Whenever I have a question about building a new online program, the first person I go to is almost always Paul Krause. At Cornell University, Paul serves as the vice provost of external education and executive director of eCornell. I asked Paul if he’d be willing to answer my questions for this community, and he graciously agreed.
Q: Help us understand your role at Cornell. What is eCornell, and what role does a vice provost of external education play at the university? Can you share some key metrics?
A: I lead the universitywide effort to extend Cornell’s reach to nontraditional students—those not in a residential degree program. My role includes leading eCornell, a centralized organization within the provost’s office that collaborates with each of our academic units to develop programs. Our portfolio includes online professional certificates, executive education, online degree program support and various social impact initiatives. The eCornell team is also responsible for outreach to organizations and individuals who can benefit from our programs.
Due to an early start—eCornell has been operational for over 24 years—and with the backing of academic leadership, such as the president, provost and deans, eCornell has expanded to encompass all 13 of Cornell’s colleges and schools. Last year, we offered more than 200 noncredit online certificate programs, created with over 250 faculty members. We engaged over 160,000 funded students, including individuals, enterprises supporting employee development or philanthropic partners aiming for social impact.
Q: When you think about the next three to five years in online learning and higher education, what are you most excited about and what keeps you up at night?
A: I’m excited by AI’s potential to revolutionize online courses through personalization and new ways to engage students. We can already incorporate remarkable new ways to engage with students with interactives, simulations and coaching support.
However, I also worry that AI could exacerbate the trend toward online learning becoming a “lone wolf” experience devoid of human interaction—a trend driven by good intentions to lower costs and expand access. Not every individual thrives in a 100 percent self-directed learning setting, and in many cases, something is lost without authentic instructor feedback and structured dialogue with peers. At eCornell, we are seeking to find a balance between integrating AI innovations and real human engagement with instructors and among peers.
Moving forward, I hope that online programs embrace AI to enhance efficiency and engagement while preserving the valuable social aspects of collaborative learning that drive deeper understanding and support student success. Otherwise, online learning will be a very lonely experience and never achieve its full potential.
In line with this theme, especially concerning noncredit professional certificates, colleges and universities should clearly define the educational experiences that merit a certificate from their institution. Currently, professional certificates lack industry standards for regular and substantial student engagement. The rise of prominent marketplaces and aggregators providing certificate programs through affordable subscription models has led to many certificate programs approaching the lowest common denominator of self-paced click-through experiences.
While this instruction might be effective for certain students in certain programs—and AI will certainly enhance those experiences—it fundamentally differs from a program that involves instructors and peer discussions. For certificate programs to signal significance in the long run, institutions must evaluate if the educational experience and outcomes justify awarding a credential linked to their brand.
Q: Your path to a university leadership role in digital and online education did not follow a traditional academic career. For early and midcareer professionals currently working outside a university, and who may be interested in a university leadership role, what career advice would you give?
A: My transition from ed-tech leadership to Cornell University a decade ago offered an extraordinary opportunity to drive meaningful change in higher education. Based on my experience, here is my advice for professionals considering a similar path:
Advance the mission. In my experience, educational institutions must balance social impact with financial sustainability, particularly in nondegree programs. I’ve found the key is demonstrating how serving external learners advances the institution’s fundamental goals while generating the resources needed to sustain that impact. Success lies in helping stakeholders understand how financial sustainability enables and amplifies our mission-driven outcomes.
Seek mentors. Throughout my journey, I’ve been fortunate to receive mentorship from experienced academic leaders who have helped me navigate the distinct institutional culture, competing priorities and decision-making processes that characterize higher education.
Lead through collaboration. I’ve learned that institutional change in academia requires an especially deep level of collaboration and strategic patience. Success comes from building strong partnerships across units and helping stakeholders see shared benefits. In my experience, the key is creating frameworks where stakeholders can advance their priorities together.
For professionals considering this path, I encourage you to embrace your unique perspective while maintaining a learning mindset. Success comes from exercising patience as you adapt to the academic environment and focusing on advancing shared goals through collaborative partnerships.
Colleges and universities can support students with previous history of suicidal ideation or self-harm with long-term counseling or mental health support.
PeopleImages/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Over the past two decades, suicide rates in the U.S. have increased 37 percent, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control. Fifteen percent of all deaths by suicide are among individuals ages 10 to 24 years old, making it the second leading cause of death for this age group.
A January report from Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH) finds that students with a history of suicidal or self-injurious behaviors report lower levels of distress after engaging with counseling center services, but they remain at higher levels of distress over all compared to their peers.
Methodology
The report includes data from the 2023–24 academic year, beginning July 2023 and closing June 2024. Data was collected from 213 college and university counseling centers, including 173,536 unique students seeking care, 4,954 clinicians and over 1.2 million appointments. The data is not representative of the general student population, only those accessing mental health services.
By the numbers: The number of students reporting previous suicidal or self-injurious behavior (S/SIB) histories jumped four percentage points from 2010–11 to 2023–24, according to CCMH data.
“While counseling centers have historically treated a considerable segment of students with heightened suicide risk, ongoing questions remain about the complexity of co-occurring problems experienced, the scope of services they utilize, and whether gaps in care exist,” according to the report.
Compared to their peers without a history of S/SIB, these learners had higher levels of self-reported distress, particularly in symptoms of generalized anxiety, general distress and depression. They were also more likely to report a history of trauma or past hospitalization.
Students had a higher likelihood of continuing to demonstrate self-injurious thoughts or behaviors, compared to other students, but the overall rates remained low, with only 3.3 percent of students with past S/SIB reporting it during college counseling.
They were 14.3 times more likely to engage in self-injury and 11.6 times more likely to attempt suicide during treatment, and more than five times more likely to be admitted or referred to a hospital for a mental health concern. This, again, constituted a small number of students (around one in 180) but researchers noted the disproportionate likelihood of these critical case events.
Ultimately, students with suicidal or self-injurious behavior history saw similar benefits from accessing services compared to their peers, with data showing less generalized distress or suicidal ideation among all learners between their first and final assessments. However, they still had greater levels of distress, even if slightly lower than initial intake, showing a need for additional resources, according to researchers.
“The data show that students with a history of suicidal or self-injurious behaviors could benefit from access to longer-term and comprehensive care, including psychological treatment, psychiatric services and case management at counseling centers, as well as adjunctive support that contributes to an overall sense of well-being, such as access to disability services and financial aid programs,” said Brett Scofield, executive director for the CCMH, in a Jan. 28 press release.
Future considerations: Researchers made note that while prior history of suicidal behaviors or self-harm are some of the risk factors for suicide, they are not the only ones, and counseling centers should note other behaviors that could point to suicidal ideation, such as substance use or social isolation.
Additionally, some centers had higher rates of students at risk for suicide, ranging from 20 to 50 percent of clients, so examining local data to understand the need and application of data is critical, researchers wrote.
The data also showed a gap in capacity to facilitate longer-term care, such as case management or psychiatric services available, which can place an additional burden on clinicians or require outsourcing for support, diluting overall quality of care at the center. “Therefore, it is imperative that colleges and universities invest in under-resourced counseling centers to ease the burden on counseling center staff and optimize treatment for students with heightened suicide risk,” according to the report.
Other trends: In addition to exploring how college counseling centers can address suicidality in young people, CCMH researchers built on past data to illustrate some of the growing concerns for on-campus mental health service providers.
Rates of prior counseling and psychotropic medication usage grew year over year and are at the highest level since data was first collected in 2012. A 2023 TimelyCare survey found six in 10 college students had accessed mental health services prior to entering college, and CCMH data echoed this trend, with 63 percent of students entering with prior counseling history.
The number of clients reporting a history of trauma remains elevated, up eight percentage points compared to 2012, though down slightly year over year, at 45.5 percent, compared to last year’s 46.8 percent.
Anxiety is the most common presenting concern, with 64.4 percent of clients having anxiety, as assessed by clinicians.
In-person counseling services have rebounded since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with 63.7 percent of clients receiving exclusively in-person counseling and 13.5 percent receiving only video care.
If you or someone you know are in crisis or considering suicide and need help, call the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing 9-8-8, or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741.
This blog was kindly authored by Annamaria Carusi, Director at Interchange Research. Annamaria recently joined a HEPI/Taylor & Francis roundtable to discuss advancing translational research.
HEPI, together with Taylor & Francis, recently highlighted translational research’s importance in bridging scientific discovery and real-world applications. This is a much-needed part of higher education strategy, especially given Labour’s framing of its policies in terms of missions. If the government is inspired by Mariana Mazzucato’s conception of missions, it needs policies that will ensure the country fully benefits from the substantial investment made by the State into research and development. Finding better connections between knowledge production and application is a key way of doing this.
Often, the focus of attention in translational efforts is bounded within STEM subjects, with the idea of translation originating in the biomedical sciences, with the ‘bench to bedside’ approach. But the creative industries are just as central to the economic well-being of the country – and its people. This is recognised in the establishment of the government’s Creative Industries Taskforce, which had its first meeting in December 2024.
Addressing the tension between the potential of the arts and humanities and the financial pressures they are under is a priority for any policy to build bridges between higher education and real-world impacts. Pre-conceptions about different disciplines’ relation to real-world impacts feed these tensions. Here, I suggest three areas where shifting pre-conceptions would be helpful for better positioning of arts and humanities with respect to real-world impacts.
Secondly, pitting Arts and Humanities and STEM against each other is not only counterproductive, but also creates an obstacle to further benefits of the arts and humanities, beyond those we already see through the creative industries. The need for models of research where different disciplines complement each other is even greater in the mission framework that the Labour government has adopted for its policy.
Crucial for getting the best out of these collaborations – not just for the first goal of research, the peer-reviewed publication, but for those all-important social impacts – is that all disciplines involved should be viewed as equal partners. An anecdote from one of my (many) personal experiences of collaborating as a humanities scholar with scientists shows why: I was invited to be an Arts and Humanities representative in a synthetic biology network, a cross-disciplinary collaboration that, at the time, was required by funders. When I asked what that might entail, I was told: ‘Anything, so long as you don’t put obstacles in the way of our research.’ But maybe disruption sometimes is a useful part of research and innovation? Further, there was nothing in the funding structure of the network that equalised the collaboration or tried to work towards a genuine integration; ultimately all the partners were in a loose network and mostly everyone researched and published in their own pre-set disciplinary journals.
When collaborating across these domains, we must understand that the arts are not secondary vehicles for science and technology. They are not merely communicators of scientific ideas already worked out by the scientists; the humanities are not there only to bring their particular brand of empathy or analytical and critical thinking skills, but also for the substantive content and ideas they bring. As equal partners addressing complex societal challenges together, the outputs and innovations that make their way into society are more likely to be implementable, with fewer unthought-through consequences for society. Additionally, the recognised and incentivised outputs of a collaboration should be broad enough to accommodate research publications, data sets, and products (such as a drug, a device, a policy, or a piece of software) but also the very wide array of direct and indirect outputs of the creative sector.
Thirdly, we need to tackle perceptions about employability, beginning with those of students as they make their course and degree choices. The lower numbers of students choosing arts and humanities courses at university goes hand in hand with the lower numbers choosing these subjects for AS and A-levels. In the case of English A-levels, one of the contributing factors is that there is a clearer career pathway for STEM subjects. This is despite the fact that Arts and Humanities are no slouches regarding employment. In 2022, 620 000 workers were employed in the arts sector and a further 350 000 were self-employed. It is often proposed that couching the Arts and Humanities in terms of their employment or economic impacts diminishes their intrinsic value. The intrinsic/extrinsic binary is not helpful, especially when it serves to fuel the perceived differences between arts and humanities, and science and technology. All of these disciplines have intrinsic values: as a researcher who has followed scientists around their labs, I have seen first-hand that often what holds them there is their passion for their subject for its own sake.
The more Arts and Humanities are seen as only one side of a binary between ‘intrinsic’ versus ‘extrinsic’ values, the more they become the precinct of an elite class, who go on to shape the arts sector in their image. Instead, what is needed is a concerted effort to change these perceptions and to show students that they can have both intrinsic and extrinsic values. Whichever model is used for bridging across higher education and real-world impact for the arts and humanities, be it translation or co-creation, should capture the complex relations between these two forms of value. The right forms of career support need to be co-designed with the whole sector and highlighted for prospective students. As we form strategies to realise more fully the direct and indirect benefits of arts and humanities, the economic survival of those practising them cannot be placed on a lower rung than those practising other disciplines.
Today on the HEPI website, Annamaria Carusi challenges the common assumption that translational research is only relevant to STEM fields, making the case for a broader, more integrated approach that fully values the contributions of the arts and humanities. If we want to maximize the real-world impact of research, she argues, it is time to rethink outdated silos and recognize the creative industries as essential players in innovation and economic growth. You can read that piece here.
Below, as the government considers higher education reform, Dr Brooke Storer-Church and Dr Kate Wicklow make the case for specialist higher education institutions and warn against the dangers of homogenisation.
GuildHE represents the most diverse range of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that are crucial to the prosperity of the sector, the economy, and our global reputation. We therefore argue that in an increasingly complex world, the role of specialist higher education institutions has never been more vital. These institutions, with their deep-rooted expertise and tailored approach, offer a unique and invaluable contribution to the landscape of higher education by providing diverse approaches and pathways to a wide range of students.
Diversity is a necessary ingredient for a successful and sustainable higher education sector, and this is becoming clearer from an analysis of the United States landscape, along with Australia and other large higher education systems. Expert commentators grappling with some of the current challenges for American universities and colleges offer a hypothesis, positing that losing the diversity of mission and distinctiveness, objectives and audiences has been key to its diminishing public support. This homogenisation includes institutional, mission, operational, and aspirational similarities, which see every institution strive to ‘be all things to all people’ and thereby offer ‘the same thing for only some of the people.’
In November, the Secretary of State wrote to the higher education sector outlining five areas for reform. GuildHE has scrutinised these areas and suggested to the Department for Education (DfE) ways to use the strengths of our sector to meet these challenges. However, some of the debate surrounding reform includes calls for consolidation and institutional mergers to offer the best ‘efficiencies’ in the sector.
While GuildHE members drive innovation, enrich communities and ensure access to high-quality education, their impact is often overlooked because they are not traditional, large-scale, multi-faculty universities. Funding and regulatory systems and government policies often fail to recognise institutions that do not fit this conventional university image. We, therefore, argue consolidation in the sector puts institutional diversity and student choice at risk, jeopardises our world-leading status, and undermines the Government’s missions of supporting local communities, equality of opportunity and our national economy.
Overall, we want to see Government reform which champions our diversity, avoids policies that undermine the unique contributions of our diverse institutions, and actively invests to protect them.
A focus on depth and industrial relevance
Unlike their more generalist counterparts, specialist HEIs prioritise depth over breadth. They delve into specific disciplines, professions or industries, providing students with a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their chosen field. This focused approach fosters a level of knowledge and skills that is often unmatched elsewhere and is increasingly in demand to tackle 21st-century challenges.
Whilst GuildHE is known for representing specialist creative arts institutions, which together train about 40% of all creative HE students in England, we represent a wider range of specialists, including healthcare specialists like Health Sciences University, specialists in the built environment like University College of Estate Management (which is also a specialist in online delivery) and all the land-based specialist universities in the sector. The agri-food sector employs almost 4 million people and is larger than the automotive and aerospace sectors combined. Technological innovations and sustainability and productivity improvements are driven by our specialist land-based institutions, which work closely with industrial partners. This specialist expertise is transforming the future of food production, bringing together disciplines such as robotics and artificial intelligence and contributing to the broader push towards net-zero food and farming. Several agriculture-focused higher education providers have their own farms and industrial research centres for testing and development.
Nationally, our institutions work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, right across government and with industry sector bodies; for example, Harper Adams University has advised the government on matters related to food security. Their impact is also international, as agri-food HEIs work with the Department for International Trade to boost the profile of UK agricultural innovation overseas and educational and research and development programmes are forged with international partners from the US and China to Kenya, Australia and the Netherlands.
A culture of innovation
As natural innovators, many specialist institutions know their regions well and will be a critical part of generating economic growth there. They are locally significant as employers and community anchors and active partners in Local Enterprise Partnerships and other local bodies, such as Chambers of Commerce. Below is just a small sample of the innovations delivered by our specialist institutions.
Norwich University of the Arts collaborated with regional businesses to innovate film technology that mid-size regional film production companies use. The project created new jobs in Norfolk, boosted film production for regional, small-scale productions and start-ups, and the insights gained from the project were incorporated into the university curriculum. By equipping students with cutting-edge knowledge and skills, NUA is empowering them to contribute to the region’s growing knowledge-based economy by equipping them with cutting-edge knowledge and skills.
Dyson Institute for Engineering and Technology is training the future workforce of engineers with a particular focus on pioneering new technologies that make intrinsically relevant real-world impacts. Innovation areas include delivering safe, cleaner, energy-efficient batteries, prototyping products in aerodynamics, mechatronics and microbiology and robotics for clinical imaging, navigation technology and machine learning.
Hartpury University is a leading institution for agriculture, agri-tech, animal and veterinary sciences. Its Agri-Tech Centre is a state-of-the-art complex, connecting research, knowledge, data, and people in a real-world and applied setting. Through the Centre, it provides industry-led services for the advancement of agricultural technologies and delivers proven solutions and services to farms and suppliers across the UK. This hub offers a path for innovative agri-tech businesses to trial new products and services to modernise and sustain British farming.
A sense of community
One of the defining characteristics of specialist HEIs is their strong sense of community. Students, staff and alumni often share a common passion for their field, creating a supportive and inspiring environment. This sense of community fosters a deep sense of belonging and can lead to lifelong friendships and professional networks.
Arts University Plymouth’s Young Arts programme was established in 1988. It features the university’s renowned Saturday Arts Clubs and for over 30 years, has worked to bridge the gap in arts provision for young people created by increasingly limited access to creative activity in schools. Young Arts uses art as a catalyst for learning, shaping the artists, makers and creative thinkers of the future, supporting learning and social development, often working with specific widening participation groups.
Starting in September 2025, Harper Adams University (HAU) will open a suite of undergraduate courses at The Quad, Telford; its first additional site in 124 years and a new base from which the university can extend its collaboration with and connection to its local community. In The Quad, HAU is co-located with Telford College, Invest Telford, and the local MP to broaden access for local learners to future-focused courses like data science, robotics mechatronics and automation, and digital business. HAU is also providing short courses and upskilling for local businesses to support local growth.
Our asks of government
As we argue extensively in our submission to DfE, specialist HEIs offer a diverse range of programmes and courses that meet the needs of a wide range of students and community partners and meet each of the five areas of higher education reform. They are, therefore, the essential threads in the fabric of our diverse, rich and successful higher education landscape; threads that have been regrettably lost in other systems around the world. Their focus on depth, industry partnerships, innovation and community makes them uniquely positioned to prepare students for success in a rapidly changing world. As we look to the future, it is clear that specialist HEIs must continue to play a vital role in shaping the next generation of leaders and innovators.
Global trend analysis has shown that government policies, regulation and academic communities have all contributed to the homogeneity of higher education in other countries. This reduces social mobility by reducing modes of entry and delivery. It also weakens applied research and innovation and the pipeline of experts into the labour market, as it loses its ability to create the growing variety of specialisations needed for economic and social development.
At a time when we, as a sector, are grappling with the twin pressures of making our contributions to wider society clearer and delivering the promise with fewer resources, we must all protect the very diversity within it that ensures we can rise to the 21st-century challenges on our doorstep and retain a world-leading and (possibly) increasingly unique higher education sector.
We have published a summary of our submission to DfE with our various policy asks to protect the diversity of our system here.
This story was produced by the Associated Press and reprinted with permission.
Math is the subject sixth grader Harmoni Knight finds hardest, but that’s changing.
In-class tutors and “data chats” at her middle school in Compton, California, have made a dramatic difference, the 11-year-old said. She proudly pulled up a performance tracker at a tutoring session last week, displaying a column of perfect 100 percent scores on all her weekly quizzes from January.
Since the pandemic first shuttered American classrooms, schools have poured federal and local relief money into interventions like the ones in Harmoni’s classroom, hoping to help students catch up academically following COVID-19 disruptions.
But a new analysis of state and national test scores shows the average student remains half a grade level behind pre-pandemic achievement in both reading and math. In reading, especially, students are even further behind than they were in 2022, the analysis shows.
Compton is an outlier, making some of the biggest two-year gains in both subjects among large districts. And there are other bright spots, along with evidence that interventions like tutoring and summer programs are working.
Students interact in a fourth grade classroom at William Jefferson Clinton Elementary in Compton, Calif., Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. Credit: Eric Thayer/Associated Press
The Education Recovery Scorecard analysis by researchers at Harvard, Stanford and Dartmouth allows year-to-year comparisons across states and districts, providing the most comprehensive picture yet of how American students are performing since COVID-19 first disrupted learning.
The most recent data is based on tests taken by students in spring 2024. By then, the worst of the pandemic was long past, but schools were dealing still with a mental health crisis and high rates of absenteeism — not to mention students who’d had crucial learning disrupted.
“The losses are not just due to what happened during the 2020 to 2021 school year, but the aftershocks that have hit schools in the years since the pandemic,” said Tom Kane, a Harvard economist who worked on the scorecard.
In some cases, the analysis shows school districts are struggling when their students may have posted decent results on their state tests. That’s because each state adopts its own assessments, and those aren’t comparable to each other. Those differences can make it impossible to tell whether students are performing better because of their progress, or whether those shifts are because the tests themselves are changing, or the state has lowered its standards for proficiency.
The Scorecard accounts for differing state tests and provides one national standard.
Higher-income districts have made significantly more progress than lower-income districts, with the top 10 percent of high-income districts four times more likely to have recovered in both math and reading compared with the poorest 10 percent. And recovery within districts remains divided by race and class, especially in math scores. Test score gaps grew by both race and income.
A student works in a classroom at Benjamin O. Davis Middle School in Compton, Calif., Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. Credit: Eric Thayer/Associated Press
“The pandemic has not only driven test scores down, but that decline masks a pernicious inequality that has grown during the pandemic,” said Sean Reardon, a Stanford sociologist who worked on the scorecard. “Not only are districts serving more Black and Hispanic students falling further behind, but even within those districts, Black and Hispanic students are falling further behind their white district mates.”
Still, many of the districts that outperformed the country serve predominantly low-income students or students of color, and their interventions offer best practices for other districts.
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.
In Compton, the district responded to the pandemic by hiring over 250 tutors that specialize in math, reading and students learning English. Certain classes are staffed with multiple tutors to assist teachers. And schools offer tutoring before, during and after school, plus “Saturday School” and summer programs for the district’s 17,000 students, said Superintendent Darin Brawley.
To identify younger students needing targeted support, the district now conducts dyslexia screenings in all elementary schools.
The low-income school district near downtown Los Angeles, with a student body that is 84 percent Latino and 14 percent Black, now has a graduation rate of 93 percent, compared with 58 percent when Brawley took the job in 2012.
Harmoni, the sixth-grader, said that one-on-one tutoring has helped her grasp concepts and given her more confidence in math. She gets separate “data chats” with her math specialist that are part performance review, part pep talk.
“Looking at my data, it kind of disappoints me” when the numbers are low, said Harmoni. “But it makes me realize I can do better in the future, and also now.”
Brawley said he’s proud of the district’s latest test scores, but not content.
“Truth be told, I wasn’t happy,” he said. “Even though we gained, and we celebrate the gains, at the end of the day we all know that we can do better.”
A tutor helps students at Benjamin O. Davis Middle School in Compton, Calif., Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. Credit: Eric Thayer/Associated Press
As federal pandemic relief money for schools winds down, states and school districts will have limited resources and must prioritize interventions that worked. Districts that spent federal money on increased instructional time, either through tutoring or summer school, saw a return on that investment.
Reading levels have continued to decline, despite a movement in many states to emphasize phonics and the “science of reading.” So Reardon and Kane called for an evaluation of the mixed results for insights into the best ways to teach kids to read.
The researchers emphasized the need to extend state and local money to support pandemic recovery programs that showed strong academic results. Schools also must engage parents and tell them when their kids are behind, the researchers said.
And schools must continue to work with community groups to improve students’ attendance. The scorecard identified a relationship between high absenteeism and learning struggles.
In the District of Columbia, an intensive tutoring program helped with both academics and attendance, said D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Lewis Ferebee. In the scorecard analysis, the District of Columbia ranked first among states for gains in both math and reading between 2022 and 2024, after its math recovery had fallen toward the bottom of the list.
Pandemic-relief money funded the tutoring, along with a system of identifying and targeting support at students in greatest need. The district also hired program managers who helped maximize time for tutoring within the school day, Ferebee said.
Students who received tutoring were more likely to be engaged with school, Ferebee said, both from increased confidence over the subject matter and because they had a relationship with another trusted adult.
Students expressed that “I’m more confident in math because I’m being validated by another adult,” Ferebee said. “That validation goes a long way, not only with attendance, but a student feeling like they are ready to learn and are capable, and as a result, they show up differently.”
Federal pandemic relief money has ended, but Ferebee said many of the investments the district made will have lasting impact, including the money spent on teacher training and curriculum development in literacy.
Students walk through a hallway at Benjamin O. Davis Middle School in Compton, Calif., Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. Credit: Eric Thayer/Associated Press
Christina Grant, who served as the District of Columbia’s state superintendent of education until 2024, said she’s hopeful to see the evidence emerging on what’s made a difference in student achievement.
“We cannot afford to not have hope. These are our students. They did not cause the pandemic,” Grant said. “The growing concern is ensuring that we can … see ourselves to the other side.”
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
DANVERS, Mass. — It’s a rainy fall day in New England, but that doesn’t stop a group of students at Essex Tech North Shore Agricultural & Technical High School from donning work boots and hard hats and getting to work building a vegetable wash station on campus. This afternoon, they are installing wire mesh and prepping for a concrete pour under the watchful eye of Laborers’ Local 22 member Chris Moore, their teacher. “Hard hat hair don’t care,” reads the sticker on the hat worn by a young woman in the program.
The construction craft laborers track at Essex Tech, which Moore helps lead, is one of only a few high school-based programs in Massachusetts co-sponsored by a trade union. Students are initiated in union norms and expectations early on. Two Essex Tech teachers in the program are Local 22 members, with the New England Laborers’ Training Academy, which runs the laborers’ apprenticeship, paying Moore’s salary. As seniors, students can attend union meetings. And after graduation, many of them go straight into a union apprenticeship, fast tracked to a journeyman’s license. For all these reasons, Owen Paniagua, a 16-year-old junior, described the program as “a golden ticket to job security,” noting that he has learned everything from carpentry and concrete work to excavation and masonry.
“We feel as laborers that we should be in the schools,” said Lou Mandarini Jr., the retired business manager of Local 22 who now helps run the union’s school partnerships. “This is where your workforce is … If you treat young kids with respect, once they buy into your program, they are dead loyal.”
Students in the construction craft laborer program gather around Dave Collins, masonry head, before leaving to work on a project at Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical High School in Danvers, Mass. Credit: Sophie Park for The Hechinger Report
In several states, including Massachusetts, Maryland and Louisiana, trade union leaders have forged similar, groundbreaking partnerships with high school CTE programs in recent years, ponying up their own resources for the efforts. There’s also been an uptick in training alliances between trade unions and community colleges. In a 2023 brief, AFL-CIO leadership encouraged these partnerships. “No one knows better how to do a job than someone who does the job,” the brief stated.
Whether more unions decide to embrace this advice likely will play a large role in determining the long-term health and vibrancy of both career and technical high schools, and the trades themselves.
Yet progress has been piecemeal and halting. And it’s too early to tell whether isolated partnerships across the country will translate into widespread change, said Taylor White, the director of postsecondary pathways for youth at the Center on Education and Labor at the think tank New America. “Schools and unions speak very different languages,” she noted. The same, she added, is true of employers and schools.
The longstanding dearth of partnerships says a lot about the history of America’s trade unions, which traditionally have operated as insular, sometimes parochial institutions, preferring to maintain tight control over their membership pipeline, and their training. In some communities, such as Milwaukee, that insularity kept unions predominantly white and male for generations. “Historically a lot of the high-paying skilled trades were handed down from father to son,” said Lauren Baker, a former education director in the printers’ union who also led Milwaukee Public Schools’ career and technical education program between 2002 and 2012. “That kept the trades looking a certain way.”
Mandarini, the retired union leader, said that in the past, “old timers didn’t help the young people.” But increasingly, he said, he hopes that mentality will become an anomaly.
Owen Paniagua, 16, and Isabella Gonzalez, 17, both juniors in the Construction Craft Laborer program at Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical High School, pose for a portrait at Essex Tech in Danvers, Mass. The Essex Tech program’s partnership with the laborers’ union helps to foster job prospects for graduating students. Credit: Sophie Park for The Hechinger Report
For decades, many vocational school students have been held back by a lack of meaningful partnerships with both unions and employers at their schools, often leaving them without relevant training or clear pathways into jobs. “There’s skepticism from unions and employers that high school kids are ready for real training and real work,” said White, of New America.
There’s also been a longstanding desire on the part of many unions to maintain tight control over who can access often coveted apprentice slots.
Until recent years, most trade union apprenticeships in the Milwaukee area had admissions criteria that shut out many women, low-income, and Black and Hispanic city residents. “They were such closed communities, and it was a long process of breaking down some of those walls,” Baker said.
Back in the mid-1990s, Baker was the first woman to run a printing apprenticeship program for the union. In part to open up the field to as diverse a pool as possible, Baker abolished a requirement that apprentices had to be high school graduates. “Pretty much all a high school diploma told me was that they sat in a chair for four years,” she said, pointing out that many of the apprentices came from the academic bottom of their graduation classes. “I caught holy hell from the apprenticeship community for doing that,” she said.
While the SATs and other college entrance exams have at times been accused of being biased toward privileged white students, Baker said some of the apprenticeship admissions exams were challenging for anyone who hadn’t grown up in the home of someone already working in a specific trade. A question might presume that an applicant had experience helping fix their family’s car, for instance, something that young men were far more likely to have done — and those growing up in urban areas, where fewer households own cars, were far less likely to have done.
For decades, those tests contributed to keeping the construction trade unions, in particular, predominantly white and male. Only two of 16 Milwaukee area construction unions enrolled at least 20 percent Black apprentices in 2007, according to a report from researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Two of the unions, glazing and tile setters, had no Black apprentices in a city where, at that time, nearly 40 percent of the residents were Black.
Much of that bias and insularity continues in some Boston-area construction trade unions, said Travis Watson, who serves as a commissioner of the Boston Employment Commission and has critiqued some of the unions for their lack of racial diversity, citing specific practices that make it harder for prospective Black members to get a foothold. “If you look at every big downtown project in Boston, there are very few Black people who are working on union construction projects,” he said.
Some of the local unions have made changes to their admissions process to become more accessible to applicants from diverse backgrounds, said Danyson Tavares, who worked for several years in leadership positions at YouthBuild Boston, a pre-apprenticeship program that helps prepare young people of color in the city for jobs in the construction and design industries. But other unions might take applications only once a year or remain secretive about their standards and curriculum. “The electrical union is the one we really want to have more relationships with, there’s such a demand for that workforce,” Tavares said. “We’ve slowly started to penetrate but it’s a lot more work than I expected.”
One 25-year-old who recently finished his pre-apprenticeship in carpentry at YouthBuild said he got an interview with the union but was turned down for an apprenticeship for reasons that he said weren’t entirely clear. “I kind of felt like I wouldn’t get in,” said Keyshawn Kavanaugh. He found a non-union job easily at a company that he likes a lot, but he acknowledges that “the union is the best place to work,” at least from the standpoint of benefits and pension.
In Milwaukee, Baker said she’s seen some positive changes since she ran the printers apprenticeship, with more local unions developing inclusive and transparent admissions. “The trades themselves began to realize that they needed to look beyond their natural base in order to fill jobs,” she said. “It became more apparent that there is a vast opportunity out there with women and people of color.”
The idea that Massachusetts laborers should invest time and money in local schools originated over 20 years ago, when Mandarini and other Local 22 leaders decided they were neglecting a potential asset: kids. Mandarini proposed a pilot partnership to the vocational school in Medford, Massachusetts, just outside of Boston, which started in 2002. It wasn’t easy at first. “How do you adapt to a public school?” he said. “There was a lot of learning that we had to do on both ends.”
The union had to fight against a perception that a four-year college degree was the only path to a stable, rewarding career, Mandarini said. It helped with recruiting to explain to prospective students that, at that time, union laborers could expect to retire with an annuity of about $1.2 million, he added. (In Massachusetts, laborers typically earn between $90,000 and $100,000 annually, and that annuity is now more than $2 million, Mandarini said.)
A school bus sits in a parking lot at Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical High School in Danvers, Mass. Credit: Sophie Park for The Hechinger Report
Over the years, the partnership model has spread to eight career and technical schools in Massachusetts. At some, the union pays a teacher’s salary, and at others it does not, Mandarini said. “We want to be in every vocational school in Massachusetts,” he said, “and hopefully every vocational school in New England. That’s where our workforce is coming from.”
In rural western Louisiana, it was a private company that encouraged a local trade union to partner with public high schools. The company, CapturePoint, which sells carbon storage services, reached out in March 2023 to the local branch of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, asking if the union would help build out a new career and technical track at the Vernon Parish School District.
To make it happen, the company paid for the electricity, classroom equipment and furniture to help turn an old woodworking shop at one of the district’s high schools into an updated welding shop. CapturePoint also took on several ongoing costs, paying for student transportation — the students can come from nine different high schools — and some administrative expenses. The union paid for some reconstruction and all the tools, and provided an instructor. The school offers the space and enrolls 30 students, who can skip their first year of apprenticeship if they join the union after graduating, thereby starting at a higher pay rate. “All of us have skin in the game,” said Lance Albin, who led the partnership for the union.
At high schools with trade union partnerships, there’s no shortage of interested students. Isabella Gonzalez, 17, creator of the “hard hat hair don’t care” sticker, said she hopes to move straight into an apprenticeship with Local 22 when she graduates in a year and a half. Aspiring laborers learn more diverse skills than students in related tracks like plumbing and electrical, she said, opening up the possibility of a greater variety of work.
That day last fall, juniors in the program practiced using a compactor to prep the ground for installation of a patio floor, part of the final stages in rebuilding a large cottage on campus. The construction students have been involved in the project since they poured the cement for the foundation in the summer of 2020, wearing masks during the pandemic’s early days, even outdoors.
By afternoon, the students had transitioned to another work in progress: the vegetable wash station by the greenhouse, where they needed to install enough wire mesh and rebar to do the concrete pour early the next week. “Put your hard hat on and help out,” their teacher Moore reminded a group of students holding back as the rain hardened. “No … statues here.”
Students in the Construction Craft Laborers program at Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical High School lay mesh while working on a greenhouse washing station at Essex Tech in Danvers, Mass. Credit: Sophie Park for The Hechinger Report
Students say the partnership with Local 22 provides them increased career security and the confidence that they are learning relevant, up-to-date skills: Moore until recently worked part time in the field, including on Boston’s project to restore the tunnel to the city’s Logan Airport.
Paniagua, the 16-year-old student in the program, said he can command a higher pay rate than most of his peers at a part-time carpentry and landscaping job because of the expertise he has gained in the Essex Tech program. He’s used the extra money to buy two new trucks. The union partnership has also allowed him to make more thoughtful, informed choices about career steps, he added. Leaning on his teachers as mentors, Paniagua said he decided to continue studying at a specialized welding school in Wyoming after graduation to maximize his future earning potential. “We know what we want to do here and get on it,” Paniagua said, noting that it’s a stark contrast to some of his friends who are conflicted about the value of a four-year college degree. “We’re not lost,” he said, “or wasting money.”
Former President Joe Biden was exceptionally supportive of the labor movement, and specifically of partnerships between unions and schools. Some labor experts expect some of that support might continue in the new Trump administration. “We’re seeing indications of a Trump administration that might not be as hostile to unions as you might think,” said Shalin Jyotishi, founder and managing director of the Future of Work and Innovation Economy Initiative at New America. He cited Trump nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer, opposed by many in the business community, for Labor secretary, and the president’s support of the longshoremen’s union over their anti-automation stance.
In any event, “these bottoms-up innovations are already happening locally,” Jyotishi said. “Federal decisions can help or hurt … odds of success, but the proof-of-concept is already out of the bag.”
A bigger question mark may be whether there is the will to expand capacity significantly on the ground. Some of the existing programs have not yet reached students in the most underserved communities who could potentially benefit most from a fast track into a union apprenticeship.
In Massachusetts, for instance, many of the high schools the laborers work with have become increasingly selective in admissions. Students from low-income homes were 30 percent less likely to be accepted at the state’s vocational schools in 2023 and 2024 than those from wealthier households, according to an analysis by the Boston Globe. Similar disparities existed for students receiving special education services and English learners.
The laborers have yet to expand their partnership model to Boston’s Madison Park Technical Vocational High School, where nearly all of the students are Black or Hispanic, about 85 percent come from low-income households, and 92 percent are identified as “high needs” — an umbrella term in Massachusetts that includes students with disabilities, English learners and low-income students, among other groups.
Madison Park, part of the city’s public school district, has some partnerships and many strong programs and instructors, said Bobby Jenkins, an alum and long-time advocate of the school. But the chronic turnover of both superintendents and school leaders in recent years has hindered progress in undertaking some more ambitious partnerships.
Isabella Gonzalez, 17, a junior in the Construction Craft Laborers program at Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical High School, compacts gravel at the Larkin Cottage, a project site at Essex Tech in Danvers, Mass. Credit: Sophie Park for The Hechinger Report
Mandarini agreed that political and bureaucratic obstacles have made it more challenging to partner with Madison Park. But the union has made it a priority and is in promising talks with city officials about partnering with the school when a proposed new facility might be completed.
“When I was part of the building trades, I used to say, ‘I don’t understand why you aren’t taking more kids, especially in the city of Boston,’” Mandarini said. “Every single trade should be in (Madison Park).’”
For now, that attitude has not spread to all union leaders. It will take a cultural shift from trade union groups to expand their school partnerships beyond scattered, boutique programs. Among other things, they will need to prioritize flexibility and the learning and growth of young people more than they are accustomed to, said White, of New America.
She noted that many union leaders seem aware that they have a pipeline and recruitment issue but remain unsure what to do about it. More school-based partnerships could help not only with that challenge but also with reenergizing and selling unions to future generations of workers — and voters, White added. “All of the polling suggests that young people are pretty pro-union,” she said. “There’s a missed opportunity on the part of unions if they don’t capitalize on that.”
Reporting on this story was supported by the Higher Ed Media Fellowship, where Carr was a fellow in 2024. This year, Carr has a fellowship from New America to report on early childhood issues.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
There’s always a challenge in trying to describe knowledge exchange, how it’s funded, why it’s worth worrying about, and what it actually does to the economy.
Mechanisms
The default is to talk about its underpinning mechanisms. The way that money goes to universities, their partners and then circulates into the real economy, and then hopefully something good happens. The problem with this approach is that outside of experts and hardy enthusiasts like me this approach is, well, rather dull.
And knowledge exchange is a less than glamorous name for some of the most important work universities do. ESRC, one of UKRI’s funding councils, has a rather elegant way of describing it:
The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is committed to encouraging collaboration between researchers and businesses, policymakers, the public and third sector organisations (for example charities and voluntary groups). This can create mutual benefits and contribute to positive economic and social impacts outside academia, for example through changes to policy and practice or new products and services created by commercialising research. Two-way interactions of this type are often collectively referred to as knowledge exchange. This is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of activities researchers might engage in, including policy engagement, public engagement, commercialisation and business engagement.
A less elegant way is to say that universities working together with other organisations can make the economy and society stronger. It is not a dry technocratic thing but the very way in which the wonderful things that are produced in universities become useful. Great ideas without an audience are interesting but fruitless. An expectant audience with no great ideas are bound for disappointment.
This means that there must be both the conditions for useful ideas to be produced and the conditions for organisations to make use of them. Research England, another funding body of UKRI, funds knowledge exchange through the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) and the Connecting Capability Fund (CCF). While HEIF is a more general knowledge exchange fund the CCF is focussed on the commercialisation of research with business. These funds are small compared to the overall research funding pots. HEIF is a formula based fund of £260m compared to an overall UKRI budget of over £8bn.
The key question isn’t whether knowledge exchange is a good thing. It self evidently is. But whether the intervention by funders is producing bigger impacts than would naturally happen through universities working with businesses, policy makers, and other groups. After all, universities would still benefit from equity in spin-outs and bask in the warm glow of civic participation even if they weren’t supported to do so.
The first report is an evaluation of HEIF carried out by Tomas Coates Ulrichsen. The part which UKRI will be most proud of, and should definitely cause them to consider whether their funding is enough, is that every £1 invested in HEIF produces £14.8 return on investment if you crowd in actual and estimated external impacts. Perhaps even more impressively the report also suggests that “38% of knowledge exchange outputs and incomes would not have happened in the absence of HEIF.” This isn’t activity that is being paid for twice but activity that is actually being created.
However, while this makes the case persuasively for the value of HEIF it’s the summary which gives us a bigger clue into what is going on in the economy. The report notes
The past two decades has seen KE income secured by English HEPs grow significantly in real terms, with KE income 81% higher in 2022/23 than in 2003/04 for HEPs in receipt of HEIF during the period 2017/18 – 2022/23 (the vast majority of HEPs in England). However, what is clear is that this twenty-year period is characterised by two very different decades. While KE income grew strongly – and faster than the economy as a whole – during the first decade, the past ten years has seen this growth largely stagnate. The limited growth in KE income may well reflect the multiple crises and shocks the UK has faced since then, not least with the Covid-19 pandemic, cost of living crisis, and departure from the European Union and the effects of this on R&D with research grants and contracts income to HEPs from European sources declining almost 30% in real terms since the EU referendum in 2016. KE income now appears to track trends in the economy more widely (as measured by the UK’s GDP).
To read the inverse of this is that the wider economy is a constraining factor on the ability of universities to deploy their research for social and economic benefit.
There is perhaps a tacit assumption that if universities produce great and useful research it will lead to great and useful things in the economy and society. This is only true as long as the economy has the absorptive capacity to keep the cycle of knowledge exchange investment which leads to knowledge exchange outputs which supports knowledge exchange income churning.
Help/HEIF
The evaluation of HEIF carried out by PA Consulting is particularly illuminating within this frame. The key findings are that in a changing policy environment HEIF has anchored the sector to make some significant social and economic impacts. It is the flexibility of the fund which has allowed specialisms to develop, the autonomy of the fund has found favourability in the sector, its stability has allowed for long-term partnerships, and a more permissive approach to accountability has allowed providers to demonstrate their value without drowning under administration.
The report is full of examples of how HEIF funding has catalysed wider social and economic activity but the examples have two things in common. The first is that allowing flexibility in the fund means it can be deployed in multiple partners in multiple ways. This means that even where there are wider economic challenges the funding can be tailored to suit the challenges of local economies. The second is that the long-term nature of the fund allows for greater stability within partnerships to withstand adverse economic headwinds.
Together, the two reports point toward HEIF as being successful as it demonstrably supports economic growth but does so through flexibility and provider autonomy linked, to a lesser or greater extent, to national priorities. It’s only a small fund but it is impactful.
Same old SMEs
The final report on CCF by Wellspring again demonstrates a positive return on investment. The programme has led to 200 new spin-outs and supported over 1,500 SMEs. The programme has led to the launch of at least 338 products and services and it is expected more will be launched over time, particularly in high-tech spin-outs.
The obvious albeit incorrect conclusion to draw would be that if each of these interventions induce such strong economic benefits then making the intervention larger would make the economy stronger. In fact, if the economic returns are so strong then the projects could presumably be 10, 100, or 1,000 times bigger, and continue to provide economic return.
Instead, what these reports highlight is that knowledge exchange funding is a product of the wider economy. There is a natural limit to how much activity can take place as there comes a point where the economy is not large enough or dynamic enough to absorb the benefits of universities’ work. In fact, these reports indirectly demonstrate how economies get stuck into a death spiral. Productivity stalls which prevents the absorption of innovative products and services. Without innovative products and services the economy cannot become more productive. And so on.
The benefits these schemes are realising would suggest they are not close to meeting the capacity of the economy and could therefore be much larger. It is also a matter of purpose. The funds are designed on a premise that there is capacity to make use of university work. It is a much harder question to imagine how funding should be designed where it is necessary to restart a broken economy.
The impact of these funds is striking, the reports written about them are convincing, however they open a door to a wider question of whether knowledge exchange funding is big enough, well directed enough, or tooled properly, to fix the UK’s entrenched economic issues including its collapsed productivity.
The phrase attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, “if I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants,” is often used as a metaphor for research and innovation: how each great thinker builds on the thoughts and research of others, the unending column of prize winners and esteemed fellows pursuing academic endeavour.
However, the environment I sought as a researcher and aim to enable as a university leader is more of a supportive collective, certainly one with a much less precarious base.
Perhaps the most important lessons learnt during my own research career was that the giants of research, innovation and knowledge exchange whose shoulders we are more often standing on are not the senior staff but rather the PhD students, early career researchers, postdoctoral fellows and technicians, who turn challenging questions posed into the most exciting innovative answers. And often without the bias of doing things the way we have in the past.
Untangling
Achieving the UK’s priority of innovation and the growth it drives requires a long-range vision to set direction matched with agility to rapidly pivot as new opportunities arise. This agility needs a skilled research workforce and the attraction of the brightest minds into roles at all stages of a research and innovation career.
However, these giants, whose shoulders we balance UK innovation on, need long-term confidence to initiate a career which currently has precarity baked in. Growing investment to support research and innovation is needed, but investment in equipment, facilities and consumables will not succeed without engaged and enabling expertise.
Alongside this, regional disparity of funding, low research cost recovery, and increasing regulatory demands are posing the question of how much research can any university afford to undertake. The simple answer may appear to be to do less, or divert funding to specialist institutes without dual responsibility for teaching – however, this would undermine the agility that is underpinned by broad expertise, civic and industrial partnerships and infrastructure which resides across our higher education institutions.
Fixing this knotty problem needs a systematic approach, balancing external and internal funding alongside improved recovery of the true cost of research. With restrictions in the sector and reduced internal funding impacting decisions, it is imperative to not forget the essential role of the precarious base on which our research activity in the UK is built – and to support it accordingly.
Concordat priorities
My commitment to career development and recognition of researchers is why I am excited to be continuing the great work led by Julia Buckingham as the incoming chair of the Researcher Development Concordat Strategy Group, which oversees the Researcher Development Concordat.
The concordat was first published in 2019, building on agreements of funding bodies and universities over a decade earlier. The current signatories are over 100 higher education and research institutes, who commit to the principles of environment and culture, employment, and career development for researchers in our institutions and 17 funding agencies who set grant holder requirements relating to the concordat commitments.
The concordat has recently undergone a review which identified future areas of focus to achieve continued effectiveness. Three priorities were identified:
First, agreeing a set of shared principles to define the characteristics of a positive environment for research culture, and second, working to a shared set of research culture values with measurable indicators of progress. We seek to align a set of shared broad principles to define the characteristics of a positive environment for research culture. While these must link to the REF people, culture and environment measures, they need to be high-level shared principles and ensure that they define measurable indicators of progress to avoid confusion across multiple agendas. These also need to be high enough level to ensure a collective agreement to deliver whilst also accommodating the diversity and breadth of higher education institutions and research organisations.
The third priority is simplifying the bureaucracy. This is essential in a sector with ever-growing demands of attention and associated costs to deliver. While we must maintain accountability, we need to simplify the bureaucracy to work in service of our principles and values, not dictate them. In short, we must simplify for our communities how the different national concordats can complement rather than compete for attention. To achieve this, we are reviewing and reforming reporting requirements to achieve better alignment and to incorporate them into existing reporting where possible. We are working with other bodies to align data and reporting requirements.
I am also keen to work with industry body representatives to understand and reduce barriers to the movement of careers from academia to industry and vice versa. This porosity of career is needed for both innovation and rapid business adoption of innovative ideas. For this porosity to support innovation and growth we also need to enhance engagement from the industry to support researchers throughout a changing career.
While this work is delivered by the concordat strategy group, the concordat is collectively owned by the sector and continued engagement is needed to ensure the concordat is fit for purpose. Given this, we are looking for engagement in future work, more details about which can be found on the concordat webpage. I look forward to working with higher education institutions, industry, funders, the Researcher Development Concordat Strategy Group, and individuals to deliver our collective commitments.
The Researcher Development Concordat Strategy Group secretariat is jointly funded through funding bodies from the four nations: Research England, the Scottish Funding Council, Medr (previously HEFCW), and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. I thank them for their continued support.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
UPDATE: Feb. 12, 2025: The U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday agreed to temporarily block staffers of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, from accessing student aid information and other data systems until at least Feb. 17.
On that date, a federal judge overseeing the case is expected to rule on a student group’s request for a temporary restraining order to block the agency from sharing sensitive data with DOGE.
Dive Brief:
A group representing University of California students filed a lawsuit Friday to block the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency from accessing federal financial aid data.
The University of California Student Association cited reports that DOGE members gained access to federal student loan data, which includes information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, account information and driver’s license numbers.
The complaint accuses the U.S. Department of Education of violating federal privacy laws and regulations by granting DOGE staffers access to the data. “The scale of intrusion into individuals’ privacy is enormous and unprecedented,” the lawsuit says.
Dive Insight:
President Donald Trump created DOGE through executive order on the first day of his second term, tasking the team, led by Tesla co-founder and Trump adviser Musk, with rooting out what the new administration deems as government waste.
DOGE has since accessed the data of several government agencies, sparking concerns that its staffers are violating privacy laws and overstepping the executive branch’s power. With the new lawsuit, the University of California Student Association joins the growing chorus of groups that say DOGE is flouting federal statutes.
One of those groups — 19 state attorneys general — scored a victory over the weekend. On Saturday, a federal judge temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing the Treasury Department’s payments and data system, which disburses Social Security benefits, tax returns and federal employee salaries.
The University of California Student Association has likewise asked the judge to temporarily block the Education Department from sharing sensitive data with DOGE staffers and to retrieve any information that has already been transferred to them.
The group argues that the Education Department is violating the Privacy Act of 1974, which says that government agencies may not disclose an individual’s data “to any person, or to another agency,” without their consent, except in limited circumstances. The Internal Revenue Code has similar protections for personal information.
“None of the targeted exceptions in these laws allows individuals associated with DOGE, or anyone else, to obtain or access students’ personal information, except for specific purposes — purposes not implicated here,” the lawsuit says.
The Washington Post reported on Feb. 3 that some DOGE team members had in fact gained access to “multiple sensitive internal systems,” including federal financial aid data, as part of larger plans to carry out Trump’s goal to eventually eliminate the Education Department.
“ED did not publicly announce this new policy — what is known is based on media reporting — or attempt to justify it,” Friday’s lawsuit says. “Rather, ED secretly decided to allow individuals with no role in the federal student aid program to root around millions of students’ sensitive records.”
In response to the Post’s Feb. 3 reporting, Musk on the same day posted on X that Trump “will succeed” in dismantling the agency.
Later that week, the Post reported that DOGE staffers were feeding sensitive Education Departmentdata into artificial intelligence software to analyze the agency’s spending.
The moves have also attracted lawmakers’ attention. Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top-ranking Democrat on the House’s education committee, asked the Government Accountability Office on Friday to probe the security of information technology systems at the Education Department’s and several other agencies.
An Education Department spokesperson said Monday that the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
