Blog

  • Scaling structured literacy with implementation science

    Scaling structured literacy with implementation science

    When districts adopt evidence-based practices like Structured Literacy, it’s often with a surge of excitement and momentum. Yet the real challenge lies not in the initial adoption, but in sustaining and scaling these practices to create lasting instructional change. That’s the point at which implementation science enters the picture. It offers a practical, research-backed framework to help district leaders move from one-time initiatives to systemwide transformation.

    Defining the “how” of implementation

    Implementation science is the study of methods and strategies that support the systematic uptake of evidence-based practices. In the context of literacy, it provides a roadmap for translating the science of reading, based on decades of cognitive research, into day-to-day instructional routines.

    Without this roadmap, even the most well-intentioned literacy reforms struggle to take root. Strong ideas alone are not enough; educators need clear structures, ongoing support, and the ability to adapt while maintaining fidelity to the research. Implementation science brings order to change management and helps schools move from isolated professional learning sessions to sustainable, embedded practices.

    Common missteps and how to avoid them

    One of the most common misconceptions among school systems is that simply purchasing high-quality instructional materials or delivering gold-standard professional learning, like Lexia LETRS, is enough. While these are essential components, they’re only part of the equation. What’s often missing is a focus on aligned leadership, strategic coaching, data-informed decisions, and systemwide coordination.

    Another frequent misstep is viewing Structured Literacy as a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach. In reality, it is a set of adaptable practices rooted in the foundational elements of reading: Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Effective implementation requires both structure and flexibility, guided by tools like the Active Implementation Formula or NIRN’s Hexagon Tool.

    District leaders must also rethink their approach to leadership. Instructional change doesn’t happen in a vacuum or stay confined to the classroom. Leaders at every level–from building principals to regional directors–need to be equipped not just as managers, but as implementation champions.

    Overcoming initiative fatigue

    Initiative fatigue is real. Educators are weary of the pendulum swings that often characterize educational reform. What’s new today may feel like a rebranded version of yesterday’s trend. Implementation science helps mitigate this fatigue by building clear, supportive structures that promote consistency over time.

    Fragmented professional learning is another barrier. Educators need more than one-off workshops–they need coherent, job-embedded coaching and opportunities to reflect, revise, and grow. Coaching plays a pivotal role here. It serves as the bridge between theory and practice, offering modeling, feedback, and emotional support that help educators build confidence and capacity.

    Building sustainable systems

    Sustainability starts with readiness. Before launching a Structured Literacy initiative, district leaders should assess their systems. Do they have the right people, processes, and tools in place? Have they clearly defined roles and responsibilities for everyone involved, from classroom teachers to district office staff?

    Implementation teams are essential. These cross-functional groups help drive the work forward, break down silos, and ensure alignment across departments. Successful districts also make implementation part of their onboarding process, so new staff are immersed in the district’s instructional vision from day one.

    Flexibility is important, too. No two schools or communities are the same. A rural elementary school might need different pacing or grouping strategies than a large urban middle school. Implementation science supports this kind of contextual adaptation without compromising core instructional principles.

    Measuring progress beyond test scores

    While student outcomes are the ultimate goal, they’re not the only metric that matters. Districts should also track implementation fidelity, educator engagement, and coaching effectiveness. Are teachers confident in delivering instruction? Are they seeing shifts in their students’ engagement and performance? Are systems in place to sustain these changes even when staff turnover occurs?

    Dashboards, coaching logs, survey tools, and walkthroughs can all help paint a clearer picture. These tools also help identify bottlenecks and areas in need of adjustment, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

    Equity at the center

    Implementation science also ensures that Structured Literacy practices are delivered equitably. This means all students, regardless of language, ability, or zip code, receive high-quality, evidence-based instruction.

    For multilingual learners, this includes embedding explicit vocabulary instruction, oral language development, and culturally responsive scaffolding. For students with disabilities, Structured Literacy provides a clear and accessible pathway that often improves outcomes significantly. The key is to start with universal design principles and build from there, customizing without compromising.

    The role of leadership

    Finally, none of this is possible without strong leadership. Implementation must be treated as a leadership competency, not a technical task to be delegated. Leaders must shield initiatives from political noise, articulate a long-term vision, and foster psychological safety so that staff can try, fail, learn, and grow.

    As we’ve seen in states like Mississippi and South Carolina, real gains come from enduring efforts, not quick fixes. Implementation science helps district leaders make that shift–from momentum to endurance, from isolated success to systemic change.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Security Threats: Groypers on Campus

    Higher Education Inquirer : Security Threats: Groypers on Campus

    1. Transitional Vulnerability

    First-year students often experience isolation, uncertainty, and identity formation. Groypers prey on this transitional moment by offering belonging, brotherhood, and contrarian confidence.

    2. Political Vacuum
    As universities retreat from serious civic education and as student affairs offices shrink under austerity, space opens for fringe networks to fill the ideological void.

    3. Online Radicalization Pipelines
    Groypers thrive in places like:

    Discord
    Telegram
    X/Twitter
    anonymous forums
    niche livestream communities

    Campus life becomes an extension of these networks, where online provocations evolve into real-world harassment or orchestrated spectacle.

    4. Conservative Student Groups as Entry Points
    Mainstream Republican or “free speech” groups are often targeted for infiltration. Groypers show up:
    to push Q&A sessions into racist or antisemitic talking points,
    to pressure student Republicans to shift further right,
    to create rifts between libertarian, traditional conservative, and MAGA factions.

    The strategy is division, not dialogue.

    Common Groyper Tactics on Campus
    1. Ambush Questioning
    At public lectures or campus Republican events, Groypers coordinate to dominate Q&A sessions, posing racially charged or conspiratorial questions designed to go viral.

    2. Online Harassment and Dogpiling
    Students—often women, LGBTQ+ students, or activists—find themselves targeted with:

    brigade attacks,
    doxxing attempts,
    edited clips taken out of context,
    swarm-like intimidation.

    3. Misery Farming
    Groypers intentionally provoke negative reactions to harvest “proof” that campuses are hostile to conservatives. This content is then fed into national media pipelines.

    4. Grooming and Recruitment
    They seek out students who feel:
    lonely
    unsupported
    resentful
    ideologically adrift
    economically anxious

    A mix of dark humor, contrarian bravado, and “insider knowledge” becomes the grooming pathway.

    The Institutional Problem: Campuses Are Not Prepared
    Universities often misread these actors as:
    “just trolls,”
    “rowdy conservatives,”
    “free speech activists.”

    They’re not.

    Groypers are engaged in ideological recruitment and targeted harassment that can escalate into threats, coordinated disruption, and offline violence. Yet institutions remain slow to respond because:
    they lack digital literacy,
    they fear backlash from right-wing media,
    they outsource security and student affairs to PR firms,
    administrators underestimate decentralized extremist networks.

    Faculty—especially contingent or early-career academics—often feel unsupported or intimidated.

    How Groypers Fit into the Larger Campus Crisis
    The Groypers’ rise exposes deeper fractures:
    neoliberal hollowing of the university
    growing distrust in democratic institutions
    political polarization fueled by billionaire-backed media
    the decline of genuine civic education
    surveillance capitalism and algorithmic radicalization

    Campuses have become battlegrounds—not by accident, but because they sit at the intersection of youth, identity, technology, and national politics.

    What Higher Education Must Do Now
    Universities need to respond with clarity, not panic, and with structural solutions, not symbolic statements.

    1. Treat Digital Extremism as Part of Student Safety
    This means training staff, hiring specialists, and supporting targets of online harassment.

    2. Reinvest in Human Infrastructure
    Student Affairs, counseling centers, and campus journalism must be strengthened—not cut or replaced with outsourcing contracts.

    3. Support Independent Investigative Student Journalism
    Student reporters are often the first to detect radicalization trends—but only if their newsrooms are funded and protected.

    4. Protect Academic Freedom Without Ceding Ground to Harassment
    “Free speech” cannot be a shield for sustained intimidation campaigns.

    5. Strengthen Civic Education Rooted in Truth and Inclusion
    The real antidote to extremism is not censorship—it’s meaningful democratic literacy.

    Seeing the Threat Clearly
    Groypers are not the dominant force on campus. Most students reject their worldview. But they are a growing presence within a broader crisis where U.S. higher education lacks the stability, funding, and courage to defend its mission.

    The real danger is not the meme or the mascot—it’s the vacuum that allows extremist networks to flourish.

    The Higher Education Inquirer will continue monitoring this issue as the 2026 and 2028 election cycles approach, when radical groups often intensify campus recruitment and provocation.

    Source link

  • Northeastern Technical College Fires President

    Northeastern Technical College Fires President

    Northeast Technical College fired its president last week, reversing course on a resignation agreement accepted by the board just two weeks earlier that would have reportedly kept him in the job until June.

    Kyle Wagner, president of the public college in South Carolina since 2016, submitted his resignation Nov. 11 and then went on medical leave, according to Queen City News. But two weeks later, NETC’s governing board rescinded the agreement and fired the longtime president with little explanation, the local news outlet reported. The decision was effective immediately.

    The board also voted to immediately begin a search for the college’s next president.

    Wagner’s firing comes after a tumultuous year for the college and the president. Last December, Northeastern Technical College was sanctioned by its accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, for compliance concerns that included not employing adequate numbers of full-time faculty members, among other issues cited in a report.

    That same month, the South Carolina Office of the State Inspector General determined that Northeastern Tech had placed some high school students in a dual-enrollment program in additional classes, unbeknownst to them, which resulted in unexpected bills from the college.

    College employees, including Wagner, benefited financially from the mistake, according to the OIG’s office.

    “NETC failed one or more invisible students, transforming them, via a flawed fast track scheme, into ghost students—haunting the reliability of NETC’s enrollment numbers. Inflated enrollment numbers provided additional funding to NETC which served select faculty and staff justifying salary increases and/or bonuses,” Inspector General Brian Lamkin wrote in his report. “Due to the inadequacies of NETC staff, some students were left with grade discrepancies, issues with financial aid eligibility at future institutions, and unreconciled student account balances.”

    Local politicians called for Wagner to resign late last year, citing the accreditation and dual-enrollment issues. Despite lawmakers’ concerns, then–board chairman Dan Bozard said in January that they backed Wagner “without reservation.” But some 11 months later, that support has evidently diminished.

    Contacted by LinkedIn, Wagner did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed. College officials also did not respond to a media inquiry about Wagner’s reported firing.

    Source link

  • Associate Provost on Coordinated Attack on Academic Freedom

    Associate Provost on Coordinated Attack on Academic Freedom

    Valerie Johnson has watched—and fought against—political attacks on academic freedom for years. A political scientist and associate provost of diversity, equity and inclusion at the Catholic DePaul University, Johnson understands well the political incentives for conservatives to bring universities to heel.

    This year brought an avalanche of new and continuing attacks on what professors can teach, speak about and research at American colleges and universities, led by the Trump administration and exacerbated in states like Florida and Texas, where Johnson describes these changes as swift and effective.

    Together with co-authors and editors Jennifer Ruth, a film professor at Portland State University, and Ellen Schrecker, a professor emerita of American history at Yeshiva University, Johnson wrote The Right to Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom (Beacon Press, 2024). In October, the book was granted the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ Frederic W. Ness Book Award, an annual honor that highlights the “book that best illuminates the goals and practices of a contemporary liberal education.”

    Johnson spoke with Inside Higher Ed over Zoom about the impetus for the book and how she interprets the escalating attack on academic freedom today.

    The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Q: What prompted you to write this book? Was there a specific moment when the scope of this campaign against academic freedom that you describe became unmistakable for you?

    A: Yes, it was the summer of 2021. A friend of mine was working with the African American Policy Forum, and they wanted to sound the alert that we were seeing a rollback of rights. And so they had asked Jennifer Ruth, my co-author and co-editor of the book, to work on what they called the Faculty Senate campaign. Twenty twenty was a momentous year. We began to see gag orders about what could be taught. So Jennifer and I … wanted to alert all faculty senates across the United States that we were seeing this erosion of academic freedom and that they should pay attention. We asked them to write resolutions asking their administrations to reaffirm academic freedom.

    Q: How have faculty senates or governing bodies adapted—or failed to adapt—to the current legislative landscape?

    A: Well, I would like to say I’ve seen quite a bit of resistance, but unfortunately people have a way of conceding when their livelihoods are at stake. And how you answer that question is also determined by where you are in the country. If you’re in a red state—like Florida, like Texas—where there are prohibitions like, “Hey, you cannot teach on this, this, this and this,” then either you stay there and withstand some degree of punishment, or you leave. A lot of faculty are leaving red states for bluer states.

    It’s actually been very surprising to me. This period in American history has really caused me to rethink what I originally believed about human nature. It is very surprising how cowardly people are … I am a political scientist by training, and I [know] only about 4 to 5 percent of people will protest anything. And we have seen various rallies, protests, etc., but it hasn’t been as engaging as I would like to see.

    Q: One of the things that the book addresses is that efforts on the right to degrade academic freedom are strategic rather than reactive. What evidence convinced you that this was an organized, long-term project?

    A: There’s always been attempts to erase history. Frederick Douglass said a long time ago that America is false to its past. It’s false to its present, and it resigns itself to be false to the future.

    America has always created a story that it is something it is not, and I think the values that we have are largely aspirational. When universities talk about their mission statements, they’re not saying it’s [complete], they are saying, “This is who we’d like to be.” There has always been a concerted effort to blame the victim when it comes to people who have marginalized identities and to ensure that, largely, their stories are not told. And so through education, if you could limit discussions of race and social equality, then people aren’t thinking about it. They’re not thinking about passing legislation that pursues those goals. And you could make people believe that, “Hey, all the problems of the past have been resolved,” when, in fact, if you look empirically, they haven’t.

    Q: When you were doing your research, were there any state-level policies or actors that really surprised you, either in their influence or how quickly they spread?

    A: Yeah, I would say Florida and Texas. It was very quick. [Governor Ron] DeSantis definitely took over the university system very quickly [with] Don’t Say Gay and Anti-Woke. I mean, it’s amazing, but it’s an easy setup. For the average citizen, it’s a part of the culture wars where they see LGBTQIA rights, for example, or women’s rights, and they’re alarmed by them … It is “me against them,” and particularly in red states and the Bible Belt, it has been a pretty easy sell to the citizenry because it aligns with some of their well-cherished values, but it doesn’t promote human rights. It doesn’t promote a country or a world where people are seen not by any sort of cultural or identity markers, but by their membership in the human race.

    Q: Are there any aspects of the current debate that you think are most misunderstood, either by the media or the public or folks in higher ed?

    A: Yes, I think there are a couple of things that are really misunderstood. One is structural inequality, or when you look at, for example, inequality by race. I think most people think that the civil rights movement resolved any social economic inequality when, in fact, it did not. I always use the metaphor of a Monopoly game gone wrong—just because you change the policy doesn’t mean you change the conditions. So let’s say you and I are playing a game of Monopoly, and halfway through the game, I realize you’ve been cheating all along. So I call you out on it, and your response to that is, “OK, let’s change the policy. No more cheating.” And then you say, “Let’s resume the game.” The problem with that is you have already amassed the red hotels, the green houses. Generation by generation, those people who benefited from slavery or land appropriation of the Native Americans and Mexicans, or Jim Crow and residential segregation, that’s a cumulative advantage. For those people who were disadvantaged, there’s a cumulative disadvantage that moves forward from generation to generation. Existing racial inequality—I don’t think people actually understand it. They saw shows like The Cosby Show, and they are like, “Oh, wow, all people from minoritized backgrounds, they’ve made it.” In fact, it’s really a myth.

    To that extent, if you say that you want to provide opportunities that create inclusion on college campuses, they’re looking at that like, “Well, wait a minute. They’ve made it. So this is unfair to me.” Then you have this disdain for DEI. Of course, for people between the ages of zero and 18 in America, the majority of them are nonwhite. So every single year, campus enrollment is becoming less white … and American universities and colleges that are going to have to depend on American students for their enrollment will increasingly have to court and recruit students who are nonwhite because of the demographic shift.

    Q: How should universities communicate with the public about academic freedom without reinforcing the right wing framing that expertise equals elitism?

    A: One thing that is constantly on my mind is: How do you talk about something as heavy as academic freedom? In a way, I wish we would have retitled the book something like “The Right to Learn: Resisting the Attack on What You Can Learn,” or something like that. When you put “academic freedom,” people ask, what is academic freedom? People know about free speech, but people don’t know about academic freedom. That is why you have an increasing number of students who come to college campuses believing that they should get a tailor-made curriculum.

    So, what can universities do? I believe in community education. I love it when community groups and politicians ask me to come and speak to regular community folk. We have to see our enterprise as not only teaching in the university, but outside of the university, and that could be done with op-ed pieces or just going where people are—churches, community institutions … I think that’s the only way it’s going to happen. We have to get out of the ivory tower.

    Source link

  • 12 Ways to Improve College for Military Learners

    12 Ways to Improve College for Military Learners

    Colleges can support military-affiliated students through peer connections and community.

    SDI Productions/Getty Images

    Approximately 5 percent of all undergraduate learners are active-duty military, reservists, National Guard or veterans, but many systems within colleges aren’t set up to accommodate their needs.

    A November research brief from the Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice outlines some of the barriers to military students’ success while they’re enrolled and offers strategies to improve their college experiences. The report draws on interviews with students, recent graduates, higher education faculty and staff, policy experts, and past research.

    1. Clearly outline program costs and the support services available to military-connected learners. Colleges should also share data on military student enrollment, completion and job outcomes, such as on a dedicated military-student web page.
    1. Streamline credit transfer policies using the American Council on Education’s Military Guide as a starting point for military experience. Providing quality transfer advising can also ensure maximum allowable credits are awarded for prior service and can explain how a major program may increase or decrease transferred credits.
    2. Provide financial aid counseling for military-connected students so they know the benefits available for them at federal, state and institutional levels. The college should also allocate dollars in the case of benefit delays or work with appropriate offices to expedite funds.
    3. Create peer mentorship programs to connect incoming students with currently enrolled military learners who have similar lived experiences. Affinity groups on campus, such as the Student Veterans of America, can also instill a sense of belonging.
    1. Offer professional development training for faculty and staff to be culturally competent about military-specific needs. Green Zone Ally Training is one example that helps higher education professionals support veterans on campus.
    2. Offer flexible courses that accommodate active-duty service members and their families, who may be navigating deployments or relocations. These could include online classes or competency-based education.
    3. Establish policies for service-related disruptions including deadline extensions, rescheduling exams or alternative-format course materials to mitigate disruptions to students’ academic timelines.
    1. Provide accessibility across systems so veterans with disabilities gain equitable access to resources. In instances when accommodations are needed, creating a streamlined process to qualify for accommodations through the disability services office ensures veterans can access all resources.
    2. Create partnerships with external agencies who also support military-connected individuals, such as Veterans Service Organizations and the local Veterans Affairs office.
    3. Connect students with career coaches who can translate their military experience and training into the civilian workforce as well as liaise between veteran-friendly employers and students. Some military-connected students may need additional advice on how professional demeanor and formality expectations vary in the civilian workforce, the report noted.
    1. Expand access to co-op programs and internships that are tailored to military learners and career exploration opportunities. Military-focused career events can make the match between veteran-friendly organizations and future employees.
    2. Track career outcomes for military-affiliated students and align offerings with labor market opportunities.

    How does your college or university provide specialized resources to military-affiliated students? Tell us more here.

    Source link

  • The Growing Diversity of Community College Trustees

    The Growing Diversity of Community College Trustees

    Between 1997 and 2025, the proportion of women serving on community college boards grew from 33 percent to 47 percent.

    Maricopa County Community College District

    New data shows that community college trustees have become more reflective of the diverse student bodies they serve over the past three decades.

    That’s one of the big takeaways from a report the Association of Community College Trustees published last week in partnership with the Center for the Study of Community Colleges, which shows that the proportion of women serving on community college boards is on the rise. Between 1997 and 2025, female representation on the boards grew from 33 percent to 47 percent, with the biggest increases coming in the past seven years. During the same time frame, the proportion of nonwhite trustees grew from roughly 12 percent to 27 percent.

    Association of Community College Trustees/Center for the Study of Community Colleges

    While disparities remain, that breakdown is now closer to mirroring the diversity of community college students. In 2025, 57 percent of students were women and 58 percent identified as people of color, according to data from the American Association of Community Colleges.

    The report, “Community College Trusteeship in 2025: A Commitment to Serve,” draws on surveys of more than 2,000 community college trustees and 40 qualitative interviews with trustees, building on similar reports from 1997 and 2018. The study demonstrates that trustees “have a pulse on their communities’ needs, a deep commitment to the community college mission of open access to high-quality higher education for all people, and the kind of visionary thinking needed to keep their institutions thriving,” ACCT president and CEO Jee Hang Lee said in a news release.

    That’s in part because community college governing boards are also more likely now to have members who attended a community college.

    In 2025, 64 percent of trustees attended a community college and 27 percent previously worked at one, according to the report. In 1997, only 51 percent of trustees had been community college students and 22 percent had been employees. Today’s trustees also are also showcasing the earning potential of community college graduates: 71 percent of trustees who attended a two-year college made at least $100,000 a year in 2025, while 31 percent made close to $200,000, according to the report.

    community college trustee experience

    Association of Community College Trustees/Center for the Study of Community Colleges

    In an interview, one such trustee said that attending a community college first allowed them to continue on to a university “to get my education at a reasonable cost and also to improve my life and my business.”

    For many trustees, those firsthand experiences with the community college system have also translated into enthusiasm for higher education governance work. “I was a nontraditional college student,” one said in an interview for the report. “I went back to school with three kids in tow and got my bachelor’s and my master’s, and it’s just something that I believe in.”

    That’s a common trajectory for community college trustees.

    Among trustees who were once community college students, 83 percent have a bachelor’s or higher degree, and 54 percent have a graduate or professional degree. And over all, trustees have become even more educated over the past 28 years. Although the vast majority of trustees have long held a college degree, the proportion with a bachelor’s degree rose from 84 percent to 86 percent between 1997 and 2025; the proportion with a graduate or professional degree rose from 50 percent to 59 percent.

    But other aspects of community college governance haven’t changed as much since the 1990s, the report shows.

    In 2025, trustees spent an average of five hours a week on board duties—hardly any change from 1997. Similarly, trustees identified funding, access and affordability as top challenges in 1997, 2018 and in 2025. This year, however, 63 percent of trustees also cited enrollment as a top issue, “likely stemming from the fact that most states have begun to experience the anticipated enrollment cliff,” the report noted.

    Community college trustees have also maintained high levels of trust in and support for their college leaders. In 2025, 94 percent of respondents indicated a “somewhat or very strong level of trust” between boards and presidents, while 96 reported somewhat or very strong levels of support—numbers that have hardly changed since 1997.

    community college trustee trust and support

    Association of Community College Trustees/Center for the Study of Community Colleges

    And that’s an essential aspect of effective governance, one trustee said in an interview.

    “The demands [on] a college president are huge, and [it’s a] difficult job, which is one reason [that] when you get somebody, you’ve got to support them,” they said. “You hire somebody and then you get out of their way and let them do what you hired them to do. That is so important.”

    Source link

  • States Should Step Up on Graduate School Aid (opinion)

    States Should Step Up on Graduate School Aid (opinion)

    Two decades ago, Uncle Sam offered a helping hand for college graduates who desired careers that required advanced degrees by establishing a loan program known as Grad PLUS. That hand has now been withdrawn. Also known as Direct PLUS loans, this program allowed students to borrow beyond the $20,500 limit available through direct unsubsidized loans to cover their full cost of attendance. With the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law last summer, Grad PLUS loans will no longer be an option for prospective graduate students after July 2026.

    The question of whether colleges and universities raise their tuition prices as the availability of federal aid increases has been a hotly debated topic for more than four decades, with contradictory findings. One recent study found that institutions increased their tuition prices after the creation of Grad PLUS, and determined that the funds did not increase access (or completion) for graduate education in general or for underrepresented groups in particular. These findings echo previous studies that also support a positive relationship between government aid and college prices. In contrast, other studies and analyses at the undergraduate level, as well as for graduate business, medical and law programs, have found little evidence of nonprofit institutions increasing tuition in relation to government subsidies. (The for-profit sector is another story.)

    In any case, the elimination of Grad PLUS is a new reality that incoming graduate students will have to face. Now, students in master’s and doctoral programs will only be able to borrow up to $20,500 annually (with a maximum of $100,000). Students in professional degree programs, like law and medicine, will have a higher cap of $50,000 annually (up to $200,000 total). Additionally, the maximum amount students can borrow from the federal government for their undergraduate and graduate studies combined is $257,500. Students who borrow beyond any of these limits annually will have to turn to private loans to finance the remaining costs, which are less accessible for low-income students (who have less credit) and often come with higher interest rates.

    The specific impact of these new limits on students is not yet known, but if we look at data for borrowers from previous years, we see potential impacts. In 2019–20, approximately 38 percent of all graduate borrowers borrowed beyond these caps, according to an analysis by Jobs for the Future. When disaggregated by degree type, 41 percent of graduate borrowers pursuing master’s degrees, 37 percent pursuing Ph.D. degrees and 25 percent pursuing professional degrees borrowed beyond the loan caps set by OBBBA.

    A recent analysis published by American University’s Postsecondary Education & Economics Research Center shows potential impacts not just by graduate degree type but also by specific field of study. For professional degrees (with the higher loan cap), more than half of borrowers for chiropractic, medicine, osteopathy and dentistry programs borrowed more than $200,000 for their degrees in recent years. Among the master’s programs reviewed, half or more of borrowers in programs including audiology/speech pathology, public health, nursing and school and mental health counseling, to name a few, borrowed beyond the new limits.

    Based on these analyses, it is clear that many prospective graduate students will be impacted by the new loan caps, at least in the short term. The rationale for these loan caps is that graduate programs will lower their costs to make graduate education more affordable, although it is doubtful that colleges will decrease the costs of graduate programs within just a year. It should be noted that many students do not borrow at all to obtain their degrees. In 2019–20, approximately 40 percent of full-time domestic students enrolled in master’s degrees did not borrow.

    For programs that attract students from high-income backgrounds (usually selective elite institutions), what incentive is there to decrease costs if enough students can pay out of pocket? For instance, between 2014 and 2019, medical school matriculants from high-income backgrounds (over $200,000) increased substantially. The number of students attending law schools from wealthy backgrounds has also increased in the past couple of decades, particularly at selective elite institutions. Graduate education, at least at elite schools, has become less accessible for many low-income students.

    Without financial support, options for low-income students will become even more limited. These students will largely be relegated to less selective public universities, and the more elite private schools will become even less economically diverse than they already are. Financial aid offices will become the de facto second admissions office. Using Massachusetts as an example, our analysis found that the annual cost of attendance exceeded the annual loan limit of $50,000 in the case of every accredited law and medical school in the state, with the gap between the cost of attendance and the limit ranging from about $5,600 in the case of the lone public law school (the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth), and $33,000 in the case of the only public medical school option (University of Massachusetts Chan), to as high as $71,000 for Harvard Law School and $64,000 for Harvard Medical School.

    Law School (J.D.) Institution Type 2025 Estimated Cost of Attendance Annual COA Above/ Below Cap
    Boston College Private, nonprofit $99,991 $49,991
    Boston University Private, nonprofit $92,914 $42,914
    Harvard University Private, nonprofit $121,250 $71,250
    New England Law Private, nonprofit $113,279 $63,279
    Northeastern University Private, nonprofit $88,926 $38,926
    Suffolk University Private, nonprofit $96,190 $46,190
    Western New England University Private, nonprofit $74,176 $24,176
    University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Public $55,648 (in-state) $5,648
    Amounts calculated based on current advertised rates for first-time (entering), full-time students enrolled in daytime, nine-month and on-campus programs.
    Medical School (M.D.) Institution Type 2025 Cost of Attendance Annual COA Above/Below Cap
    Boston University Private, nonprofit $100,927 $50,927
    Harvard University Private, nonprofit $113,746 $63,746
    Tufts University Private, nonprofit $99,884 $49,884
    University of Massachusetts Chan Public $83,247 (in-state) $33,247
    Amounts calculated based on advertised rates for first-time (entering), full-time students enrolled in daytime, 10-month and on-campus programs.

    This simple analysis, of course, does not take into account any institutional grants or scholarships students may be awarded, but those funds vary by institutional budgets.

    What happens when a deserving medical school applicant gains admission and a financial aid offer, only to realize that they still have a balance of $40,000 after institutional and federal aid is applied? For students to turn to private lenders, they will likely need either good credit and a substantial income or a cosigner, which may not be an option for many students from underresourced backgrounds. Almost 93 percent of private student loans given last year had a cosigner. Almost 51 percent of individuals from low/moderate incomes have limited or poor to fair credit. Even if they are lucky to be offered loans, the interest rates will likely be much higher.

    With Washington Out, States May Have to Intervene

    With the recent federal cuts to Medicaid likely to lead to decreases in state funding for postsecondary education, states may be hesitant to award funds to support students pursuing graduate education—but there are frameworks to help states determine which graduate programs deserve state funding and which type of funding to provide students. Third Way recently produced a framework that categorizes programs by personal return on investment and social value. One possible solution would be to offer accessible loans and state subsidies based on how a state places certain programs in this model.

    For programs that lead to high ROI and social value—for example, dentistry—states that are facing a shortage of dentists could offer accessible (and lower than market rate) loans in exchange for working in certain geographic areas in that state. Providing low-interest loans instead of grants would make sense for this category because dentists are more likely to have high enough earnings (postresidency) that they can repay their loans. Certain localities have set up zero-interest loans for students pursuing specific industries, such as a San Diego County program for aspiring behavioral health professionals (a type of pay-it-forward program).

    Some states, such as Pennsylvania, do have loan repayment programs for certain health occupations in exchange for working in specific areas of their states. Offering this solution without providing accessible loans will only benefit students who come from wealthier families, as they are more likely to have good enough credit or relationships with creditworthy cosigners to access private loans in the first place.

    For programs that are high in social value but low in personal ROI, such as teaching or social work, if a state determines this is an area of need, they can offer grants to lower the cost of attending these programs and minimize the amount of loans students will have to take out, in exchange for service in these fields for a specific period of time. Offering accessible, low-interest loans to students pursuing these careers could still be an option, but should be secondary, or supplemental to, grants.

    In line with recommendations from a jointly authored report from the American Enterprise Institute, EducationCounsel and the Century Foundation, states can offer grants to graduate students who demonstrate financial need, in addition to targeted grant aid for certain programs. Already, certain states, such as Maryland, New Mexico, Virginia and Washington, offer grant aid to graduate students in specific fields or based on financial need. Massachusetts also offers a tuition waiver to incentivize students to enroll in graduate programs at its public universities.

    Unfortunately, I was unable to find a single repository of state aid specifically for graduate students from various states. The closest I could find was a report released by the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs for the 2023–24 academic year with data on state-funded expenditures for both undergraduate and graduate student aid. The report shows that only a handful of states allocated more than a million dollars to need-based graduate aid (Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia), but does not specify for which programs, nor does it detail how aid is awarded and to which institutions.

    The Education Finance Council also maintains a list of nonprofit loan providers in different states that offer lower-interest or more accessible loans, many of which are state-administered, such as the Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority. States that already administer conditional loans, scholarships, grants or loan forgiveness programs at the undergraduate level should consider expanding these programs to high- demand industries that require postbaccalaureate credentials if they have not already.

    What Can Institutions Do?

    Institutions are the closest to students, and they can play a role as well. Beyond offering need-based grants/scholarships to lower the cost of attendance, institutions can also guide students in the lending process, such as by publishing preferred lenders on financial aid websites. These lenders should have a good reputation with borrowers and offer low interest rates. Examples of institutions that advertise preferred lenders include Baylor University, the University of Iowa and the University of Central Missouri.

    Institutions with more financial resources can either directly partner with lenders to offer lower fixed interest rates through risk sharing or provide loans themselves. Harvard Law School makes loans available to graduate students through a partnership with the Harvard Federal Credit Union. Some private loan providers looking to get into the graduate lending space are now in conversations with institutions about developing new risk-sharing models.

    Many occupations that typically require graduate degrees, such as teaching, nursing and medicine, will face steep shortages in the coming years. States should align aid programs with current and future workforce shortages, determine which graduate programs will exceed federal loan caps and by how much, offer targeted grants for high-social-value but low-earning fields where costs exceed caps, and provide below-market or zero-interest (and accessible) loans for high-social-value, high-earning fields.

    Institutions must act urgently by partnering with accessible, ethical lenders; increasing need-based aid for students who need it most; and protecting students from predatory options. At the very least, institutions can advertise the upcoming student loan changes on their websites. With OBBBA loan caps, Washington is stepping back. Will states and institutions be able to step forward and lead the way in preserving access and promoting economic mobility? Only 2026 will tell.

    Josh Farris is research and policy specialist and Derrick Young Jr. is cofounder and executive director at Leadership Brainery, a nonprofit organization focused on improving access to graduate education for students from limited-access backgrounds.

    Source link

  • Making sense of specialisation: what the Post-16 White Paper means for university identity

    Making sense of specialisation: what the Post-16 White Paper means for university identity

    Over the weekend we published blogs on the art of reimagining universities and on why the TEF could collapse under the weight of DfE and the OfS’ expectations.

    Today’s blog was kindly authored by Nick Barthram, Strategy Partner at Firehaus and Merry Scott Jones, Transformation Partner at Firehaus and Associate Lecturer at Birkbeck, University of London.

    It is the tenth  blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the other blogs in the series here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

    The government’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper sets a new tone for tertiary education in England. It is not just another skill or funding reform. It is a statement of intent about how universities, colleges, and employers should work together to build the country’s economic capability.

    The paper sets out a broad reform agenda built around stronger employer collaboration, higher-quality technical education, and a more flexible lifelong learning system. Initiatives such as Local Skills Improvement Plans and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement illustrate how the system is being reshaped to enable post-16 institutions to play distinct, complementary roles within a shared ecosystem of skills and innovation. All of this will unfold against a backdrop of constrained funding, uneven regional capacity, and growing regulatory pressure, making clarity of role more important than the White Paper itself acknowledges.

    While the paper avoids overt market language, the phrase comparative advantage does a lot of work. It invites universities to reflect on what they are best at and how that compares with others, without requiring them to openly compete. The intention is clear: to encourage institutions to define, and then demonstrate, their unique value. This is not new thinking. Advance HE, supported by a sector steering group including representation from AHUA, CUC, Guild HE and UUK, published a discussion paper last year on Measuring What Matters, exploring institutional performance and the importance of evidencing and communicating value creation.

    For some, that will mean sharper choices about subjects, audiences, partnerships, and purpose. For others, it will be about aligning their contribution to regional priorities. Not every university serves its region in the same way. The most prestigious universities will act as lighthouses, shaping national and international ecosystems through research and innovation. Others will play a more local role, deepening their community impact and supporting regional industry.

    The common thread is focus. Universities can no longer rely on breadth as a badge of strength. The challenge now is to identify what makes their contribution distinct and coherent, and to express that with clarity.

    From strategy to articulation

    Responding to the White Paper will be a demanding process. It will call for rigorous analysis, evidence-gathering, and an honest evaluation of institutional strengths and weaknesses. It will also require a sophisticated understanding of stakeholders’ and audiences’ needs. And of course, diplomacy will be required to manage the trade-offs that follow. Every decision will carry consequences for identity, culture, and relationships.

    In time, many universities will produce credible strategies: detailed statements of focus, lists of priorities, and maps of partnerships. But the real risk is stopping there. Institutional strategy alone will not create coherence.

    Universities often complete strategic work and then move straight to execution, adding imagery or campaigns before uniting everything around a purpose that aligns what you offer and who it’s for. The step that often gets missed is articulation – translating strategic intent into something people can understand, believe in, and act on.

    The White Paper calls for coherence across regions and the sector. Universities need to mirror that with coherence within their own walls. When purpose, culture, and communication line up behind a shared sense of direction, policy responses become practice, not just strategy. And this, fundamentally, is what the Government is seeking.

    The groundwork for meeting these changes is only just beginning, with many hard yards still to come. While covering that ground, there are lessons from outside the sector worth remembering.

    1. Specialisation  is relative
      A university’s strengths mean little in isolation. What matters is how those strengths stand out within the broader system of institutions, partners, and employers. Understanding where your work overlaps with others and where it uniquely contributes is essential. Knowing what not to do is often as important as knowing where to lead.
    1. Demand is defined by more than the UK Government
      The White Paper rightly highlights the importance of the national industrial strategy in shaping what is ‘in demand’. But universities should also consider the needs and motivations of their wider audiences: students, partners, and communities. Clarity about who your work matters to is as important as clarity about what that work is.
    1. Purpose must be expressed, not just defined
      Defining purpose is a strategic exercise; expressing it is an act of leadership. Purpose that remains on paper does not change behaviour, attract talent, or inspire partners. It must be made visible and tangible across everything the institution says and does, from how staff describe their work to how the university presents itself to the world.
    1. Perception matters as much as reality
      Universities are naturally driven by research and evidence. Yet specialisation is as much about being perceived as specialised as it is about being so in practice. The most successful institutions will work not only to build genuine expertise but also to occupy space in their audiences’ hearts and minds. Shifting perception requires consistency in both story and substance.
    1. Alignment is critical to success
      The institutions that succeed will be those that align intent, culture, and message. When leadership, staff, and students share a single understanding of what the university stands for, decision-making becomes simpler, collaboration easier, and communication more powerful. Alignment is not achieved through a campaign but through ongoing dialogue and consistent behaviour.

    A catalyst for clarity

    The Post-16 White Paper is ultimately a call for focus. For universities, that means not only deciding where they fit but demonstrating that fit clearly and consistently to students, partners, and staff.

    Those who stop at strategy will adapt. Those who move beyond it — articulating their role with confidence, coherence, and conviction — will help define what a purposeful, modern university looks like in the decade ahead.

    Source link

  • I earned my associate degree while still in high school, and it changed my life

    I earned my associate degree while still in high school, and it changed my life

    by Maxwell Fjeld, The Hechinger Report
    December 1, 2025

    Earning an associate degree alongside my high school diploma was an ambitious goal that turned into a positive high school experience for me. By taking on the responsibilities of a college student, I further prepared myself for life after high school.  

    I needed to plan out my own days. I needed to keep myself on task. I needed to learn how to monitor and juggle due dates, lecture times and exams while ensuring that my extracurricular activities did not create conflicts. 

    All of this was life-changing for a rural Minnesota high school student. Dual enrollment through Minnesota’s PSEO program saved me time and money and helped me explore my interests and narrow my focus to business management. After three years of earning dual credits as a high school student, I graduated from community college and was the student speaker at the commencement earlier this year in May — one month before graduating from high school. 

    As a student earning college credits while still in high school, I gained exposure to different career fields and developed a passion for civic engagement. At the beginning of my senior year, while taking courses at the local community and technical college, I was elected to serve as that school’s first cross-campus student body president. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.  

    While most states have dual-enrollment programs, Minnesota’s support for its PSEO students stands out. As policymakers consider legislative and funding initiatives to strengthen dual enrollment in other states, I believe that three features of our program could provide a blueprint for states that want to do more. 

    First, the college credits I earned are transferable and meet degree requirements.  

    Second, the PSEO program permitted me to take enough credits each semester to earn my associate degree. While the number of dual-enrollment credits high school students can earn varies by state and program, when strict limitations are set on those numbers, the program can become a barrier to higher education instead of an alternate pathway.  

    Third, Minnesota’s PSEO program limits the cost burden placed on students. With rising costs and logistical challenges to pursuing higher education credentials, the head start that students can create for themselves via loosened restrictions on dual-enrollment credits can make a real financial impact, especially for students like me from small towns. 

    Dual-enrollment costs vary significantly from state to state, with some programs charging for tuition, fees, textbooks and other college costs. In Minnesota, those costs are covered by the Department of Education. In addition, if families meet income requirements, the expenses incurred by students for education-related transportation are also covered.  

    If I did not have state support, I would not have been able to participate in the program. Financial support is a crucial component to being a successful dual-enrollment student. When the barrier of cost is removed, American families benefit, especially students from low-income, rural and farming backgrounds.  

    Early exposure to college helped me choose my major by taking college classes to experiment — for free. When I first started, I was interested in computer science as a major. After taking a computer science class and then an economics class the following semester, I chose business as my major.  

    The ability to explore different fields of study was cost-saving and game-changing for me and is an opportunity that could be just as beneficial for other students. 

    Targeted investments in programs like this have benefited many students, including my father in the 1990s. His dual-enrollment experience allowed him to get a head start on his education and gain valuable life skills at a young age and is a great example of dual enrollment’s potential generational impact. 

    Related: STUDENT VOICE: I’m thriving in my dual-enrollment program, but it could be a whole lot better 

    When dual-enrollment students receive guidance and support, it can be transformational. Early exposure to college introduced me to college-level opportunities. As student government president, I went to Washington, D.C., to attend a national student summit. I was able to meet with congressional office staffers and advocate for today’s students and for federal investment in dual-enrollment programs, explaining my story and raising awareness. 

    The daily life of high school is draining for some and can be devastating for others. I had many friends who came to believe that the bullying, peer-pressure and culture they experienced in high school would continue in college, so they deemed higher education “not worth it.” 

    Through dual enrollment, I saw the difference in culture; students who face burnout from daily high school life can refocus and feel good about their futures again. 

    Congress can help state legislatures by establishing strong dual-enrollment programs nationwide. With adequate government support, dual-enrollment programs can help students from all walks of life and increase college graduation rates. If all states offer access to the same opportunities that I had in high school, our next generation will be better prepared for the workforce and more successful. 

    Maxwell Fjeld is pursuing his bachelor’s degree at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities’ Carlson School of Management after earning an associate degree upon high school graduation through dual enrollment. He is also a student ambassador fellow at Today’s Students Coalition. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about dual-enrollment programs was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/student-voice-i-earned-my-associate-degree-while-still-in-high-school-and-it-changed-my-life/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113590&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/student-voice-i-earned-my-associate-degree-while-still-in-high-school-and-it-changed-my-life/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • The Final Stretch: Designing a Meaningful Course Ending – Faculty Focus

    The Final Stretch: Designing a Meaningful Course Ending – Faculty Focus

    Source link