Caldwell has served as president of Centenary University since 2023.
Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images
As running mate to Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill, Centenary University president Dale Caldwell, a Democrat, won the New Jersey gubernatorial race on Tuesday in a 56 percent–to–43 percent victory over Republicans Jack Ciattarelli and James Gannon.
“Every single day of this campaign has been a reminder of what a special place New Jersey is,” Caldwell wrote on X Wednesday. “I’m humbled and honored to be your next Lieutenant Governor.”
Caldwell has served as president of Centenary, a Methodist university in Hackettstown, N.J., since 2023. Prior to assuming the presidency, he served on Centenary’s board, and he is also a pastor at Covenant United Methodist Church in Plainfield. Caldwell was the university’s first Black president and in January will become New Jersey’s first Black lieutenant governor.
“Centenary University would like to congratulate Gov. Elect Mikie Sherrill and Lt. Gov. Elect Dale Caldwell, Ed.D., on their victory in the recent New Jersey gubernatorial election,” university officials wrote in a statement Wednesday.
Centenary officials have not yet announced who will serve as interim president or their plans to find a permanent replacement when Caldwell departs in January.
HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, takes a first look at today’s Final Report from the Curriculum and Assessment Review.
It feels like Christmas has come early for policy nerds. At 6.01am this morning, we finally got sight of Building a world-class curriculum for all, the long-awaited report from the Government’s independent Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR).
Overseen by Professor Becky Francis, who is an experienced educational leader and researcher and someone who also has a background in policy, it was commissioned when the Labour Government was facing brighter days back in their first flush.
The first thing to note about the report is that, in truth, independent reports commissioned by governments are only half independent. For example, the lead reviewer is usually keen to ensure their report lands on fertile soil (and, indeed, is usually chosen because they have some affinity to the people in charge). In addition, independent reviews are supported by established civil servants inside the machine and there is usually a conversation behind the scenes between the independent review team and those closest to ministers as the work progresses. (In higher education, for example, both the Browne and Augar reviews fit this model.) So it is no great surprise that the Government has accepted most of what Becky’s largely evidence-led team has said.
Yet anyone reading the press coverage of the CAR while it has been underway, or anyone who has seen the front page of today’s Daily Mail, which screams ‘LABOUR DUMBS DOWN SCHOOLS’, may wonder if the report that has landed today is the nightmare before Christmas rather than a welcome festive present. There is lots to like but the document also feels incomplete, especially – for example – for people with an interest in higher education. So it is perhaps best thought of as a present for which the batteries have yet to arrive.
Nonetheless, this morning I spoke at the always excellent University Admissions Conference hosted annually by the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference (HMC) and the Girls’ School Association (GSA) and I could not help wondering aloud whether any new restraints on state-maintained schools might give our leading independent schools, who are much freer to teach what they like, an additional edge – especially as academy schools are already, even before today, having freedoms ripped from them.
What does the CAR say (and what does it not say)
But what does the review, which had a team of 11 beneath Becky (including one Vice-Chancellor in Professor Nic Beech and also Jo-Anne Baird from the Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment) actually say?
The first thing to note is that it is much better than the Interim Report, which said little, sought to be all things to all people and read like it had been written by one of the better generative AI tools.
In terms of hard proposals, the Final Report starts and ends with older pupils, those aged 16 to 19, for whom we are told there should be ’a new third pathway at level 3 to sit alongside A-Levels and T Levels.’ If this feels familiar, it is because the Curriculum and Assessment Review’s emerging findings helped shape the recent Post-16 Education and Skills white paper and, more importantly, because there is already such a pathway populated by qualifications like BTECs.
So there is a sense of reinventing the wheel here, with (to mix my metaphors) politicians putting a new coat of paint on the current system. In many respects, the material on 16-to-19 pupils is the least interesting part of the report – especially as there is next to nothing at all on A-Levels. The review team starkly states, ‘we heard very little concern regarding A Levels in our Call for Evidence and our sector engagement’, so they basically ignore them – in a world of change, A Levels continue to sail steadfastly on.
As trailed in the newspapers, there is a recommendation for new ‘diagnostic Maths and English tests to be taken in Year 8.’ This would obviously help track progress between the tests taken at the end of primary school (in Year 6) and the public exams taken at age 16. But the idea has already prompted anger from trade unionists, almost guaranteeing that the benefits and downsides will be overegged in the inevitable political rows to come.
There are also numerous scattergun subject-by-subject recommendations. These are largely sensible (see, for example, the iideas on improving English GCSEs or the section on Science) but also a little unsatisfying. Some of the subject-specific changes are a little trite or inconsequential (like tweaks to the name of individual GCSEs) while others need much more detail than a general review of everything that happens between the ages of 11 and 19 is able to offer. Any material changes will need to be at a wholly different level of detail to what we have got today, and they will be some years away, so may make no difference to anyone already at secondary school.
Other points to note include that the Review is Gove-ian in its love of exams, which it stresses are a protection against the negatives of AI, over coursework. (I suspect Dennis Sherwood, the campaigner against grading inaccuracy will be incandescent about how the report appears to skate over some of the imperfections of how exams currently operate.) However, despite the support for exams, one of the crunchiest recommendations in the review is the proposal of a 10% reduction in ‘overall GCSE exam volume’, which we are told can happen without any significant downsides, though the tricky details are palmed off to Ofqual and others.
The English Baccalaureate and Progress 8
The one really clear place where Professor Francis’s review team and the Government, who have generally accepted the recommendations, are out of kilter with one another is on Progress 8.
Progress 8 is a school accountability measure that assesses how much ‘value-added’ progress occurs between primary school (SATs) and GCSEs. It is such a favoured measure that the Government has recently proposed a new Progress 8 measure for universities (which is a mad idea that wrongly assumes universities are just big schools – in reality, it is a defining feature of universities that they set their own curricula and are their own awarding body).
Becky Francis opposes the EBacc, which is a metric related to, but separate, from Progress 8, yet she wishes to maintain some vestiges of the EBacc within Progress 8. While the EBacc focuses specifically on how many students achieve qualifications in a list of specially favoured subject areas (English Lang and Lit, Maths, Sciences, Geography or History plus a language), the CAR recommends ‘the removal of the EBacc measures but the retention of the EBacc “bucket” in Progress 8 under the new title of “Academic Breadth”.’
This is something the Government is not running with, favouring less restrictions on Progress 8 instead, which may or may not reinvigorate some creative subjects. Yes, it is all exceptionally complicated but Schools Week have an excellent guide and the two pictures below (from Government sources) might help: the first shows the status quo on Progress 8 and is what Becky Francis wishes to maintain (though pillars 3, 4 and 5 would be renamed if she got her way); the second shows the Government’s proposal.
How does it fare?
Call me simple, but I was always going to judge the Curriculum and Assessment Review partly on the extent to which it tackled specific challenges that we have looked at closely at HEPI In recent years. Here the CAR is a mixed bag. On the positive side of the ledger, the review recommends more financial education, reflecting the polling we conducted to help inform the CAR’s work: when we asked undergraduates how well prepared they felt for higher education, 59% said they felt they should have had more education on finances and budgeting.
The most obvious problem that the CAR insufficiently addresses is the huge underperformance of boys. This issue usually gets a namecheck in Bridget Phillipson’s interviews but it was entirely ignored in the recent Post-16 white paper; in the CAR, it does at least receive a quick nod and just maybe some of the proposed curriculum changes will benefit boys more than girls. But there is more focus on class and other personal characteristics than sex and in the end the brief acknowledgement of boys’ underperformance does not lead to anything properly focused on the problem.
This is very strange for we simply cannot fix the inequalities in outcomes until we give the gaps in the attainment of boys and girls the attention they deserve. I am beginning to think I was wrong to be so hopeful that a female Secretary of State was more likely to focus on this issue than a male one (on the grounds that it would be less sensitive politically).
Another area where we at HEPI have been mildly obsessed is the catastrophic decline in language learning, as tracked for us by the Oxonian Megan Bowler. Here, as with boys, the new review is disappointing. In the section looking at welcome subject-by-subject changes, the recommendations on languages are both relatively tentative and relatively weak. As one linguist emailed me first thing this morning, ‘It is pretty remarkable that the CAR’s decision on languages runs exactly contrary to the best and consistent advice of the key language advisers on the issue’. However, the Government’s response goes a little further and Ministers promise to ‘explore the feasibility of developing a new qualification for languages that enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready rather than at fixed points.’ We might not want languages always to be treated so differently from other subjects but I am still chalking that up as a win.
The CAR also ignores entirely one issue that is currently filling some MPs’ postbags – the defunding of the International Baccalaureate (IB). The IB delivers a broad curriculum for sixth-formers, is liked by highly selective universities and tackles the early specialisation which marks out our education system from those in many competitor nations. Back in the heady Blair years, Labour politicians loved the qualification and promised to bring it within touching distance of most young people.
As HEPI is a higher education body, it also feels incumbent upon me to point out that higher education is largely notable by its absence in the CAR, with universities being mentioned just nine times across the (almost) 200 pages and despite schools and colleges obviously being the main pipeline for new students. It is rather different from the days when universities were regarded as having a key direct role to play in designing what goes on in schools. Indeed, our exam boards tended to originate within universities.
The odd references to universities that do make it in to the CAR report are not especially illuminating. For example, more selective universities appear as part of the rationale for killing the EBacc ‘the evidence does not suggest that taking the EBacc combination of subjects increases the likelihood that students attend Russell Group universities.’ Universities also appear in the section on bolstering T Levels, with the review proposing ‘The Government should continue to promote awareness and understanding of T Levels to the HE sector.’ But that is about it.
Incidentally, there is also less in the report on extracurricular activities than the pre-publication press coverage might have led you to believe, even if the Government’s response to the review does focus on improving the offer here.
Trade-offs
Becky Francis used to head up the UCL Institute of Education (IoE), which is an institution that has always wrestled with excellence versus opportunity. Years ago, I sat in a learnèd IoE seminar on why university league tables are supposedly pernicious – but I had to walk past multiple banners boasting that the IoE was ‘Number 1’ in the world for studying education to get to the seminar and, while I was in the room, news came through that the IoE was going to cement its reputation and position by merging with UCL.
Such tension is a reminder that educational changes generally have trade-offs and the Executive Summary of the main CAR document admits: ‘All potential reforms to curriculum and assessment come with trade-offs’. Abolishing the EBacc as the CAR team want and watering down Progress 8 as the Department for Education want, might help some pupils and some disciplines while making the numbers we produce about ourselves look better – though the numbers produced by others about us (at places like the OECD) could come to tell a different story in time.
In the end, we have to recognise that there are only so many hours in the school day, only so many (ie not enough) teachers and only so much room in pupils’ lives, not to mention huge diversity among pupils, schools and staff, which together ensure there can be no perfect curriculum. More of one subject or more extracurricular activities are likely to mean less of other things because the school day is not infinitely expandable (and there is nothing here to free up teachers’ time or fill in all those teacher vacancies). Yet the school curriculum does need to be revised over time to ensure it remains fit for purpose.
The question now is whether the CAR report matters. Will we still be talking about it in 20 years time? Can a Government buffeted by all sides, facing a huge fiscal crisis and with a Secretary of State for Education who sometimes seems more focused on political battles (like the recent Deputy Leadership election of the Labour Party) than on engaging with the latest educational evidence really deliver Becky Francis’s vision? Or will the CAR’s proposals wilt as quickly as the last really big proposal for curriculum reform: Rishi Sunak’s British Baccalaureate? In all honesty, I am not certain but there are, in theory at least, four years of this Parliament left whereas Rishi Sunak spent more like four months pushing his idea.
My parting thought, however, is different. It is that, while the trade-offs in the CAR report partly just represent the facts of life in education, they do not entirely do so. Trade-offs are much trickier to deal with when you are also seeking to root out diversity of provision. And in the end, if there is one thing that marks this Government’s mixed approach to schooling out above all, it is the desire to make all schools more alike, whether that is reducing academy freedoms, micromanaging the rules on school uniforms, defunding the IB, forcing state schools to stop offering classical languages or pushing independent schools to the wall. Would it be better, and also make politicians’ lives easier, if we stopped pretending that the 700,000 kids in each school year group are more like one another than they really are?
Postscript: While the CAR paper is infinitely more digestible than the interim document, there is still some wonderful eduspeak, my favourite of which is:
A vocational qualification is aligned to a sector and is usually taught and assessed in an applied way. A technical qualification meanwhile has a direct alignment with an occupational standard. Despite the name ‘Technical Awards’, these qualifications are therefore vocational rather than technical.
Bwambale estimates that less than 1% of the global population truly grasps the implications of climate change. “Even worse are Ugandans,” he said.
Gerison pointed out that much of the population of Uganda is young. “With 80% below the age of 25, many haven’t witnessed the full extent of climate changes,” he said.
A diminishing crop is easily understood.
Janet Ndagire, Bwambale’s colleague, said it is difficult for Ugandan natives to connect with climate campaigns. They often perceive them as obstacles to survival rather than crucial interventions.
“Imagine telling someone who relies on charcoal burning for survival that cutting down a tree could be hazardous!” Ndagire said. “It doesn’t make sense to them, especially when the tree is on their plot of land.”
Reflecting on personal experiences, Ndagire recalled childhood days of going to sleep fully covered. Nowadays it is too hot to do that, he said.
Ssiragaba Edison Tubonyintwari, a seasoned bus driver originally from western Uganda but currently driving with the United Nations, recounts the challenges of driving between 5 and 9 AM in the Albertine rift eco-region especially around the Ecuya forest reserve.
“It would be covered in mist,” said Tubonyintwari. “We’d ask two people to stand in front, one on either side of the bus, signalling for you to drive forward, or else, you couldn’t see two metres away. Currently, people drive all day and night!”
Irish potatoes in the African wetlands
What happened? Tubonyintwari pointed to unauthorised tree cutting in the reserve, residential constructions and the cultivation of tea alongside Irish potatoes in the wetlands. The result was rising temperatures.
His account supplements a Global Forest Watch report which puts commodity-driven deforestation above urbanisation.
It’s notable that Tubonyintwari didn’t explicitly use the term “climate change,” yet the sexagenarian can effectively explain the underlying concept through his detailed description of altered environmental conditions.
Global Forest Watch reports alarming deforestation trends, with 5.8 million hectares lost globally in 2022. In Uganda, more than 6,000 deforestation alerts were recorded between 22 and 29 November this year.
The consequences of such environmental degradation are dire. Ndagire emphasised that those who once wielded axes and chainsaws for firewood are now the very individuals facing reduced crop yields due to extreme weather conditions.
Even as Uganda grapples with the aftermath of a sudden surge in heavy rains from last October, Bwambale questions the country’s meteorological department, highlighting the failure to provide precise explanations and climate-aware preparations.
These interconnected narratives emphasise the need for accessible climate campaigns and community-driven solutions. As COP28 gathers elites, the call for a simplified narrative gains prominence, mirroring successful communication models seen during the Covid-19 pandemic; else it’s the same old throwing of good money after bad.
Questions to consider:
1. Why does deforestation continue in places like Uganda when people know about its long-term consequences?
2. In what ways are high level discussions about climate change disconnected from people’s everyday experiences?
3. In what way do you think scientists and environmentalists need to change the climate change narrative?
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Eight historically Black colleges and universities have received a total of $387 million in unrestricted donations from billionaire philanthropistMacKenzie Scottsince mid-October.
On Sunday, Howard University, in Washington, D.C., revealed it had received an $80 million gift from Scott, with $17 million earmarked for its medical school. The following day, Spelman College, a women’s HBCU in Georgia, said Scott had donated $38 million.
Both colleges, along with most of the six other HBCUs, previously received multimillion dollar donations from Scott during her first round of higher education giving in 2020. Each described their gift as one of the biggest — if not the largest — in their history.
Dive Insight:
In 2019, the same year Scott divorced Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, she signed the Giving Pledge, a pact directed at the world’s wealthiest people to donate more than half their wealth.
“I have a disproportionate amount of money to share,” Scott, one of the richest women in the world, wrote in her pledge statement at the time. “And I will keep at it until the safe is empty.”
She still has quite a ways to go. As of this week, Bloomberg estimated Scott’s net worth at $42 billion — up from $39.4 billion last November.
Scott is now in the midst of another significant round of donations, and the notably private donor acknowledged the attention it would attract in a rare online statement last month.
“When my next cycle of gifts is posted to my database online, the dollar total will likely be reported in the news,” she said in an Oct. 15 blog post. But she characterized that amount as “a vanishingly tiny fraction” of the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual charitable giving in the U.S. each year “that we don’t read about online or hear about on the nightly news.”
Her most recent spate of HBCU donations include:
Scott also donated $70 million in September to UNCF, the largest private scholarship provider for minority students in the U.S. The organization, which counts 37 private HBCUs as members, said the money would go to bolstering the long-term financial health of those colleges.
In 2020, Scott donated over $800 million to colleges, focusing much of the funding on HBCUs. In addition to their high-dollar value, her gifts stood out because they were unrestricted, and she did not appear to have a personal relationship with the recipients.
The Council for Advancement and Support of Education found that unrestricted contributions to surveyed colleges increased by nearly a third in fiscal 2021 compared to the year before, attributing much of that growth to Scott.
By early 2023, she had donated at least $1.5 billion to roughly six dozen colleges, with an emphasis on minority-serving institutions like HBCUs.
Foundations disproportionately give less to HBCUs compared to similar non-HBCUs, and public HBCUs have historically been underfunded by the government.
From 2015 to 2019, foundations donated a combined $5.5 billion to the eight Ivy League institutions, compared to $303 million for 99 HBCUs, according to a 2023 study. That worked out to the average Ivy League institution receiving 178 times more foundation funding than the average HBCU.
And a 2023 analysis from the Biden administration found that land-grant HBCUs in 16 states missed out on over $12 billion from 1987 to 2020 due to state underfunding.
Five years out from Scott’s first donations, research suggests those funds may help boost enrollment and retention.
A 2021 analysis of the 23 HBCUs that received a total of $560 million from Scott in 2020 found that their median new student enrollment was more than 300 students higher than HBCU counterparts that did not receive funding. Their retention rates were an average of 15% higher as well.
Colleges have reported using the money in a variety of ways.
Spelman, for example, received $20 million from Scott in 2020. Of that, $11 million went to the college’s endowment, and $1.1 million went to its Social Justice Scholars program, a spokesperson told The Atlantic Journal-Constitution. In addition, every student that year received a $3,500 scholarship. The remainder of the gift went to technology upgrades, academic programming and other improvements, the spokesperson said.
Beyond adding to a college’s coffers directly, a large dollar donation can help raise an institution’s profile.
Clark Atlanta saw a “catalytic impact” to its fundraising efforts thanks to Scott’s $15 million donation in 2020, college President George French Jr. told AJC before the latest round of donations became public.
An academic advisory group at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has opposed most of the program cuts recommended by the institution’s chancellor and is calling for more time before considering major budget reductions.
A majority of the Academic Planning Committee members voted against eliminating four of the six programs put on the chopping block by UNL Chancellor Rodney Bennett in September as part of an effort to save $27.5 million annually.
The 21-person committee — composed of 10 faculty members as well as deans, administrators, staffers and students — officially issued its recommendation to Bennett in an Oct. 24 memo.
Bennett plans to issue his final recommendation in the coming weeks, and the University of Nebraska System regents will consider it in December.
In the memo, the committee pointed to concerns raised by faculty about the process Bennett and other UNL leaders used to determine which academic programs to slash. Those issues largely revolved around potential problems with the metrics and the short evaluation period used to make permanent decisions.
“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 a note Friday, Bennett thanked the committee for its work and said, “I am now carefully reviewing the APC’s recommendations and continuing consultations with our shared governance partners before finalizing the budget reduction plan.”
A ‘top-down’ process for judging programs
Over the past month, the academic planning committee has been collecting feedback from UNL stakeholders through hearings and nearly 3,000 submitted comments, the memo noted.
Many questioned the validity and usefulness of the statistical metrics and data used to evaluate programs, while also accusing the administration of not being transparent about those measures.
Those metrics led to Bennett’s proposal that UNL permanently eliminate degrees in community and regional planning; Earth and atmospheric sciences;educational administration; landscape architecture; statistics; and textiles, merchandising and fashion design.
In past budget deliberations, deans were given a target for reductions and could design unit-specific ways to meet goals, a process the committee described as “bottom-up.”
“In the current process, metrics were used in a ‘top-down’ approach to identify lower-performing units, and then a holistic review of those units was undertaken by upper administration,” the committee said.
Moreover, leaders only shared metrics to make program decisions confidentially with deans and the academic planning committee, which left faculty scrambling to understand those measures.
“No one was able to fully validate the metrics, either through confirming the accuracy of the underlying data or via analysis to confirm that the metrics were statistically valid ways to quantify the desired performance indicators,” the committee said.
For example, faculty from multiple units said that programs were revenue-positive, meaning cutting them would cost the university more in lost revenue than it saved in expenses. Others pointed to the extension work done by programs that make them important to the state and help UNL fulfill its mission as a public land-grant university.
But the comments from faculty and other UNL stakeholders weren’t just critical — they were also creative, suggesting alternative ways that programs and the university could save on costs or generate new revenue, the committee said.In fact, every unit had ideasof ways to generate revenue and save costs.
“Given that a budget deficit has been looming for years, it is unfortunate that the process was invoked with so little time to engage the creativity and collective intelligence of the full University community,” the committee said. “When the energy of our faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders is unleashed on the problem of the budget deficit, creative and selfless solutions can emerge.”
Given all those concerns, the committee voted against eliminating four of the programs that Bennett proposed slashing: community and regional planning, landscape architecture, statistics, and Earth and atmospheric sciences.
Those who voted in favor of eliminating UNL’s education administration program noted similar programs in the University of Nebraska System and state and concerns about its high graduate tuition remission rate, though they recognizeding its role in training state education leaders and the need for thoughtful deliberation before a final decision. Committee members who favored the administration’s plan to cut UNL’s textiles, merchandising and fashion design program hoped it could be realigned and retained.
‘I don’t see this financial crisis’
Meanwhile, UNL’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors has raised questions about whether the university is facing a true fiscal crisis that necessitates program cuts.
A financial analysis conducted for the AAUP chapter in October concluded that UNL has been in good fiscal health based on financial statements going back to 2019, with increasing net position, revenue that exceeded expenses in all but one year between fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2024, and high bond ratings for the University of Nebraska System.
At an Oct. 29 press conference, Bonnie Fox Garrity, a business professor at D’Youville University, in New York, and a financial analyst for the AAUP, said that UNL could avoid the proposed cuts. “I don’t see this financial crisis.”
The report also noted that the number of full-time instructors at UNL dropped by 7.8% between 2019 and 2025, while full-time noninstructional employees increased by 7.6%.
“Budgets are an expression of values,” Sarah Zuckerman, an educational administration professor at UNL and head of its AAUP chapter, said in a statement last week. “This budget reduction makes clear University leadership does not value the teaching and learning that is central to UNL’s contribution to Nebraska.”
Prior to Bennett’s proposal, UNL had already reduced its budget by tens of millions of dollars.
The academic planning committee acknowledged that UNL is “facing a significant budget deficit that must be addressed, and that this will necessitate hard decisions.” But the committee isolated the budget challenge’s source in lethargic public funding rather than the university’s expenses.
“We do not have a spending problem on this campus: we have an investment problem,” the committee said in its memo to Bennett. “This is evidenced by the fact that we have cut $75M from our budget in the last six years, yet this has failed to prevent our budget deficit from growing.”
For decades, curriculum, pedagogy, and technology have evolved to meet the changing needs of students. But in many schools, the classroom environment itself hasn’t kept pace. Classic layouts that typically feature rows of desks, limited flexibility, and a single focal point can often make it harder for educators to support the dynamic ways students learn today.
Classrooms are more than places to sit–when curated intentionally, they can become powerful tools for learning. These spaces can either constrain or amplify great teaching. By reimagining how classrooms are designed and used, schools can create environments that foster engagement, reduce stress, and help both teachers and students thrive.
Designing a classroom for student learning outcomes and well-being
Many educators naturally draw on their own school experiences when shaping classroom environments, often carrying forward familiar setups that reflect how they once learned. Over time, these classic arrangements have become the norm, even as today’s students benefit from more flexible, adaptable spaces that align with modern teaching and learning needs.
The challenge is that classic classroom setups don’t always align with the ways students learn and interact today. With technology woven into nearly every aspect of their lives, students are used to engaging in environments that are more dynamic, collaborative, and responsive. Classrooms designed with flexibility in mind can better mirror these experiences, supporting teaching and learning in meaningful ways, even without using technology.
To truly engage students, the classroom must become an active participant in the learning process. Educational psychologist Loris Malaguzzi famously described the classroom as the “third teacher,” claiming it has just as much influence in a child’s development as parents or educators. With that in mind, teachers should be able to lean on this “teacher” to help keep students engaged and attentive, rather than doing all the heavy lifting themselves.
For example, rows of desks often limit interaction and activity, forcing a singular, passive learning style. Flexible seating, on the other hand, encourages active participation and peer-to-peer learning, allowing students to easily move and reconfigure their learning spaces for group work or individual work time.
I saw this firsthand when I was a teacher. When I moved into one of my third-grade classrooms, I was met with tables that quickly proved insufficient for the needs of my students. I requested a change, integrating alternative seating options and giving students the freedom to choose where they felt most comfortable learning. The results exceeded my expectations. My students were noticeably more engaged, collaborative, and invested in class discussions and activities. That experience showed me that even the simplest changes to the physical learning environment can have a profound impact on student motivation and learning outcomes.
Allowing students to select their preferred spot for a given activity or day gives them agency over their learning experience. Students with this choice are more likely to engage in discussions, share ideas, and develop a sense of community. A comfortable and deliberately designed environment can also reduce anxiety and improve focus. This means teachers experience fewer disruptions and less need for intervention, directly alleviating a major source of stress by decreasing the disciplinary actions educators must make to resolve classroom misbehavior. With less disruption, teachers can focus on instruction.
Supporting teachers’ well-being
Just as classroom design can directly benefit student outcomes, it can also contribute to teacher well-being. Creating spaces that support collaboration among staff, provide opportunities to reset, and reduce the demands of the job is a tangible first step towards developing a more sustainable environment for educators and can be one factor in reducing turnover.
Intentional classroom design should balance consistency with teacher voice. Schools don’t need a one-size-fits-all model for every room, but they can establish adaptable design standards for each type of space, such as science labs, elementary classrooms, or collaboration areas. Within those frameworks, teachers should be active partners in shaping how the space works best for their instruction. This approach honors teacher expertise while ensuring that learning environments across the school are both flexible and cohesive.
Supporting teacher voice and expertise also encourages “early adopters” to try new things. While some teachers may jump at the opportunity to redesign their space, others might be more hesitant. For those teachers, school leaders can help ease these concerns by reinforcing that meaningful change doesn’t require a full-scale overhaul. Even small steps, like rearranging existing furniture or introducing one or two new pieces, can make a space feel refreshed and more responsive to both teaching and learning needs. To support this process, schools can also collaborate with learning environment specialists to help educators identify practical starting points and design solutions tailored to their goals.
Designing a brighter future for education
Investing in thoughtfully designed school environments that prioritize teacher well-being isn’t just about creating a more pleasant workplace; it’s a strategic move to build a stronger, more sustainable educational system. By providing teachers with flexible, adaptable, and future-ready classrooms, schools can address issues like stress, burnout, and student disengagement. When educators feel valued and empowered in their spaces, they create a better work environment for themselves and a better learning experience for their students. Ultimately, a supportive, well-designed classroom is an environment that sets both educators and students up for success.
Dr. Sue Ann Highland, School Specialty
Dr. Sue Ann Highland is the Lead National Education Strategist at School Specialty.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
The University of Phoenix has launched TransferPath, a mobile app promising prospective students a quick estimate of how many previous college credits might transfer toward a Phoenix degree. At first glance, it sounds like a win: upload your transcripts, get a pre-evaluation, and move faster toward completing your degree. The EdTech Innovation Hub article covering the launch presents the app as an unambiguously positive innovation—but a closer look raises serious questions.
The EdTech piece reads more like a press release than investigative reporting. It offers no insight into how pre-evaluations are calculated, whether faculty are involved, or how often initial predictions align with final credit acceptance. Without this transparency, students risk developing false confidence and making financial or academic decisions based on incomplete or misleading information.
The app also reflects the asymmetry of power between institution and student. While marketed as a convenience, it is ultimately a recruitment tool. The University of Phoenix controls which credits are accepted, and the app’s messaging may funnel students into its programs regardless of whether other paths would better serve their educational goals.
Missing from the coverage is context. Phoenix’s history as a for-profit institution has drawn scrutiny over retention rates, student debt, and degree outcomes. Presenting TransferPath without acknowledging this background creates a misleading narrative that the app is purely a student-centered innovation. Equity concerns are similarly absent. Students without smartphones, stable internet, or digital literacy may be excluded or misled. There is no evidence that the app serves all students fairly or that its credit predictions are accurate across diverse educational backgrounds.
TransferPath may indeed offer some convenience, but convenience alone does not equal value. Prospective students deserve clarity, honesty, and rigorous evaluation of how tools like this actually function. They need more than marketing optimism—they need realistic guidance to navigate the complexities of credit transfer, institutional incentives, and long-term outcomes.
Until such transparency and accountability are provided, TransferPath risks being more of a recruitment gimmick than a meaningful step forward in higher education.
Like most of my colleagues in art history, English, history, modern languages, musicology, philosophy, rhetoric and adjacent fields, I am concerned about the current crisis in the humanities. Then again, as a student of the history of the modern university, I know that there haven’t been too many decades over the last 150 years during which we humanities scholars have not employed the term “crisis” to portray our place in the academy.
Our Greek forebears, as early as Hippocrates, coined the term “kρίσις” to describe a “turning point”; kρίσις, a word related to the Proto-Indo-European root krei-, is etymologically connected to practices like “sieving,” “discriminating” and “judging.” In fact, the most widely mentioned skill we humanists offer our students, critical thinking, originates from the same practice of deliberate “sieving.” Thus, when we call ourselves critics and write critical theory, we admit that crisis might just be our natural habitat.
What’s Different This Time Around?
A look at the helpful statistics provided by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences indicates that this latest crisis in humanities enrollments and degree completions is not like the previous fluctuations in our history, but more foundational. Things sounded bad enough when a state flagship like West Virginia University slashed modern languages (and math!) two years ago. But when that beacon of humanistic learning, the University of Chicago, pauses Ph.D. admissions across all but two of its humanities programs, we know the crisis is existential. Wasn’t it Chicago’s Kalven report that once stated boldly, and for the entire nation, that the university was “the home and sponsor of critics”?
Cultures of Complaint, and a Pinch of Hubris
Feeling powerless in the face of dwindling enrollment and support for our disciplines, some of us have resorted to digging up conspiracy theories, perhaps because, as Stanley Fish opined, in the psychic economy of academic critics, “oppression is the sign of virtue.” The tenor of such virtue-signaling complaints is that an unholy alliance of tech and business bros and their programs, together with politicians and academic leaders, promote only “useful” disciplines and crowd out interest in the humanities.
I think intellectual honesty would demand we remember that it was the humanities, custodians of high-culture education (Bildung), that once upon a time crowded out the applied arts, crafts and technologies, accusing them of lacking intellectual depth. Humanistic Ivy League and Oxbridge schools championed the classics, philosophy and literary studies as “liberal” and sneered at professional education in the “mechanical arts” (engineering, agriculture, business, etc.) as “servile.” When the humanities (and natural sciences) faculty at these elite colleges refused to open their classist “gentlemen’s education” to larger publics, land-grant universities and technological institutes emerged to increase access and to educate teachers, lawyers and engineers.
Could it be that today’s humanists still retain some of this original hubris toward technical, vocational and applied training, which makes the current inversion of disciplinary hierarchy even tougher to accept? Are warnings against instrumentalizing the humanities for economic gain (Martha C. Nussbaum, Not for Profit) or applying them to support vocational or technical disciplines (Frank Donoghue, The Last Professors) echoes of such hubris? Will this mentality, based on the knowledge economy of the late 19th century, convince today’s students to work with us?
Angsting About Ancillarity
The modernist poet W. H. Auden, in his book-length poem about anxiety, wrote that “We would rather be ruined than changed / We would rather die in our dread / Than climb the cross of the moment / And let our illusions die.” For sure, some among us deny the signs of the time, yearning for the golden days when humanities departments were ever expanding, arguing that an essential third Victorianist (focusing on drama) be added to the colleagues already focusing on fiction and poetry. If these golden days ever existed (in the early 1970s?), they are gone now. Nostalgia for the simulacrum persists.
Closer to reality, many colleagues in the humanities have been “climbing the cross of the moment,” adapting to the inversion of disciplinary hierarchies at our institutions and accepting the mandate to show at least some measurable outcomes instead of our beloved unquantifiable humanistic critique. We have been aligning with the new lead disciplines by creating a vast infrastructure of certificates, degrees, journals, book series and organizations in the medical, health, digital, environmental and energy humanities, in science and technology studies, computational media, and music technology.
However, as Colin Potts observed, when we partner with our colleagues in these better-funded and high-visibility disciplines, we are rarely “co-equal contributors.” We are like alms seekers, condensing our lifelong training and knowledge into an ethics, civics and policy module required for our partners’ accreditation, or infusing technical writing and communication skills into a STEM curriculum to amplify their majors’ impact. These collaborations offer a modicum of recognition and an honorable mention in a holistically minded National Academies consensus report. But they also make us feel dreadfully ancillary.
Institutional strategic plans that exalt the value of the humanities with terms like “cornerstone,” “core” and “heart” only deepen our suspicions, especially when our budgets don’t match the performative strategic grandiloquence. From the medieval through the 18th-century university, the humanities suffered the trauma of being “handmaidens to theology” (ancillae theologiae), then the doctrinal master discipline. Now, technology has taken theology’s place, and we are once again “pleasant (but more or less inconsequential) helpmeets.” Trauma redux.
Hyperbole Won’t Help
In an existential crisis, hyperbole in the defense of our field no longer feels like a vice. Therefore, some of us now claim that the end of the humanities heralds the end of humanity and human civilization. Brenna Gerhardt, for example, warned that, because of the 2025 funding cuts to the National Endowment for the Humanities, “we may find that a society that forgets to ask what it means to be human forgets how to be one.”
Similarly, the 2024 World Humanities Report asserts that “the humanities are of critical importance” at a time when the “world and planet [are] under duress” and in dire need of “tools and concepts that will foster change and help us live under these shared, if still uneven, conditions.” These kinds of well-meaning statements, and the desperate daily news item (preferably from Oxbridge) amplifying our relevance and adaptability, burden the academic humanities with a responsibility incommensurate with the cultural and educational work we can perform. Their claim that “either you support the humanities, or inhumanity prevails” scares only us, but nobody else. As the authors of WhatEvery1Says: The Humanities in Public Discourse find, “The humanities appear to the public to be siloed in universities (unlike the sciences).”
This I Believe
If the previous paragraphs didn’t sound resilient and hopeful enough, please remember that my first obligation as a humanist is to be a critic, not a cheerleader. I believe that the humanities do have an important place in the ecosystem of higher education and at each university, that integrating STEM and liberal arts practices increases student success and leads to better research and scholarship, that humanistic considerations contribute to a more just and benign world, and that we need to continue our important work in core education.
However, I don’t think that we academic humanists have sufficient standing to make hyperbolic claims about what we can achieve. Just consider: Have we ever advanced how many majors and faculty positions would be enough to keep the world humane and civilized? Have we, as Roosevelt Montás asks in Rescuing Socrates, ever overcome the “crisis of consensus … about what things are most worth knowing”? And should we lecture our STEM colleagues on ethics and gender equity when, as recently as 2019, fewer than one-third of tenure-track faculty and fewer than one-fourth of non-tenure- track professors in U.S. philosophy departments were women?
We humanists are really good at asking critical questions, “sieving,” “discriminating” and “judging” at the highest levels of abstraction, but we are not so good at offering solutions. When we do, they often come from the same intellectual heights that have alienated us from undergraduate populations and the public. In a recent essay for the Journal of Theoretical Humanities, Wayne Stables takes us beyond hyperbole. He asks us to envision our lives and work “as if the humanities were dead,” thereby (he hopes) freeing us to consider collective action based on the likes of G. W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Theodor W. Adorno, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Wendy Brown. He believes this kind of “critical orientation” may help us survive “the troubling interregnum” in which we now find ourselves.
While I sympathize with Stables’s call to action (though I would add Hannah Arendt, Simone de Beauvoir, Julia Kristeva, bell hooks and Judith Butler to his list), I believe it takes us back to the time when the humanities strove to be “all breathing human passion far above.”
I recommend we befriend the idea that our humanistic values and practices may relate to more public-oriented and holistic goals, as exemplified by the University of Arizona’s successful degree in the public and applied humanities, which wants “to translate the personal enrichment of humanities study into public enrichment and the direct and tangible improvement of the human condition” and offers a “fundamentally experimental, entrepreneurial, and transdisciplinary” educational experience that “focuses on public and private opportunities that straddle rather than fall between purviews, or are confined by them.”
Since the introduction of this new kind of humanities program, connected with such fields as business, engineering and medicine, the number of students majoring in the humanities at Arizona has increased by 76 percent. This true kind of integrated partnership, and similar initiatives at St. Anselm College, Virginia Tech and my home institution of Georgia Tech, give me hope for a turning point—kρίσις—for the humanities in higher education.
Richard Utz is senior associate dean for strategic initiatives in the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts at Georgia Institute of Technology.
The decision by Indiana University administrators to allow the Indiana Daily Student newspaper to resume occasional publication is a victory for the advocates of free expression on campus. The Student Press Law Center, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the American Association of University Professors, along with student newspapers across the country, spoke out loudly in defense of Indiana student journalists. Particular praise goes to the students at the Purdue Exponent, which printed the censored homecoming issue of the Indiana Daily Student and distributed it around Bloomington, Ind., in solidarity with fellow journalists.
It’s rare for administrators to quickly reverse course and effectively admit they made a mistake. But while we need to celebrate a win, we also need to recognize how partial and temporary it was—and the enormous threat to freedom of the press that still exists at Indiana and beyond.
What Indiana University administrators did was one of the worst attacks on a free press at a public university in the history of American higher education. It combined three of the most terrible types of censorship of the press: 1) imposing massive content restrictions by attempting to ban the newspaper from printing any news, 2) banning the newspaper completely from being printed when the editors refused to obey these unlawful demands and 3) firing the professor who served as newspaper adviser, student media director Jim Rodenbush, for defending freedom of the press.
While the first two forms of repression have now been (temporarily) lifted, the last one still remains. When the newspaper adviser who was fired for opposing censorship remains fired, it’s still censorship. And Chancellor David Reingold’s decision to allow the newspaper to publish still includes severe budget cutbacks and elimination of university support for the publication.
Suppression of a free press at Indiana is linked to its broader repression of free expression. FIRE recently ranked Indiana University as the worst public university in America for free speech (and the student newspaper’s article about this ranking reportedly was one of the reasons why the administration cracked down on the free press). The repression by Indiana administrators has been astonishing. In December 2023, Indiana University suspended professor Abdulkader Sinno for the crime of reserving a room for an event critical of Israel. At the same time, the administration also canceled its art museum exhibit of abstract art paintings by Samia Halaby, a Palestinian American artist who had been critical of the Israeli government. In 2024, Indiana officials banned all expression on campus between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., which a federal judge paused while an ACLU lawsuit against the censorship continues.
In my 2020 report for the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement about freedom of the press on campus, I noted some of the severe threats to free expression: punishing independent media advisers who fail to rein in student newspapers, censoring campus papers directly, restricting access to campus, limiting the rights of faculty and staff to speak to reporters, and many more. But perhaps the greatest threat to journalism on campus is economic, when student newspapers are defunded and eventually decline from a thousand budget cuts.
The dire economic environment for newspapers across the country has also affected student publications. The drop in advertising revenue has hit campus newspapers, and many universities would rather put resources into public relations staff under the control of administrators rather than support student journalists who challenge them.
What universities can do to respect freedom of the press: First, do no harm. Stop trying to censor newspapers. Enact free expression policies that protect freedom of the campus press and the rights of their advisers and sources.
Second, integrate journalism into the curriculum. Offer classes about journalism, but recognize that many different classes (and especially writing-focused classes) can encourage students to publish their work, both online and in print. Good journalism is just good writing, and colleges should encourage students to publicly express their ideas on a wide range of topics.
Third, support campus journalism financially. Colleges ought to provide a substantial fund to campus newspapers to publish ads promoting events and activities on campus. By allocating this money for newspaper ads and then allowing campus programs and student organizations to freely use it for their events, colleges can promote what they are doing while supporting independent journalism. The belief that student newspapers shouldn’t be subsidized and must independently finance every word they print is a strange concept for colleges that are devoted to subsidizing the free exchange of ideas.
Student newspapers are the most important extramural activity on college campuses, and more essential than much of the courses, research and administrative work that receives vastly greater funding. A campus newspaper is more than just a critical source of information about what happens at colleges: It’s an education for writers and readers alike. It’s a bridge between the campus and the community, where growing news deserts make student papers more important than ever. And the campus newspaper is a symbol of intellectual debate, the most public place at a college where ideas are exchanged and arguments between different viewpoints are heard.
To date, the system has spent $162 million on fellows’ salaries, averaging about $7.36 million per year.
Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images
Starting next fall, the University of California system office will no longer pay for the UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, a fellowship established in 1984 to encourage more women and minority Ph.D.s to pursue academic careers.
The fellowship program, available at all 10 UC campuses and three national laboratories, has inspired numerous copycats at other state universities, including at the University of Maryland, the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, the University of Michigan and Pennsylvania State University. But its focus on recruiting diverse candidates has also been criticized by conservatives who claim it’s a pipeline for young hires with radical leftist politics.
The UC system office will stop providing financial support for the program beginning with fellows hired after summer 2025, a system spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed. Since 2003, the UC system office has paid the $85,000 salaries of PPFP fellows for their first five years on the faculty; then the UC campus where they are employed takes over. To date, the system has spent $162 million on PPFP faculty salaries, averaging about $7.36 million per year.
“Due to the severe budget constraints currently facing UC, the PPFP faculty hiring incentive is sunsetting as of fall 2025,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “While the University will continue to provide five years of salary support to PPFP fellows hired by summer 2025 and in earlier years, no new incentives will be provided going forward. Campuses will still be able to hire PPFP fellows as part of their normal search and hiring processes, but the additional financial contribution from the incentive program will no longer be available.”
The University of California system is facing a decline in state funding and pressure from the Trump administration to implement a number of changes that weaken or abolish diversity, equity and inclusion practices. In March, former system president Michael Drake announced a systemwide hiring freeze and other cost-saving measures. At the same time, the system board prohibited campus officials from asking job candidates to submit a diversity statement as part of the hiring process. In August, the Trump administration demanded that the University of California, Los Angeles, pay a $1.2 billion fine for allegedly failing to address antisemitism on campus, as well as overhaul numerous policies related to admissions, hiring, athletics, scholarships, gender identity and discrimination.
In a thread posted to Bluesky, Sarah Roberts, a professor of information studies, gender studies and labor studies at UCLA, called the PPFP program a “jewel in the crown for faculty development and recruitment at the University of California.”
“To my mind, not only is this a direct attack by a UC central admin content to capitulate and emulate the federal position that arrived via extortion letter, it is part of a much larger plan, congruent with UC central admin, of weakening and eliminating faculty governance and power,” Roberts wrote about the decision to end funding for the program.
Despite its origins, the PPFP no longer explicitly seeks women and minority candidates and instead considers applicants “whose life experiences and educational background would help to broaden the perspectives represented in the faculty of the University of California,” according to the website.
This is a recent change; in 2024, the PPFP webpage included the tagline “advancing excellence through faculty diversity.” The criteria also stated that “faculty reviewers will evaluate candidates according to their academic accomplishments, the strength of their research proposal, and their potential for faculty careers that will contribute to diversity and equal opportunity through their teaching, research and service. Faculty reviewers also may consider the mentor’s potential to work productively with the candidate and commitment to equity and diversity in higher education.”
The PPFP, and fellow-to-faculty programs at large, have drawn criticism from conservatives including John D. Sailer, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who has written extensively on the programs. He believes they allow universities to recruit scholars who “embrace positions on the fringes of leftist politics.”
“Ideological screening has downstream consequences for our sensemaking institutions,” Sailer wrote in a February article. “Ultimately, the fellow-to-faculty model pushes conformity across once-distinct academic fields. As the UC professor put it, ‘it erodes disciplinary boundaries,’ flattening all forms of inquiry into a discussion of race and oppression.”
