences.

    Student Success and Workforce Readiness Are Now Intertwined

    AI is reshaping how learners think about their futures. Many express optimism about its potential. Just as many express anxiety—about job stability, ethical use, and keeping pace with change.

    They are not just asking institutions for credentials. They are asking for preparation.

    Preparing Students to Work Alongside AI

    The responsibility for higher education is clear. Institutions must help students develop not only knowledge, but fluency. Not only skills, but judgment.

    That does not require turning every online program into a technical degree. It does require embedding AI literacy, ethical reasoning, and applied use across disciplines—so graduates understand how to work alongside AI, not compete against it.

    Online learning is uniquely positioned to lead here. Its scale, flexibility, and digital foundation make it an ideal environment to normalize responsible AI use as part of learning itself—not an optional add-on, but an expected competency.

    When AI is embedded thoughtfully, student support and workforce preparation reinforce one another. Students experience AI as a tool for organization, exploration, and problem-solving. Institutions model how complex systems can be used responsibly, transparently, and in service of human goals.

    Supporting Faculty While Preserving the Human Core

    The same is true for faculty. 

    When AI is used to reduce administrative burden, support feedback and personalization, and streamline course management, it preserves faculty time for mentorship, inquiry, and teaching—reinforcing, rather than eroding, the human core of education.

    Governance Matters—But It Cannot Be the Only Strategy

    Many institutions are appropriately focused on AI governance, ethics, and integrity. Policies are essential. Guardrails matter.

    But governance alone does not constitute leadership.

    Balancing Discipline With Momentum

    The risk is not that institutions move too quickly. It is that they move cautiously without moving strategically.

    The Online Learner & Leader Study reveals a familiar pattern: learners are already engaging with AI in their daily lives, even as institutions deliberate. They are experimenting, adapting, and forming habits—often without institutional guidance.

    This creates an opportunity for higher education to lead with purpose.

    The most effective approaches balance discipline with momentum:

    • Clear guidance on ethical and acceptable use
    • Transparency about where and how AI is deployed
    • Human-centered design that keeps people—not tools—at the center
    • A focus on outcomes, not novelty

    Central to this balance is trust. Responsible stewardship of student data, clear boundaries around use, and transparency about decision-making are not compliance exercises—they are differentiators in a landscape where trust increasingly shapes choice.

    AI readiness is not about perfection. It is about alignment.

    What This Means for Higher Ed Leadership

    For senior leaders, the question is no longer whether AI will shape online learning. It already is.

    The question is whether institutions will allow that future to emerge unevenly—or design it intentionally.

    What Leadership Looks Like in an AI-Powered Future

    The institutions that lead will:

    • Treat AI as enterprise infrastructure, not a side project
    • Use AI to close support gaps, not widen them
    • Embed AI across the student lifecycle to improve experience and outcomes
    • Prepare students for an AI-enabled workforce with confidence and clarity
    • Differentiate themselves through coherence, not complexity

    Practically, this means starting where impact is greatest—often at key lifecycle moments like onboarding, advising, and student support—while building governance and implementation in parallel. AI readiness is not an IT initiative; it is a cabinet-level responsibility.

    This is not about replacing what makes education human. It is about protecting it—by ensuring systems can scale care, guidance, and opportunity in a moment of constraint.

    Looking Ahead: The Future of Online Learning

    Online learning is no longer peripheral. It is central to institutional resilience, relevance, and reach.

    AI will not determine the future of online education on its own. Leadership will.

    The data is clear. The expectations are rising. The tools are here.

    The opportunity now is to integrate AI in higher education like water—quietly, purposefully, and everywhere it can make learning more accessible, more supportive, and more aligned with the futures students are trying to build.

    For leaders interested in grounding these decisions in research and real learner insight, the Online Learner & Leader Study offers a clear view into where expectations and realities diverge—and where alignment can unlock meaningful impact.

    Frequently Asked Questions About AI in Online Education

    How is AI being used in online education today?

    AI is increasingly used to support online learners through personalized assistance, timely support, and scalable student services. Common applications include course navigation, advising support, technology troubleshooting, and proactive outreach.

    Why is AI important for online student support?

    Online learning increases flexibility but also raises expectations for responsiveness and personalization. AI helps institutions meet these expectations at scale while allowing human teams to focus on moments requiring judgment, empathy, and expertise.

    Does AI replace human interaction in online learning?

    No. When deployed thoughtfully, AI supports and scales human connection rather than replacing it. It handles routine, high-volume needs so faculty and staff can focus on meaningful engagement.

    How does AI prepare students for the future of work?

    AI-enabled online learning helps students build fluency, ethical awareness, and applied experience with AI tools—preparing them to work alongside AI in evolving professional environments.

    What insights does Carnegie’s Online Learner & Leader Study provide?

    The study highlights gaps between learner expectations and institutional capacity, particularly around flexibility, support, and preparedness for an AI-enabled future—offering leaders data-driven guidance for aligning strategy and execution.

    Source link

  • Trump 2.0: A sea change for K-12

    Trump 2.0: A sea change for K-12

    To say the first year of the second Trump administration brought a sea change for federal education policy would be an understatement. From efforts to shutter the U.S. Department of Education to legal battles on issues including staffing cuts, immigration enforcement, and transgender students’ athletic participation, few areas of the K-12 sector have been untouched.

    To take a look back at key K-12 developments of President Donald Trump’s first year back in the White House, follow along with us below.

    U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts as Trump’s family members look on during inauguration ceremonies at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

    Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images

     

    January

    • On the first day of Trump’s second term in office — Jan. 20, 2025 — his administration rescinded Biden-era guidance discouraging immigration enforcement near schools and other “sensitive areas” like hospitals and churches. The move sparked fear among school communities that enforcement activities would happen on their campuses. That led to districts and community partners informing immigrant families of their constitutional rights and issuing guidance to school staff about protocols to take during any such enforcement actions. 
    • On Jan. 23, Trump’s U.S. Department of Education eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion efforts within the agency. The agency said at the time that it “removed or archived” hundreds of outward-facing documents — including guidance, reports and training materials — that mention DEI. That included links to resources encouraging educators to incorporate DEI in their classrooms. 
    • Quick to make an imprint on K-12 policy, the Trump administration on Jan. 24 rescinded Biden-era guidance that said implementing book bans could put school districts in violation of civil rights law. 
    • Trump on Jan. 29 signed an executive order encouraging the expansion of school choice in states. The order directed the department to develop plans for using its discretionary grant programs “to expand education freedom for America’s families and teachers.”
    • Another executive order signed the same day prohibited the use of federal funding for “illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.”
    A person sits at a table with a microphone in a room with wood paneling. A row of people are seated behind the person.

    Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be Secretary of Education, testifies during her Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee confirmation hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

    Win McNamee via Getty Images

     

    February

    • Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 4 saying the federal government would rescind all funds from educational programs that allowed transgender girls and women to participate on sports teams that align with their gender identity. LGBTQ+ advocates condemned the action as discriminatory.
    • The anti-DEI stance led the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency to cancel about $881 million in multiyear research contracts at the Education Department on Feb. 10. This brought concerns from education researchers about future impact, including data that would be missing to measure chronic absenteeism, student achievement, teacher shortages and other metrics.
    • Anti-DEI efforts continued as the Education Department on Feb. 27 announced the launch of an “end DEI” portal for people to report “illegal discriminatory practices.” While the website is no longer live, a lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Teachers and other plaintiffs challenged the agency’s prohibition on considering race in education programs. That case is still pending.
    A person is walking outside teh Education Department in Washington, D.C. They are holding a box with belongings.

    A U.S. Department of Education employee leaves the agency’s headquarters with their belongings on March 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. On March 11, the agency announced a massive reduction-in-force that shrunk the department workforce.

    Win McNamee via Getty Images

     

    March

    • Linda McMahon, a former administrator of the Small Business Administration and former president and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, was confirmed by the Senate in a 51-45 vote along party lines as secretary of the Education Department on March 3.
    • One of the biggest developments this month in the Trump administration’s efforts to shrink the federal education footprint came on March 11 with a massive reduction-in-force order at the Education Department The Education Department’s workforce dropped from 4,133 when Trump was inaugurated to around 2,183 due to those layoffs and previously accepted buyouts. 
    • McMahon and others joined Trump at the White House on March 20 for an executive order signing ceremony, directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”
    U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi is pictured speaking into a podium next to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon

    U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi announced a civil lawsuit against Maine Department of Education on April 16, 2025, and said that schools that comply with the administration’s civil rights statute interpretations will be spared.

    Retrieved from U.S. Department of Justice.

     

    April

    • The Trump administration on April 4 announced a major change in Title IX enforcement at schools and colleges: It would tap the U.S. Department of Justice for a Title IX Special Investigations Team. The move marked a shift of some education civil rights investigation and enforcement responsibilities to the Justice Department, which would henceforth help investigate policies allowing transgender students to participate on girls’ and women’s athletic teams and to use facilities aligned with their gender identity. 
    • On April 4, mass layoffs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services led to the shuttering of five Office of Head Start regional offices in Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. The retrenchment raised alarms among early childhood education advocates, who cautioned that the cuts could lead to service delays and weaken the program. Adding to those concerns, Head Start was zeroed out in a leaked draft fiscal 2026 budget plan for HHS.
    • Anxieties continued to increase over the administration’s uptick in Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity. Two Los Angeles Unified School District elementary schools reported that federal agents had attempted to gain entry on April 7 by claiming they had families’ permission to speak to students.
    • The administration moved to cut off Maine’s federal K-12 funds, backed by a DOJ civil lawsuit announced April 16 over the state’s transgender student athlete policy. The move came amid other changes to how the Education Department conducts Office for Civil Rights investigations, which included rapid and targeted investigations. 
    • The Education Department on April 30 cancelled $1 billion in grants initially awarded to districts across the U.S. to support student mental health. The funds — which aimed to help bring more mental health professionals into schools — were discontinued due to “conflict” with Trump administration priorities, according to the agency.
    A person is sitting at a desk in a room. They are looking and pointing to their left.

    U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

    Andrew Harnik via Getty Images

     

    May

    • The Trump administration kicked off May by unveiling its federal skinny budget proposal for FY 2026 on May 2. Reflecting the administration’s anti-DEI priorities, proposed cuts included all $70 million for Teacher Quality Partnerships grant that were often used for workforce diversity efforts, all $7 million for Equity Assistance Centers that were established as part of desegregation efforts, all $890 million for English Language Acquisition, and a $49 million cut for OCR. Head Start, however, was spared from the chopping block, as was funding for Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The budget plan also included a $60 million increase for charter schools.
    • On May 22, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction in State of New York v. McMahon that ordered the department be “restored to the status quo” prior to the day President Donald Trump retook office. The agency’s actions since its mass layoffs, Joun said, showed no evidence that the workforce reductions had improved efficiency or that the agency was making progress in working with Congress to close the department. “A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,” Joun wrote. “This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.”
    • The administration also faced legal setbacks on various other fronts in May. A court-approved settlement between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Maine, issued May 2, prohibited the federal government from freezing school meal funds for the state. The funds were frozen in relation to the state’s Title IX dispute with the Trump administration. Judges also ordered the administration to restore temporary extensions of federal COVID-19 emergency funds on May 6 and to temporarily reinstate the Southern Education Foundation’s Equity Assistance Center on May 30.
    • On May 30, the Trump administration released further details on its proposed FY 2026 budget for the Education Department. The more comprehensive budget requested $66.7 billion for the agency, amounting to a $12 billion, or 15.3%, cut from FY 2024 funding levels. The administration’s K-12 Simplified Funding Plan called for merging 18 current competitive formula funding grant programs into one $2 billion formula grant program. The administration said the move would lead to innovation and return power to the states.
    Two people are standing in a room and shaking hands. Other people are seated in rows of seats behind them.

    U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon greets Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., before a hearing of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee about the Education Department’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal on June 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

    Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images

     

    June

    • The administration’s Title IX crackdown over transgender student athlete policies continued as the Justice Department on June 2 warned California districts of “legal liability” for complying with state policies on the issue. The letter to public school districts in the state came after a transgender athlete won gold in a state high school track and field competition. California responded by suing the Justice Department. The Education Department later announced an OCR investigation had found the state in violation of Title IX and threatened further DOJ action.
    • McMahon defended the administration’s education budget proposal at a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing on June 3, during which she said the administration had set a “responsible” goal for the Education Department’s closure and that improving literacy was her No. 1 priority.
    • The Education Department’s court battles over the March reduction-in-force continued as states suing the agency over the layoffs claimed the move had impacted legally required functions such as research and grant distribution. In documents submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, the Education Department said states had “no statutory right to any particular level of government data or guidance.”
    The facade of a large white building framed by trees is seen. People are gathered in front of the building.

    The U.S. Supreme Court is pictured on July 1, 2024, in Washington, D.C. On July 14, 2025, the high court allowed the Education Department to temporarily proceed with layoffs that began in March while lower courts determined their legality. 

    Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images

     

    July

    • Nearly half of states sued the Trump administration over $6.2 billion in frozen federal K-12 grant funds in mid-July, which were supposed to be distributed to states and localities by the beginning of the month. Due to the funding freeze, school districts faced “budgetary chaos“ related to after-school programming, services for English learners, and professional development. The frozen funds put education programs at risk, including those related to migrant education, English learner services, professional development, academic enrichment, and before and after-school services. As a result of the states’ lawsuit, the administration began to release the money less than a month after the government’s missed distribution deadline.
    • The Trump administration on July 10 restricted education-related programs for some immigrants based on their immigration status, saying “no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens.” The restrictions affected Head Start, tuition for dual enrollment, adult education, and career and technical education training programs. States sued the administration over the restrictions on July 21 and succeeded in winning temporary relief as the administration entered a court agreement four days later to pause them while the lawsuit is pending.
    • The Supreme Court on July 14 gave the Education Department the green light to push forward with layoffs that began in March, allowing them temporarily while the question of their legality is argued in the lower courts.
    Demonstrators carry signs in a protest over immigration enforcement activities in Los Angeles.

    The granddaughter (center) of Emma De Paz, a street vendor detained during ICE activites, carries a sign during a protest on July 1, 2025, in Los Angeles, Calif. Heavy ICE presence in Los Angeles — including on school grounds — sparked outcry over the course of the summer.

    Mario Tama via Getty Images

     

    August

    • August began with outcry from education policy and legal experts over sweeping anti-DEI guidance released by the Department of Justice on July 30, which affected school district hiring and training practices, as well as programming available to students. Under the guidance, districts could be exposed to legal liability by asking job applicants how their “cultural background informs their teaching,” using recruitment strategies targeting candidates from specific geographic areas or racial backgrounds, training employees on “toxic masculinity,” and asking job candidates to describe how they overcame obstacles — which the department said could amount to “illegal discrimination.”
    • As schools open their doors for the 2025-26 school year, reports of ICE enforcement around or on school grounds ramped up, impacting parents during school pickup and drop-offs. Students were also affected by ICE activity, which included a 15-year-old with disabilities being handcuffed as he was registering for classes in Los Angeles. 
    • The Education Department quietly rescinded Obama-era guidance that called on states and districts to ensure English learners “can participate meaningfully and equally” in school and “have equal access to a high-quality education and the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential.”
    • State universal school meal programs faced financial turmoil as President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget” law, which was enacted on July 4, cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid — a move that could have severe ripple effects for the same programs.
    Three people are standing outside. One person has a cane.

    Lanya Elsa (middle) says support through IDEA Part D grants were pivotal for her sons, Conner McKittrick (left) and Dalton McKittrick, who are deafblind. Deafblind programs funded by the grant were left scrambling after abrupt cancellations by the Trump administration which said they were “not in the best interest of the Federal Government.”

    Permission granted by Erika Dubois Photography

     

    September

    • Families, educators and advocates of children and youth who are both blind and deaf scrambled to reclaim abruptly canceled federal funding after the Education Department sent a notice of noncontinuation for four deafblind projects in Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin and a consortium of New England states. Combined, the four projects’ grants were estimated at $1 million affecting about 1,365 children.
    • U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi warned in a Sept. 8 memo to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division that schools must provide parents with the ability to opt their children out of instruction related to gender and sexuality, or risk being targeted by the department. It directed the division to be vigilant of parental rights’ violations at schools and for U.S. district attorneys nationwide to weed out and respond to “credible threats against parents.” 
    • The Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission on Sept. 9 released the “Make Our Children Healthy Again” strategy report, which focused partly on school nutrition policies and pointed toward a need to serve healthier meals to schoolchildren. The report called for barring or limiting artificial dyes in food products and improving access to whole, healthy foods in school meals.
    A large group of House representatives stand on the steps of the U.S. Capitol behind a podium that says "Save Healthcare."

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-NY, speaks at a news conference on Oct. 15, 2025, about the federal government shutdown, flanked by members of the House Democratic Caucus, outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

    Alex Wong via Getty Images

     

    October

    • Oct. 1 marked the first day of a prolonged federal government shutdown after Congress could not come to agreement on sticking points on the 2026 fiscal year budget. The Office of Management and Budget issued a memo a week before the shutdown threatening mass firings of federal employees should the shutdown come to fruition.
    • The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a blow to Virginia’s Fairfax County Public Schools in its Title IX legal battle with the Trump administration on Oct. 1, when the court denied the district’s request to temporarily block funding restrictions issued by the Education Department. The Trump administration put Fairfax schools’ federal funding on “reimbursement only” status after the agency said the district violated Title IX by allowing transgender students to use bathrooms aligning with their gender identity.
    • On Oct. 10, some 466 Education Department employees — including most staff at the Office of Special Education Programs — received RIF notices as part of the wider shutdown-related effort to lay off federal employees. The layoffs particularly caused concern among special education advocates over the potential effects on funding and implementation of programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
    • An Oct. 28 preliminary injunction paused RIF notices issued during the shutdown.
    President Donald Trump sits in the center of a group of people standing up and clapping around him as he holds up a folder with signed legislation.

    President Donald Trump holds up federal legislation he signed on Nov. 12, 2025, to reopen the federal government during a ceremony with Republican lawmakers and business leaders in the Oval Office in Washington, D.C.

    Win McNamee via Getty Images

     

    November

    • The federal government shutdown ended on Nov. 12 when Trump signed a continuing resolution to reopen the federal government and fund the Education Department through Jan. 30. The continuing resolution required back pay for employees furloughed during the shutdown and rescission of the RIFs issued on Oct. 10. The agency was also prohibited from issuing further RIFs through Jan. 30. 
    • Moving one step closer toward dismantling the Education Department, the Trump administration announced on Nov. 18 that it would transfer the agency’s management of six programs to other federal agencies. Special education, civil rights enforcement and financial aid were not impacted by the announcement. Affected programs, however, included the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Indian education programs, international education and foreign language studies, and the Office of Postsecondary Education’s institution-based grants.
    • A coalition of school districts, employee unions and a disability rights organization amended a lawsuit on Nov. 25 seeking to halt the outsourcing of Education Department programs through the interagency agreements announced on Nov. 18. The lawsuit said that moving the department’s core programming to other agencies is illegal and would be harmful to K-12 and higher education students, families and educators.
    A blue flag that says "Department of Justice" waves in front of the agency's building.

    The exterior of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building on Dec. 19, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The Justice Department continued to take a greater role in Education Department matters in December by, for example, suing Minneapolis Public Schools.

    Andrew Harnik via Getty Images

     

     

    December

    • The Department of Justice continued to take a greater role in enforcing the Trump administration’s K-12 priorities as the agency announced on Dec. 8 it would join a lawsuit against Virginia’s Loudoun County School Board involving two Christian high school boys who were suspended after complaining about a transgender student in their locker room.
    • That same week, the Justice Department sued Minneapolis Public Schools on Dec. 9 over a teacher union agreement that the agency alleged was racially discriminatory because it included diversity-oriented goals for recruiting and retaining Black men.
    • A federal judge on Dec. 19 ordered the Education Department to permanently reinstate cancelled mental health grants in 16 states. The order said the April cancellation of the school-based and professional development funding was unlawful and had caused “significant disruption” to the 16 plaintiff states. Court documents said the canceled grants totaled $1 billion nationwide. The Trump administration had issued $208 million in new mental health grants under revised priorities the week before the Dec. 19 order.

    Source link

  • Where will growth come from in the UK’s international education strategy?

    Where will growth come from in the UK’s international education strategy?

    The long-awaited strategy, released today (January 20), outlines the UK government’s target to reach an annual education export target of £40bn by the end of the decade – up from £32.3bn in 2022. 

    Notably, it removes international student recruitment targets, signalling a break from the 2019 strategy, which targeted the 30% growth of international levels by 2030. 

    “Success will mean hitting the target while operating sustainable levels of international student recruitment,” the document states, doubling down on the government’s overall aim of reducing net migration, as laid out in last year’s immigration white paper. 

    In an exclusive interview with The PIE News, Sir Steve said a focus on transnational education (TNE) was the “biggest change” in the sector in recent years, welcoming the “commitment across government for that pivot to TNE” and the importance of other areas including skills, early years, schools, edtech and special educational needs.

    “The first strategy was a child of that world. Now, it’s much more about moving towards bringing the strength of the UK’s education system across the board to the international market,” said Sir Steve.

    The strategy states the £40bn aim will be achieved across the “full breadth of the sector”, including TNE, English language training (ELT), and edtech, while broadly referencing existing trade missions, soft power networks and boosting financial support mechanisms.  

    It highlights the success of existing TNE initiatives, with exports across all sectors reaching £3bn in 2022. But it doesn’t set out the financials of how much TNE will contribute to the overall growth plan.  

    It recognises the “strong potential” of further overseas expansion and hails the “significant achievement” of Southampton University establishing the UK’s first India campus last year – though the financial impact of the expansion is yet to be realised.  

    The UK’s international education champion Sir Steve is spearheading many of the IES’ objectives, with the government prioritising partnerships in India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, and recognising the “strategic importance” of China and Hong Kong.

    Sir Steve said the cost of travelling to study abroad in the UK was only accessible to a small percentage of students, and that the demand for TNE was coming from international governments.

    “What these governments want is UK quality, but at a price point that is more inclusive for their society, and what we do is work with the government of each of the countries where TNE is growing to make sure that fulfils the needs,” he told The PIE.

    Now, it’s much more about moving towards bringing the strength of the UK’s education system across the board to the international market

    Sir Steve Smith, UK international education champion

    Beyond higher education and TNE, the strategy spotlights the “dynamic” ELT sector, which generated £560m in 2022. It praises the quality of the UK’s English language teaching, assessment and teacher training, though doesn’t explicitly state how growth will be boosted. 

    Meanwhile, edtech and other educational services added £3.89bn to the UK economy in 2022, the strategy states, identifying online learning as another opportunity for growth.  

    While making clear that growth will not come from increased international recruitment targets, the strategy sets out measures to promote the UK as a study and research destination, including through the Study UK campaign partly funded by the British Council. 

    It makes much of leveraging the British Council’s existing diplomatic network “to build bridges across cultures and sectors, deepen global ties, and support strategic collaboration”, vowing to expand such partnerships across global trade, study abroad and skills.  

    The strategy highlights the value of previously announced policies, including the launch of the British Council’s new TNE strategy last year, the UK’s rejoining of Erasmus+, and existing scholarships including the renowned Chevening program. 

    “The UK is taking a new diplomacy-led approach,” states the strategy, which is co-owned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Department for Education and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). 

    As such, soft power is central to the strategy’s growth objectives, which looks ahead to the upcoming of the Soft Power Strategy that it says will support the IES, though it gives no details of the publication timeline.  

    Source link

  • Reclaiming the academic community: why universities need more than metrics

    Reclaiming the academic community: why universities need more than metrics

    by Sigurður Kristinsson

    For decades, talk of “the academic community” has flowed easily through mission statements, strategy documents, and speeches from university leadership. Yet few stop to consider what this community is or why it matters. As universities increasingly orient themselves toward markets, rankings, and performance metrics, the gap between the ideal of academic community and the lived reality of academic work has widened. But this drift is not merely unfortunate; it threatens the very values that justify the existence of universities in the first place.

    This blog explores why academic community is essential to higher education, how contemporary systems undermine it, and what a renewed vision of academic life might require.

    The word “community” can be used in two different senses. One is descriptive: communities are simply networks of people connected by place, shared interests or regular interaction. From this sociological standpoint, academic communities consist of overlapping groups (faculty, students, administrators, service professionals) brought together by institutional roles, disciplinary identities, or digital networks, perhaps experiencing a sense of belonging, solidarity, and shared purpose.

    But in debates about the purpose and future of universities, “community” is often used in a normative sense: an ideal of how academics ought to relate to one another. In Humboldtian (1810) spirit, contemporary advocates like Fitzpatrick (2021, 2024) and Bennett (1998, 2003) envision academic community as a moral and intellectual culture grounded in shared purpose, generosity, intellectual hospitality, mutual respect, and the collective pursuit of knowledge. From this philosophical perspective, community is not just a cluster of networks to be analyzed empirically but a normative vision of how scholarly life becomes meaningful. This aspirational view stands in stark contrast to the conditions shaping many universities today.

    For several decades, developments in universities around the world have been hostile to academic community. While the precise mechanisms vary, academics report strikingly similar pressures: managerial oversight, performance auditing, intensifying competition, and the steady erosion of collegial structures and shared governance. Five threats to academic community are particularly worrisome:

    Organisational (not occupational) professionalism

    In her analysis of how managerial logic has co-opted the language of professionalism to justify top-down control in public institutions, Julia Evetts (2003, 2009, 2011) introduced a distinction between occupational and organisational professionalism. Occupational professionalism in academia implies membership in a self-governing community of experts committed to serving society through knowledge. Today, however, universities increasingly define professionalism in organisational terms: compliance with targets, performance indicators, and standardised procedures. The result is a hybrid system: academics retain some autonomy, but it is overshadowed by bureaucratic accountability structures that fragment communal relationships and discourage collective responsibility (Siekkinen et al, 2020).

    Managerialism

    Managerialism prizes measurable production outputs, standardized procedures, and vertical decision-making. As Metz (2017) argues, these mechanisms degrade communal relationships among academics as well as between them and managers, students, and wider society: decisions are imposed without consultation; bonus systems reward narrow indicators rather than communal priorities; and bureaucratic layers reduce opportunities for collegial dialogue. Managerialism replaces trust with surveillance and collegial judgment with quantification.

    Individualism

    The rise of competition – over publications, grants, rankings, and prestige – has amplified what Bennett (2003) called “insistent individualism.” Colleagues become rivals or useful instruments. Achievements become personal currency. In such settings, it is easy to see oneself not as part of a community pursuing shared goods but as an isolated producer of measurable outputs. This ethos erodes the solidarity and relationality necessary for any robust academic culture.

    Retreat from academic citizenship

    Academic citizenship refers to the contributions – committee work, mentoring, governance, public engagement – that sustain universities beyond research and teaching. Yet because these activities are difficult to measure and often unrewarded, they are increasingly neglected (Macfarlane, 2005; Feldt et al, 2024). This neglect fragments institutions and weakens the norms of shared responsibility that should hold academic life together.

    Troubled collegiality

    Collegiality includes participatory and collective decision-making, a presumption of shared values, absence of hierarchy, supportiveness, a shared commitment to a common good, trust beyond a typical workplace, and professional autonomy. It has long been central to academic identity but has become contested. Some experience collegial labor as invisible and unevenly distributed; others see managerial attempts to measure collegiality as just another way of disciplining staff. Efforts to quantify collegiality may correct some injustices but also risk instrumentalizing it, turning a relational ideal into a bureaucratic category (Craig et al, 2025; Fleming and Harley, 2024; Gavin et al, 2023).

    Across all these pressures, a common thread emerges: the forces shaping contemporary academia weaken the relationships required for intellectual work to flourish.

    If community is eroding, why should we care? The answer lies in the link between community and the values that higher education claims to serve. A helpful framework comes from value theory, which distinguishes between instrumental, constitutive, and intrinsic goods.

    Community as instrumentally valuable

    Academic community helps produce the outcomes universities care about: research breakthroughs, learning, intellectual development, and democratic engagement. Collaboration makes research stronger. Peer support helps people grow. Shared norms encourage integrity, rigor, and creativity. Without community, academic values become harder to realize.

    Community as constitutive of academic values

    In many cases, community is not merely a helpful means but a necessary constituent. Scientific knowledge, as philosophers of science like Merton (1979) and Longino (1990) have long emphasized, is inherently social: it requires communal critique, peer review, and collective norms to distinguish knowledge from error. Learning, too, is fundamentally relational, as Vygotsky (1978) and Dewey (1916) argued. You cannot have science or education without community.

    Community as intrinsically valuable

    Beyond producing useful outcomes, community enriches human life. Belonging, shared purpose, and intellectual companionship are deeply fulfilling. Academic community offers a sense of identity, meaning, and solidarity that transcends individual achievement (Metz, 2017). In this sense, community contributes directly to human flourishing.

    Several examples show how academic values depend on community in practice:

    Debates about educational values

    The pursuit of academic values requires reflection on their meaning. Interpretive arguments about values like autonomy, virtue, or justice in education contribute to conversations that presuppose the collective norms of academic community (Nussbaum, 2010; Ebels-Duggan, 2015). These debates require shared standards of reasoning, openness to critique, and a shared commitment to better understanding.

    Scientific knowledge and academic freedom

    No individual can produce knowledge alone. Scientific communities ensure that discoveries are evaluated, replicated, and integrated into a larger body of understanding. Likewise, academic freedom is not a personal privilege but a communal norm that protects open inquiry (Calhoun, 2009; Frímannsson et al, 2022). It depends on solidarity among scholars.

    Teaching as communal practice

    Education flourishes in relational settings. Classrooms become communities in which teachers and students jointly pursue understanding. Weithman (2015) describes this as “academic friendship” – a form of companionship that expands imagination, fosters intellectual virtues, and shapes future citizens.

    Across these cases, community is not optional; it is essential to academic values.

    Given its importance, how might universities cultivate stronger academic communities?

    Structural reform

    Universities should try to resist the dominance of market logic. Sector-wide policy changes could help rebalance priorities. Hiring, promotion, and reward systems should value teaching, service, mentorship, and public engagement rather than focusing exclusively on quantifiable research metrics. Without structural support, cultural change will be difficult.

    Cultural renewal

    A healthier academic culture requires a different mindset—one that foregrounds generosity, relationality, and shared purpose. In Generous Thinking, Fitzpatrick (2021) argues that building real community requires humility, conversation, listening, and collaboration. Community cannot be mandated; it must be practised.

    This requires academics to challenge competitive individualism, share work equitably, strengthen trust and dialogue, and reimagine collegiality as a lived practice rather than a managerial tool. Most importantly, it requires us to recognize ourselves as fundamentally relational beings whose professional purpose is intertwined with others.

    A moral case for academic community

    Academic community is not only epistemically valuable; it is morally significant. Relational moral theories argue that human flourishing depends on identity and solidarity. We become the moral human beings we are through our communal relationships (Metz, 2021).

    Applying this to academia reveals that collegiality is grounded in shared identity and shared ends. Since the moral obligations created by academic relationships remain professional, collegial community does not require intrusive intimacy. Far from suppressing dissent or professional autonomy, solidarity requires defending academic freedom and academic values generally.

    A relational understanding of morality thus implies that the ideal of academic community promises not only a more fulfilling and coherent sense of occupational purpose, but also a way of relating to others that is more satisfying morally than the current environment individualistic competition.

    Universities today face an existential challenge. In the rush to satisfy markets, rankings, and managerial demands, they risk undermining the very relationships that make academic life meaningful. Academic community is not a nostalgic ideal; it is the cornerstone of learning, knowledge, virtue, and human flourishing.

    If higher education is to reclaim a sense of purpose, it must begin by cultivating the social and moral conditions in which genuine community can grow. This requires structural reforms, cultural renewal, and a shared commitment to relational values. Without such efforts, universities will continue drifting toward fragmentation, losing sight of the goods they exist to protect.

    Rebuilding academic community is not merely desirable. It is necessary – for the integrity of scholarship, for the flourishing of those who work within universities, and for the public good that higher education is meant to serve.

    Sigurður Kristinsson is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Akureyri, Iceland. His research applies moral and political philosophy in various contexts of professional practice, increasingly intersecting with the philosophy of higher education with emphasis on the social and democratic role of universities.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Trump 2.0’s impact on higher ed: The first year in 8 numbers

    Trump 2.0’s impact on higher ed: The first year in 8 numbers

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

    Monday marked the end of the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, and higher education is still reeling from months of nonstop federal whiplash and policy changes.

    The Trump administration has used wide-ranging and unprecedented tactics to gain influence over the academic sector and advance its policy goals. In turn, some college leaders have been forced to decide between defending their institution’s independence and policies or yielding to the federal government’s demands due to financial pressure.

    Below, we’re breaking down some of the biggest impacts of the second Trump administration’s first year, number by number.

    150+

    The number of investigations the Trump administration either opened into colleges or cited while warning of a potential loss of federal funding.

    In March, the U.S. Department of Education put 60 colleges on notice over ongoing Title VI probes into allegations that they weren’t doing enough to protect Jewish students from discrimination or harassment. Title VI bans federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.

    U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon warned the colleges, many of whose investigations predated Trump’s second term, that federal funding “is a privilege” that is “contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”

    Less than a week later, the Education Department opened 51 additional investigations into colleges over allegations they had programs or scholarships with race-based restrictions for participation or eligibility. The agency again cited potential Title VI violations, along with a February guidance letter aimed at snuffing out diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. That guidance was ultimately struck down in August by federal courts.

    Several well-known colleges were named in both sets of investigations, including Yale, Cornell, Tulane and Arizona State universities.

    Since last March, the Trump administration has opened additional college investigations over institutional policies that run antithetical to the president’s higher education agenda, such as allowing transgender students to play on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. 

    6

    The number of colleges that have publicly brokered deals with the Trump administration to settle allegations of civil rights violations.

    Most of the institutions — Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Northwestern University, and the University of Pennsylvania — each faced hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen or canceled federal funding. By settling with the Trump administration, university leaders sought to restore their funding and remove political targets from their institutions.

    The remaining institution, the University of Virginia, still had its funding intact but faced five federal investigations that could have threatened access to such funds. The U.S. Department of Justice paused those probes with the promise of closing them if the university “completes its planned reforms prohibiting DEI” through 2028.

    But many higher education experts have decried such agreements as violating academic freedom and emboldening the Trump administration’s assault on the sector.

    In one deal, Columbia University agreed to pay the federal government $221 million — the most of any college so far — and implement sweeping policy changes. Those included reporting extensive admissions data to the Trump administration, socializing “all students to campus norms and values” via training, and allowing an independent monitor to oversee the university’s compliance with the agreement. 

    The settlement will also put up walls between Columbia and international students by requiring the university to reduce its financial dependence on their tuition dollars and making applicants declare why they wish to study in the U.S.

    Source link

  • MSI Cuts Create Barriers for Indigenous Learners (opinion)

    MSI Cuts Create Barriers for Indigenous Learners (opinion)

    As we start the new year, my leadership team, like many others across the country, is confronting the financial fallout from the Department of Education’s decision to end grant programs for certain minority-serving institutions, including ours. The department has framed its September shift of funds away from MSIs and toward historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) as an expansion of opportunity. Yet as an Indigenous education scholar and a college president, I see it creating new barriers for Indigenous learners. This decision is complex and requires deeper analysis to understand its lasting impacts.

    Federal support for Native education is a part of the federal trust responsibility, codified by at least 150 treaties, as well as various statutes and court decisions. Those treaties provide explicit provisions for various services, including education, that were guaranteed to Tribal Nations and their citizens by the United States government in exchange for land. This trust responsibility follows both Tribal Nations and individual tribal citizens. Ultimately, the federal trust responsibility is both a legal and moral obligation.

    In 2008, ​​Congress created Native American–serving nontribal institutions (NASNTIs), a new category of MSI, to ensure federal grant support for institutions educating Native students outside of tribal colleges and universities. Only about 12 percent of Native students attend TCUs. Stripping more than $54 million away from the other institutions that serve large numbers of Native students effectively undermines the federal government’s trust responsibility. Furthermore, this funding, which went not to just NASNTIs, but also but to Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–serving institutions (AANAPISIs) and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian–serving institutions (ANNHs)—typically supported programs open to all students at these institutions who qualified, not just Native learners.

    This loss is not abstract. At Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo., where I am president, 37 percent of our students are Native American, representing more than 128 Tribal Nations and Alaska Native villages. We are the only NASNTI in the state. Recent federal cuts will mean a $2.27 million loss in critical grant support—dollars that have historically funded things like our peer educator tutoring, peer mentoring and summer bridge programs, all essential academic supports aimed at increasing student retention and graduation.

    In my role, I meet students every week who tell me that the support they received through these programs gave them the academic confidence to formally enroll or stay in school and a community to belong to on campus. For many students, these programs are the difference between continuing on the track toward graduation or leaving higher education altogether. Cutting this funding pulls away the very safety nets that level the playing field.

    Funding the institutions that support these students is also critical for boosting graduation rates, preparing a strong workforce and overall Tribal Nation building. Higher education access and success is a long-standing issue for Native communities, where only 42 percent of Native students graduate within six years, compared to 64 percent nationally, and only 17 percent of Native adults hold a bachelor’s degree. At a time when many communities are facing shortages of teachers, health-care providers and public servants, undermining critical pathways to higher education hurts our economy. Investing in these institutions is not only moral but profoundly practical.

    Finally, the decision to reallocate funding away from NASNTIs is especially damaging because it frames Native-serving institutions as competitors with TCUs, instead of partners in the shared mission of educating historically underserved students. There is no question that TCUs and HBCUs have both been woefully underfunded for decades. These institutions serve critical historical and present-day roles, providing access to higher education and meeting community and tribal needs. They deserve robust, sustained federal investment. TCUs, in particular, play an essential role in rural areas and tribal communities. That said, needed investments in these institutions should not come at the expense of the NASNTIs and other MSIs that educate vast numbers of Native students.

    By shifting this money, the Department of Education forces communities that are deeply aligned in our commitment to serving Native students and communities to fight for scarce resources, all while the department fails to meet its federal trust responsibility. NASNTIs and TCUs do not succeed at the expense of one another; we succeed together when federal policy recognizes the full breadth of our contributions.

    The Department of Education has an opportunity to reaffirm, not retreat from, its responsibility to Native students. That means sustaining investment in TCUs and HBCUs and restoring support for the NASNTIs that educate large numbers of Indigenous learners. When we fund the full ecosystem of Native-serving colleges and universities, we strengthen Native communities and the nation as a whole. True recognition of Native heritage lies in a commitment that honors the promises made and ensures that every Native student has the educational resources to thrive.

    Heather J. Shotton is president of Fort Lewis College.

    Source link