Category: Featured

  • Texas A&M Faculty Finds Dismissed Prof’s Academic Freedom Violated

    Texas A&M Faculty Finds Dismissed Prof’s Academic Freedom Violated

    A Texas A&M University faculty council determined in late September that Melissa McCoul, an instructor fired for teaching about gender identity in a children’s literature class, had her academic freedom violated and that former president Mark Welsh flouted proper termination processes when he fired her, The Texas Tribune reported Monday.

    McCoul was dismissed in September after a video went viral, showing a student confronting her in class and claiming the professor’s gender identity lesson was illegal. McCoul is actively appealing her termination. The documented justification for her dismissal was that McCoul’s course content and material did not match the description in the course catalog, but the faculty council said this was false. 

    “The content of the course was the reason for the dismissal and not the stated reason: failure of academic responsibility,” the council wrote in its report. “Given the timeline of dismissal, the political pressure brought to bear, and statements by Regents that the course content was illegal, President Welsh’s assertion that the firing was for failure of academic responsibility appears pretextual.”

    In an Oct. 2 memo obtained by the Tribune, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Blanca Lupiani rejected the council’s conclusions and said the council acted outside its charge to review matters that were “largely unrelated to academic freedom.” The complaint about McCoul was never assigned to the council, Lupiani said in the memo. 

    University rules require the department head to write charges for dismissal, seek approval from the dean and give the faculty member a notice of intent to dismiss with five business days to respond, but Welsh requested McCoul’s dismissal on Sept. 9 “effective immediately,” the Tribune reported. 

    Source link

  • Portland State Ordered to Reinstate Some Laid-Off Faculty

    Portland State Ordered to Reinstate Some Laid-Off Faculty

    An independent arbitrator ordered Portland State University to reinstate 10 faculty members after determining the university violated its collective bargaining agreement with the Portland State University American Association of University Professors, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.  

    The faculty senate in April voted no confidence in the administration’s “Bridge to the Future” plan to address an $18 million budget deficit, and the vote “underscores the fact that the university made its layoff decisions before it had sufficient evidence to support them. That is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement,” the arbitrator wrote in her decision. 

    PSU-AAUP filed a labor grievance after the university laid off 17 non-tenure-track professors at the end of the 2024–25 academic year as part of its plan to close the deficit before the end of the spring term. The remaining seven employees declined to grieve their layoffs. 

    “[The decision] forces the university to respect the concept of shared governance,” union president Bill Knight told OPB. “It’s a reminder to the university that they can’t simply make arbitrary administrative decisions without involving the faculty.”

    The union contract requires university officials to follow a specific, lengthy process to lay off faculty members for economic reasons—as opposed to eliminating courses or programs—which the arbitrator determined they did not do. Portland State is considering an appeal.

    The budget cuts were successful in closing the deficit, OPB reported. Recent financial documents show the university saved more than $12.3 million—about 88 full-time faculty positions—in its academic affairs division. But more personnel cuts are likely. In September, the Portland State University Board of Trustees approved a plan to address a $35 million shortfall over two years.

    Source link

  • 3 State Policy Ideas to Accelerate Success in Transfer

    3 State Policy Ideas to Accelerate Success in Transfer

    The Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board is thinking creatively about financial and reputational incentives to improve transfer and learning mobility. In this article, two of the PAB’s members—Sharon Morrissey and Ron Anderson—who are both seasoned, system-level leaders, share their reflections on what is needed next to accelerate success in transfer and learning mobility.

    In April 2025, the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board and Inside Higher Ed collaborated on a webcast entitled “Short-Term Reward, Long-Term Harm: How Current Transfer Practices Hurt Learners and Institutions.” This event drew nearly 400 live attendees across 46 states, including a mix of administrative, faculty and student service leaders from institutions of all kinds.

    During the webcast, participants were polled on the following question: “To what extent do you agree that new financial incentives or budgeting models could help institutions to prioritize improving transfer student outcomes?” The audience’s response was positive, with 85 percent agreeing at least somewhat. However, we see some divisions within the data, with 32 percent saying they “strongly agree” and 53 percent saying they “somewhat agree.”

    While that data might feel a bit hard to make sense of, it rings true to us. Between us we bring over seven decades of experience as faculty, institutional administrators and system office leaders across three states, Minnesota, North Carolina and Virginia. That experience has taught us that improving credit transfer and expanding learning mobility are some of the most complex challenges facing higher education.

    Why is this? For one, improving recognition of learning and credit transfer requires higher education institutions to contend with a wide range of prior learning experiences, including traditional college coursework, high school dual-enrollment courses, career and technical education, work-based learning, military service, industry certification, and more. This implies the participation of numerous learning providers, such as institutions of higher education, high schools, employers and the military. And it involves multiple decision-makers, such as students who choose transfer pathways, faculty who determine what learning to recognize and how to apply that learning to program requirements, enrollment managers who wish to recruit transfer students, registrars who process transcripts, deans and provosts who oversee academic standards, and presidents who are held accountable by policymakers for serving transfer students. In short, there is complexity at every step of the process.

    That complexity points to the fact that—as the mixed results of that poll show—if we are going to make true progress on transfer and learning mobility, we must find solutions that appeal to the priorities of multiple decision-makers. As we think about incentives, for example, the incentives that would influence the behavior of a faculty member are not the same as the incentives that would influence the behavior of an administrator. Those responsible for revenue may be more swayed by a policy that would augment an institution’s state appropriation for increased enrollment and graduation of transfer students, while those responsible for curriculum may be more inclined to accept and apply transfer credit to a degree program based on their assessment of how the prior learning aligns to the learning outcomes of their own local courses.

    Another key theme of the webcast—and, let’s be honest, nearly every discussion held these days about transfer—was that we must zero in on the credential applicability of prior learning. Past reform efforts have advanced incredible work such as understanding the student experience, increasing transfer student belonging, strengthening advising and creating infrastructure for efforts such as credit for prior learning. All that work is critical and must continue. But we must also double down on how to advance credential applicability of courses and other forms of prior learning. We are not helping transfer students meet their educational goals if we fail to apply their prior learning to program requirements.

    Finally, a third theme elevated in the webcast was about shifting culture and mindsets. Achieving increased credential applicability will require a shift away from the current culture that interrogates every aspect of a course or other prior learning experience to find a course-to-course equivalency. Does anyone really believe that a student cannot be successful in a subsequent course, or in the workforce, if they happen to read a different textbook? As the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions recently elevated, the practice of interrogating the minutiae of courses and other learning experiences should, instead, focus at a higher level, on questions such as:

    • Does the sum of a student’s learning provide an appropriate foundation to set them up for continued academic success?
    • Can a student be successful in subsequent learning experiences, with appropriate just-in-time support? How can the institution provide that support?
    • What data do we have that a student will not be successful in a subsequent course?

    Based on our experience working with institutions and systems, we share here three state policy ideas that attend to these themes by 1) appealing to the priorities of multiple decision-makers, in this case both faculty and administrators; 2) zeroing in on credential applicability of prior learning; and 3) nudging broader cultural and mindset shifts.

    The first idea is for policymakers to explicitly include credit transfer and applicability within the design of state funding models by pinning rewards to credential applicability of groups of many courses. Right now, some—but not all—states have funding formulas that focus attention on transfer students’ outcomes. Those that do often include metrics such as the rate of students who transfer and bachelor’s degree completion for those who enter as a transfer student.

    On their own, these goalposts are too broad and have not yet produced the level of change needed. How can states improve this approach? We think one approach might be for states to collaborate with institutions to build various program-aligned credit thresholds and then reward institutions for applying that credit to degree requirements, such as:

    • Awarding and applying 15 program-aligned credits: The equivalent of what many refer to as a meta-major, designed to introduce students to a broad program area (e.g., allied health).
    • Awarding and applying 30 program-aligned credits: The equivalent of roughly the first year of college, often represented by a general education transfer core that is customized to include program-aligned courses.
    • Awarding and applying 60 program-aligned credits: The equivalent of a typical associate degree—but again, this must be a program-aligned associate degree.

    The goal here is for receiving institutions to not pull these credit blocks apart and pick and choose which credits apply. If students have met a threshold and their preparation is program-aligned, they should be advanced toward program completion for all of those credits. The groups of courses students have completed add to more than the sum of their parts. Students are journeying through a learning experience, with a variety of learning outcomes, that when looked at holistically are offering strong preparation for not just subsequent courses, but life and work. The mindset shift here is: Students do not need to have met every single learning outcome addressed in the receiving institution courses to be successful. They need to be prepared enough to be successful in subsequent courses, learning experiences and the workforce.

    Second, we encourage state policymakers to couple this policy change with demonstration projects that engage faculty in pedagogy, curriculum design and research. As receiving institutions accept and apply these groups of courses, what just-in-time supports should receiving institutions offer to students to ensure their success after transfer? How are students performing on a number of measures: in subsequent courses, for graduation and in the workforce? Which curricular design assumptions no longer hold? Where might classroom approaches be strengthened and evolved to reflect shifting needs of learners?

    Finally, all the findings of this work should be elevated through state recognition awards (ideally coupled with some funding) that promote the visibility and reputation of colleges and universities that are embracing all high-quality learning and moving learners toward credential completion.

    Through the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board, we’ll continue to push against the status quo to imagine new possibilities for institutions and learners. Connect with us on Instagram (@beyondtransfer) to stay informed on the board’s latest policy insights and ideas, and visit our website to access prior research reports related to transfer, institutional finance and financial aid, including:

    • Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board. (2023). Affordability Disconnects: Understanding Student Affordability in the Transfer and Credit Mobility Era. See paper with visuals and blog.
    • Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board. (2023). Unpacking Financial Disincentives: Why and How they Stymie Degree-Applicable Credit Mobility and Equitable Transfer Outcomes. See paper with visuals and blog.



    Source link

  • Our mission –  if we choose to accept it…

    Our mission –  if we choose to accept it…

     This blog was kindly authored by Andy Westwood, Professor of Public Policy, Government and Business at the University of Manchester. It is the sixth blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the other blog’s in the series here, here, here, here and here.

    Now we’ve had time to consider the post-16 white paper, we can think seriously about implementation and what’s needed to deliver its vision. Both in the governmental architecture that will oversee and drive it, and in the universities and colleges charged with its delivery. We know the overall vision is broad – the Departments for Education; Science, Innovation & Technology; and Work & Pensions have signed the strategy, but Business, the Treasury and the Home Office also retain interests in its success. As Philip Augar notes in the Financial Times, it’s right to prioritise such a ‘system-wide approach’. Labour will be hoping these proposals, alongside their industrial strategy, endure for the longer term and support both economic growth and improved living standards. But as Augar and Theresa May know, this cannot be guaranteed.

    Overall, it’s a radical shift from the last decade in three specific ways – first bringing them all together into a coherent whole; second for a single system to be more planned and coordinated than market driven; and third, to intervene, shape and direct both institutions and provision within it.

    Trailed in the PM’s conference speech in Liverpool, the white paper offers an expansive tertiary vision – with both R&D and welfare alongside teaching and learning. But ‘tertiary’ isn’t the term the Government prefers, and it doesn’t feature in the document nor in the speeches and statements that have launched it.

    Nevertheless, the shift from markets and competition to specialisation, collaboration and direction is quite a departure from the reforms of 2010 and 2017. Not just scaling back competition between different institutions, but also the central assumption in the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act that new providers would be the ‘rising tide lifting all boats’ or that ‘market exit’ and institutional failure would be necessary parts. In place comes the Industrial Strategy and missions, deliberately driving the broader system, including both teaching and learning and research.

    But how do we get from here to there? The white paper relies on a host of actors – colleges, universities, employers, individual learners – responding positively. It also requires dramatically improved coordination across government – not just across Whitehall but also between the agencies where much work will take place, including the Office for Students, UKRI, Mayoral Authorities and Skills England.

    It is ambitious because this new vision is grafted onto existing infrastructure as well as to systems, incentives and behaviours. In particular, the OfS now has enhanced roles and powers, index-linked tuition fees, the access agenda, and the LLE. UKRI remains largely intact, but is also charged with directing more of its funding towards new government priorities.  For all the complaints and problems, institutions have become used to these systems and cultures. For some, there may be enough to carry on as they are –  managing risk and maximising income with current models, rather than adapting their existing strategies.

    But the government wants to see change, setting priorities across both the economy and public services. There will be legislation –  necessary to index fees but also to consolidate extra powers and levers across the whole post-16 system so that government can drive priorities more deeply and quickly. If specialisation and innovation aren’t happening quickly and skills aren’t being driven into the most important firms and sectors, then they can be ramped up. In neither economic nor political terms can the government afford to hang around.

    But driving the system in particular directions requires a practical understanding of places, economies, firms and people that a more market-led system does not. This has to be created (or recreated), and the white paper relies on a mixture of recommendations – enhancing the powers and capacity of OfS and UKRI and also creating Skills England, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Labour Market Advisory Board.

    As crucial to the reconfiguring of the broader architecture will be the priorities and institutional strategies of colleges and universities. Innovation, specialisation and growth cannot all be mandated from above. Successful industrial strategy and economic growth will also depend on strong institutions working strategically and creatively together with firms, sectors and in clusters. It will be these day-to-day relationships and actions that determine the ultimate success of the white paper’s vision.

    This will be an important issue for existing colleges and universities, but also as new institutional forms emerge – ‘super’ or collaborating universities, new specialists and all when expected to come together in particular regions and places. 

    A lot depends on a reconfigured OfS, grafting these new powers onto existing remits and also building new capacity to drive change in FE, including at Levels 4 and 5 and through new Technical Excellence Colleges. Much will involve rediscovering the techniques and networks that HEFCE deployed. Often, this included sector expertise and the appointment of Derby Vice Chancellor Kathryn Mitchell to lead a review of ‘cold spots’ is a promising step.

    It will be hard work and will involve building new capacity, incentives and insights, as well as rewiring governance, funding and regulation. But it will also require institutions to committo building new capacity and to develop strategies that can translate new objectives into practice. While many have planning and policy capacity, too much is tied up in compliance. So if we are building a system that, in the words of Michael Heseltine is ‘intervening before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner’ – then we’d better make sure there is institutional appetite and capacity with which to do so. 

    The stakes are high. This isn’t just a new technical vision for delivering skills or knowledge to meet the needs of employers. Markets and competition have not helped us break out of the economic doom loop endured since the financial crisis. In turn, this has damaged the fabric of society as well as the life chances of too many people and places within it. Both colleges and universities will play a critical role in turning all of this around, but they will need the capacity and incentives to think and act differently. The white paper offers a new mission, but its success and longevity will depend on whether they decide they want to sign up.

    Source link

  • Student protection is needed in all higher-level learning

    Student protection is needed in all higher-level learning

    With the government’s white paper having a clear policy ambition and focus on higher technical (level 4 and 5) courses, and a pledge to simplify the regulatory framework for higher-level study, gaps in regulatory oversight are still exposing an increasing number of students to risk.

    The Office of the Independent Adjudicator has today published public interest case summaries, where we have named the two providers concerned, in order to highlight the impact of differing regulatory systems leaving gaps for individual students.

    The recent closure of Applied Business Academy (ABA), as detailed in my previous Wonkhe article, shows an ongoing vulnerability where students cannot seek an independent review of their awarding organisation’s actions. This is the case if they are studying for HE qualifications awarded by an Ofqual-regulated awarding organisations as these, unlike universities, are not required to be OIA members.

    While Ofqual regulates the quality and standards of qualifications, it does not oversee student protection, welfare or institutional accountability in the same way the OfS does for registered providers, even where the provider is only validating courses.

    In our experience this regulatory fragmentation leaves students vulnerable. All HE students should be afforded the same protection and recourse as well as the ability to complain about both their delivery and awarding organisation whoever their awarding body is.

    Highlighting the consequences

    In the case of ABA, when the Department for Education instructed the Student Loans Company to suspend tuition fee payments to ABA there were over 2,000 students enrolled on the Diploma in Education and Training (DET) awarded by City and Guilds or the Organisation for Tourism and Hospitality Management.  ABA also ran courses through partnerships with two universities which were not subject to any regulatory concern.

    Since ABA was registered with the OfS, all eligible students could access public student loan funding including those on the DET course. However, when ABA collapsed their route for complaint and level of redress and support was unclear and very different. The DET students lacked the institutional safety net of an OfS-regulated validator. Despite receiving positive feedback and assurance from ABA during their studies, students were told at the time of the closure that there was insufficient evidence to meet qualification requirements, leaving them with no qualification and a debt they would have to repay.

    By contrast, those on courses validated by or franchised from the University of Buckingham or Leeds Trinity University were offered a range of protections and mitigations including, various supported transfer options to localised provision with matched timetabling, transferring to the universities or identified alternative providers. They also benefitted from reimbursements for travel costs to alternative premises or were provided with free transport. Students could also access a record of achievement to support other transfer or exit, webinars and dedicated phone lines with individualised welfare support and guidance sessions. The OIA, to date, has received no complaints from students on these courses.

    Equal funding, unequal accountability?

    We have also today published a case summary about Brit College which was OfS-registered and only ran courses which were awarded by Ofqual-regulated awarding organisations, prior to its existing higher education courses being de-designated.

    Although it has not closed, it has stated on its website that where the OIA has awarded compensation or refunds, “Brit College is currently unable to meet these awards due to financial constraints” and has yet to pay our recommended compensation to any impacted student.

    The students we have received complaints from had completed all the work that had been set, and they had not been given any indication by the college during their studies that the work was not sufficient or was not at the required standard. Nine months after completing the course the college told students that they would need to undertake substantial further work. As Brit College remains open but has refused to pay compensation, it has been formally found in non-compliance with our recommendations.

    In both cases, since the awarding organisations are not within OIA membership we are unable to review any complaints from students about their acts and/or omissions in the time prior to de-designation, as we would if their courses were awarded by universities.

    When the system fails

    The fall out is not just administrative; it is deeply personal. Students are often shocked and distressed to be denied compensation, especially when we have found in their favour. They often feel confused about the lack of protection available to them and, having chosen to study at an OfS-registered provider, feel they have been misled.

    This is compounded when they hear about students at the same provider studying for different qualifications where expectations of the validators are student focused. The qualifications studied via Ofqual-regulated awarding organisations are often gateways to teaching or a technical profession. When a provider fails and there is no one to turn to, they not only lose their tuition fees and time spent studying, but also their career trajectory, and often they cannot afford to take out further loans to start again.

    In the words of one student impacted:

    I completed the DET course as required, maintaining 100% attendance, submitting all coursework and observations on time, and consistently communicating with ABA. In addition to the course fees, I spent money on travel to attend the course, further increasing the financial burden. Despite fulfilling all my responsibilities, I’ve been left without a qualification and have been unable to get a resolution for nearly two years…

    What makes this even more distressing is that I have already started repaying the loan to Student Finance from my personal income – for a course that did not result in a qualification. This feels incredibly unfair and adds to the emotional and financial pressure I am under. I am paying for something I did not receive through no fault of my own.

    Fixing the fault lines

    This is not an isolated incident – it’s a symptom of a sector under strain. With the government’s targets directly referring to higher technical qualifications, backed by the development of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to give “equal access to student finance for higher level study,” it should now take action to ensure equal access to student protection.

    Without this, students on higher technical and other level 4/5 courses will continue to have less access to individual remedies and redress than their counterparts studying for an award from a university.

    We note that back in 2020 the DfE expected “all awarding bodies and providers which own an approved Higher Technical Qualification to join the [OIA] scheme” – yet five years on this expectation remains unmet. We have since worked with Ofqual who have confirmed that awarding organisations being in membership of the OIA Scheme is compatible with Ofqual regulation (this was also a recommendation in our recent joint report with SUMS on managing the impact of higher education provider closure).

    Without OIA membership, students unable to complain to the OIA about their awarding organisations will not have access to independent remedies and redress, unlike those studying for university-awarded qualifications.

    Most importantly, in our experience, this is not made clear to, or understood by, students when they embark on their higher education journey.

    We reiterate that this is a student protection gap that urgently needs resolving for students who deserve that same protection. All students – regardless of their awarding organisation – should have access to the same safeguards and redress. That means all awarding organisations in receipt of public money joining the OIA scheme and making student protection, and the obligation to put things right for students, a non-negotiable part of higher education policy.

    Source link

  • New HEPI and University of London Report: Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future

    New HEPI and University of London Report: Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future

    Author:
    Professor Amanda Broderick and Robert Waterson

    Published:

    The NHS faces a growing clinical placement crisis that threatens the future of its workforce. A new HEPI and University of London report calls for bold, system-wide reform to ensure students get the real-world experience they need to deliver safe, high-quality care.

    HEPI and the University of London’s new report, Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future, which has been published with the support of the Council for Deans of Health, warns that the NHS cannot meet its ambitious workforce goals without bold reform of how students gain real-world experience. Co-authored by Professor Amanda Broderick and Robert Waterson of the University of East London, the report calls for a shift from simply creating more placements to delivering better ones—equitable, flexible, digitally enabled and aligned with the future of healthcare.

    Drawing on innovation across London and beyond, the authors propose practical steps including simulation-based learning, new supervision frameworks and community-based models that can expand capacity without compromising quality. With over 106,000 vacancies across secondary care, the report urges policymakers, universities and NHS providers to act now to secure a sustainable, skilled and compassionate workforce for the next decade and beyond.

    You can read the press release and access the full report here.

    Source link

  • Where the Ed Dept. Stands After Longest Government Shutdown

    Where the Ed Dept. Stands After Longest Government Shutdown

    The House of Representatives passed a legislative package late Wednesday evening in a 222-209 vote, putting Congress one step closer to ending the federal government’s longest shutdown in history.

    Now, the legislation, which first passed the Senate late Sunday night, heads to the White House. There, President Donald Trump is expected to sign it into law.

    One policy expert told Inside Higher Ed that he expects to see little operational change for institutions as the government reopens. But he and others will be paying close attention to whether the Trump administration follows through on one of the bill’s key compromises: reversing the most recent round of federal layoffs.

    LEAD IN

    PITHY STATEMENT FROM SPEAKER JOHNSON OR WHITE HOUSE

    Part of the package would fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, military construction, the Department of Agriculture, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Congress through the end of the fiscal year. But it only appropriates funding for the Department of Education and most other agencies until Jan. 30, using what is known as a continuing resolution. For the most part, the CR gives agencies access to the same levels of federal funding as the last fiscal year.

    Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education, said because some of the Education Department’s staff continued working throughout October and into November, not much will change for colleges and universities.

    “Financial aid was being disbursed, student loans were being serviced, all those things. So there probably won’t be an immediate significant shift,” he said. “It will, of course, be important for [grant] programs who have not been able to contact program officers with concerns or questions to have staff now available to them again. But that’s probably the biggest thing.”

    Fansmith also noted that some education benefits for military service members, which in many cases have been disrupted and backlogged due to staffing shortages, will take some time to get back up to speed.

    The 4 Parts of the Stopgap Bill

    “There are veterans who have housing benefits and education benefits and all sorts of assistance that they’re using to fund their educations that have just not been coming through over the last six weeks,” he said. “And even when they turn the government back on … that backlog has only grown in the interim. So it’s not going to be an immediate resolution.”

    Senate Democrats also negotiated with Republicans to reverse Trump’s latest round of layoffs in the stopgap bill. Theoretically, the legislation should reinstate more than 460 Department of Education employees within five days of it being enacted.

    It mandates that any employee who was subject to a reduction in force during the shutdown “shall have that notice rescinded and be returned to employment status.” (The majority of those employees were tasked with overseeing federal grant programs for both K–12 and higher education.)

    But Rachel Gittleman, president of the Education Department’s union, argues the language in the bill doesn’t do enough to protect public servants. She worries that saying staffers must be “returned to employment status” could allow Education Secretary Linda McMahon to place union members on administrative leave and not actually put them back to work.

    “The Trump administration has shown us repeatedly that they want to illegally dismantle our congressionally created federal agency,” she said. As such, “We have no confidence that the U.S. Education Department will follow the terms of the continuing resolution or allow the employees named in October firings to return—or even keep their jobs past January.”

    Fansmith is also skeptical department employees will return to their jobs.

    “[The administration hasn’t] shown much willingness to follow what the law requires. So I would absolutely assume we should expect to see efforts to further reduce staffing,” he said. “They’re not hiding the fact they’re trying to do it, and they don’t have a lot of compunction about the methods they use to do so.”

    A department spokesperson, however, told Inside Higher Ed that all employees—both those who were furloughed and those laid off during the shutdown—will return to work, as they remain employees of the department.

    The department also pointed to a ruling from the federal district court in Northern California that blocked the reduction in force in late October, saying that under that order, all employees who received a RIF notice during the shutdown remain employees of the federal government.

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to multiple Republican and Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate to ask about the concerns Gittleman and Fansmith raised. None responded prior to publication.

    Source link

  • How Healthcare Professionals Can Thrive in a Digital Era

    How Healthcare Professionals Can Thrive in a Digital Era

    Dr. Adam Goodcoff | Photos courtesy of MedFluencers

    Influencer and emergency medicine physician Dr. Adam Goodcoff shares insights on embracing AI and evolving career pathways to help healthcare professionals stay adaptable and future-ready.

    As someone who has successfully merged clinical practice with digital innovation, how do you believe emerging healthcare professionals can best position themselves to thrive in this evolving landscape?

    I think the best thing someone who’s coming up or even someone actively practicing now could do is keep an open mind and have a hunger for new skills and knowledge. Look at the way machine learning has come into our lives in the last two or three years. If you had asked a clinician three years ago if they found AI helpful, I don’t think they could even tell you where AI was in the mix. Today, there are tools like the ambient AI scribes and various platforms that are now making their way into healthcare. We need to have hunger and interest in the discovery of these new tools and consider how we could integrate them into our day-to-day workflow. I think having an open mind is the best way to do that. 

    What key skills or mindsets do you think are essential for those entering healthcare today?

    I think the mindset is really one of growth and opportunity. We’re entering a really interesting era, as I mentioned, with AI and medicine and tech enabling the workforce for healthcare providers. Even five years ago, it was an analog specialty. I mean, we were interacting with computers and using some dictation software, but nothing really advanced. In that short time span, we’ve accelerated that so much already. 

    What I would say to the learners and those coming into this career is to be hungry and be open to change. Medicine is well known for being slow to change and slow to adopt, and there are reasons for that; there’s safety and security in the way that we’ve done things. However, now at a time when innovation is so rapid, I think it’s important to consider the ways we might be able to integrate that into our workflow.

    Can you share some examples of how social media and digital platforms have created new career pathways within healthcare that might not have existed a decade ago? 

    I think the beauty around social media in healthcare is that we’ve now created an opportunity to educate our peers and patients in a direct-to-consumer space in a way that is faster and more direct than ever before. It’s really democratized health education. I think it’s an exciting time where real value can be brought and exchanged on social platforms.

    Healthcare workforce shortages are a pressing concern. How can innovative career models like those involving digital health communication help address these gaps while also enhancing patient care? 

    I’d be a bit biased answering this, but I think social media brings visibility to healthcare careers and brings some of the fun and discovery back into a career in healthcare. We have physicians and folks of all degrees really showing what life can be like in various career pathways. I found a lot of success in my own content by creating ways for learners to engage and test their skills and to feel rewarded in a friendly learning environment, where there was no pressure to formally study. That’s what we see at MedFluencers: These physicians and healthcare professionals are excited about reaching the next generation of learners, driving the adoption of new technologies and therapies faster, and getting that information in the right hands.

    Looking forward, what trends or opportunities do you foresee that healthcare students should be preparing for to maximize their impact and career satisfaction?

    I think healthcare careers are changing. From a technology side, there’s tremendous enablement, but also the way that the healthcare system works is constantly evolving. There are certainly things about the system that are broken, but there are things that are being fixed, and I think that goes back to my concept of keeping an open mind and being fluid or open to change around the way that a career looks. When I was in high school and thinking about being a physician, it’s different today than it was then. In an equal amount of time, it will be radically different again. We’re at such a quick evolutionary pace here.

     I’d invest in your own learning, especially understanding a bit more about machine learning and AI. I think it’s become a part of all of our lives, and there are so many folks who just quickly label it AI and write it off. What is the AI doing? Why is it different than traditional search? What are we doing differently with these tools?

    Source link

  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln leader reduces program cuts from 6 to 4

    University of Nebraska-Lincoln leader reduces program cuts from 6 to 4

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

    Dive Brief:

    • University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s chancellor on Monday unveiled a final budget recommendation that would cut four academic programs at the university, two fewer than he originally proposed in September.
    • However, Chancellor Rodney Bennett’s new plan would eliminate two programs that a university committee voted to recommend keeping. His proposal also comes amid concerns raised by faculty over program evaluation metrics and the budget reduction process.
    • The program cuts would trim $6.7 million from UNL’s budget, mainly through doing away with roughly four dozen full-time equivalent jobs. Bennett’s proposal also calls for merging four academic departments into two new schools and reducing budgets at four UNL colleges.

    Dive Insight:

    Ultimately, Bennett proposed axing UNL’s departments of Earth and atmospheric sciences; educational administration; statistics; and textiles, merchandising and fashion design — all as part of an effort to save $27.5 million annually to address a structural deficit. 

    He spared two programs that he recommended cutting earlier: landscape architecture, and community and regional planning. The University of Nebraska System’s regents plan to consider Bennett’s final recommendations at their December meeting. 

    Bennett’s initial proposal — and how he arrived at his recommended cuts — drew opposition from affected faculty and other stakeholders.

    Based on hearings and nearly 3,000 filed comments, UNL’s Academic Planning Committee — made up of faculty, staff, administrators and students — voted in October to oppose closing four of the programs in Bennett’s original plan. 

    Two of those programs — statistics, and Earth and atmospheric sciences — are nonetheless on the chopping block in Bennett’s final plan. 

    The committee didn’t oppose Bennett’s plans to cut the educational administration and textiles programs, or to merge UNL’s departments of entomology and plant pathology into one interdisciplinary school and the departments of agricultural economics and agricultural leadership, education and communication into another.

    However, the committee called on Bennett and UNL leaders to extend the timeline for making existential decisions about any of the programs. 

    “We strongly recommend to the Chancellor, the President, and the Board of Regents that the approval of any budget cuts be delayed allowing time for units to identify creative alternative solutions that reduce or prevent the need for these cuts,” the committee said in an Oct. 24 memo. But Bennett and UNL leaders appear undeterred and are sticking with their original timelines. 

    The committee also pointed to concerns raised by UNL stakeholders about the metrics and data that officials used to decide on programs. 

    Faculty members have said that the data was incomplete and sometimes incorrect and that the administration wasn’t transparent with them about how programs were being statistically evaluated. They also contended that the programs’ full value to the university and state weren’t taken into account. 

    UNL officials reviewed the programs “in accordance with performance metrics that align with UNL standards and external accountability frameworks,” Bennett said in a public message Monday. “The metrics were also shaped through extensive consultation in the spring with academic deans, college leadership teams, department executive officers and the APC.”

    Still, some faculty continued to slam the metrics for a lack of transparency. 

    “What are these new performance expectations, and where do we find them?” Sarah Zuckerman, an educational administration professor at UNL and head of its American Association of University Professors chapter, said in a Tuesday blog post titled “No Real Metrics, Only Vibes.” UNL’s AAUP chapter has actively opposed the cuts. 

    Zuckerman added, “This feels like not only have administrators changed the rules of the game while it is still being played, but they didn’t bother to tell us.”

    UNL’s faculty senate plans to consider a no confidence vote for Bennett on Nov. 18 over his handling of the budget cuts.

    Source link

  • ACT and Texas Instruments Collaborate to Enhance Student Success in Mathematics

    ACT and Texas Instruments Collaborate to Enhance Student Success in Mathematics

    Iowa City, Iowa and Dallas, Texas (November 12, 2025) – ACT, a leader in college and career readiness assessment, and Texas Instruments Education Technology (TI), a division of the global semiconductor company, today announced a comprehensive partnership aimed at empowering students to achieve their best performance on the ACT mathematics test.

    This initiative brings together two education leaders to provide innovative resources and tools that maximize student potential. The partnership will start by providing:

    • A new dedicated online resource center featuring co-branded instructional videos demonstrating optimal use of TI calculators during the ACT mathematics test.
    • Additional study materials featuring TI calculators to help students build upon and apply their mathematical knowledge while maximizing their time on the ACT test.
    • Professional development programs for teachers focused on effective calculator-based testing strategies.

    “This partnership represents our commitment to providing students with the tools and resources they need to demonstrate their mathematical knowledge effectively,” said Andrew Taylor, Senior Vice President of Educational Solutions and International, ACT, “By working with Texas Instruments, we’re ensuring students have access to familiar, powerful technology tools during this important assessment.”

    “Texas Instruments is proud to partner with ACT to support student success,” said Laura Chambers, President at Texas Instruments Education Technology. “Our calculator technology, combined with targeted instructional resources, will help students showcase their true mathematical abilities during the ACT test.” 

    The new resources are available now to students and educators on the ACT website www.act.org under ACT Math Calculator Tips.

    About ACT

    ACT is transforming college and career readiness pathways so that everyone can discover and fulfill their potential. Grounded in more than 65 years of research, ACT’s learning resources, assessments, research, and work-ready credentials are trusted by students, job seekers, educators, schools, government agencies, and employers in the U.S. and around the world to help people achieve their education and career goals at every stage of life. Visit us at https://www.act.org/.  

    About Texas Instruments

    Texas Instruments Education Technology (TI) — the gold standard for excellence in math — provides exam-approved graphing calculators and interactive STEM technology. TI calculators and accessories drive student understanding and engagement without adding to online distractions. We are committed to empowering teachers, inspiring students and supporting real learning in classrooms everywhere. For more information, visit education.ti.com.

    Texas Instruments Incorporated (Nasdaq: TXN) is a global semiconductor company that designs, manufactures and sells analog and embedded processing chips for markets such as industrial, automotive, personal electronics, enterprise systems and communications equipment. At our core, we have a passion to create a better world by making electronics more affordable through semiconductors. This passion is alive today as each generation of innovation builds upon the last to make our technology more reliable, more affordable and lower power, making it possible for semiconductors to go into electronics everywhere. Learn more at TI.com.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link