Blog

  • Are you storing toxic waste in your home or car?

    Are you storing toxic waste in your home or car?

    Los Angeles, California has one of the largest economies in the world. It also has the largest concentration of electric vehicles in the United States. Los Angeles is my hometown and the same place where recent wildfires burned whole neighborhoods to the ground.

    With the fires came the destruction of thousands of lithium-ion batteries in cars, electronics and kitchen appliances.

    The fires started on 7 January 2025, and ended 24 days later. In October of 2025, police arrested a man from the state of Florida for starting the fire, but it was the near perfect environmental conditions that caused the fires to grow fast and move quickly. These fires are thought to have caused an estimated economic loss of between $28 billion and $53.8 billion, and have destroyed upwards of 16,000 structures.

    The fires wreaked havoc on my local community for an entire month. Just miles from my house, I witnessed the destruction these fires caused. Entire residential street blocks lined not with houses, but with rubble. I saw people milling about in front of houses, and I watched one woman stare with a stone-cold look on her face at the remains of a house burned to ashes.

    My family and many others were lucky we were far enough from the fires that we didn’t suffer any loss. Still, even those who didn’t lose their homes suffered from poor air quality.

    “Our business was down 75% immediately after the fires,” said Leila Jersualem, a local business owner. “Because soccer is an outdoor activity, air quality was a frequent concern voiced by our families.”

    Chemicals complicate cleanup.

    The fires also caused the release of many chemicals into the air. One of the most dangerous chemical transmitters, it turns out, are lithium-ion batteries that release toxic gases when burned and can explode when lit on fire.

    Due to this, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had to safely remove more than a thousand burnt lithium-ion batteries from homes and vehicles, among other places.

    A schoolmate I interviewed at the time lived in the Pacific Palisades area. He told me he couldn’t enter his house due to toxic chemical residue from these destroyed batteries and other substances. He also didn’t think he’d ever move back in because of the dangers from these chemicals, which find their way onto household items and surfaces. Months later, he has still not moved back in.

    Cleanup from the Los Angeles fires has become an arduous task. Chris Myers, a lithium-ion battery tech specialist for the EPA, told reporter Erin Stone in nonprofit news site LAist that to clean up the batteries special teams collect them in sealed containers and take them to places where they can be discharged into a saltwater brine solution that extracts any remaining energy.

    The batteries are then crushed, and sent to a recycler who salvages critical minerals.

    The dangers from batteries are global.

    Myers told Stone that the heat from fires can cause a “thermal runaway” — the heat gets so intense that it causes a chemical reaction that creates more heat. When this happens, the batteries can emit toxic chemicals harmful to people in the area, and the chemicals, such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen cyanide, can cause problems in the respiratory system.

    If a lithium-ion battery catches on fire, anyone within 25 meters has to evacuate and move out of the danger zone.

    Around the world, there were many incidents regarding the safety of lithium-ion batteries. In New York City, lithium-ion batteries were the leading cause of fire-related deaths in 2024. Additionally, lithium-ion batteries make up half of all garbage truck-related fires around the United States.

    One of the largest lithium battery storage and power plants caught on fire in Northern California in January 2025. The nonprofit news site Politico found that, in France, the number of fires at waste facilities caused by lithium batteries in common household items doubled between 2019 and 2023. In South Korea, more than 22 people were killed from a lithium battery explosion in a factory south of Seoul in June 2024.

    There are other problems with lithium ion batters. Conditions at lithium mines have raised some ethical questions, for example. In the U.S. state of Nevada, new lithium mines permitted by the Trump administration are preventing indigenous people from accessing sacred cultural areas, and raising fears of harm to drinking water and overall health of the local people.

    Do the benefits outweigh the danger?

    With all this danger, why are the batteries so prevalent in our homes? It is difficult to deny how useful they’ve been in humanity’s quest for clean energy.

    When comparing lithium-ion batteries to the internal combustion engine, we can see that over a car’s entire lifetime, ones with lithium-ion batteries will contribute less of a carbon footprint.

    It’s not far off to say that lithium-ion batteries have renovated our modern world.

    But even though there are many positives to using lithium-ion batteries, such as renewable energy, they’re only a small part of the actual solution and there are some alternatives.

    Vanadium flow batteries and sodium-ion batteries, for example, are considered viable alternatives to lithium-ion batteries. Sodium-ion batteries are faster to charge, and have a longer lifespan than lithium-ion batteries.

    Weighing alternatives

    The vanadium flow battery doesn’t decay and can contain the same level of recharge throughout the entire batteries’ lifetime. Also, unlike lithium batteries, vanadium flow batteries are non-flammable, making them much safer, especially in the event of fire.

    However, like lithium-ion batteries, they take significant resources to make, and their environmental and social impacts are high.

    When buying a car, getting a battery-powered car may be better for the environment, but consumers should be aware of the dangerous impacts of lithium-ion batteries.

    The effects of these batteries are felt everywhere, some good and some bad. The implications of them in the Los Angeles fires, however, raise questions on how safe they are to people and the environment.

    Further advancement of other parts of the climate solution must take place soon if we want to make a big impact in safer renewable energy.

    Questions to consider:

    1. What makes lithium-ion batteries dangerous?

    2. What alternatives to lithium-ion batteries are there for electric cars?

    3. What products do you use in your home that might contain a lithium-ion battery?

    Source link

  • 10 reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 ASAP

    10 reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 ASAP

    K-12 IT leaders are under pressure from all sides–rising cyberattacks, the end of Windows 10 support, and the need for powerful new learning tools.

    The good news: Windows 11 on Lenovo devices delivers more than an upgrade–it’s a smarter, safer foundation for digital learning in the age of AI.

    Delaying the move means greater risk, higher costs, and missed opportunities. With proven ROI, cutting-edge protection, and tools that empower both teachers and students, the case for Windows 11 is clear.

    There are 10 compelling reasons your district should make the move today.

    1. Harness AI-powered educational innovation with Copilot
    Windows 11 integrates Microsoft Copilot AI capabilities that transform teaching
    and learning. Teachers can leverage AI for lesson planning, content creation, and
    administrative tasks, while students benefit from enhanced collaboration tools
    and accessibility features.

    2. Combat the explosive rise in school cyberattacks
    The statistics are alarming: K-12 ransomware attacks increased 92 percent between 2022 and 2023, with human-operated ransomware attacks surging over 200 percent globally, according to the 2024 State of Ransomware in Education.

    3. Combat the explosive rise in school cyberattacks
    Time is critically short. Windows 10 support ended in October 2025, leaving schools running unsupported systems vulnerable to attacks and compliance violations. Starting migration planning immediately ensures adequate time for device inventory, compatibility testing, and smooth district-wide deployment.

    Find 7 more reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 here.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • How tutors can support student thinking

    How tutors can support student thinking

    Key points:

    Consider the work of a personal trainer. They can explain and model a workout perfectly, but if the athlete isn’t the one doing the lifting, their muscles won’t grow. The same is true for student learning. If students only copy notes or nod along, their cognitive muscles won’t develop. Cognitive lift is the mental work students do to understand, apply, and explain academic content. It’s not about giving students harder problems or letting them struggle alone. It’s about creating space for them to reason and stretch their thinking.

    Research consistently shows that students learn more when they are actively engaged with the material, rather than passively observe. Learners often forget what they’ve “learned” if they only hear an explanation. That’s why great tutors don’t just explain material clearly–they get students to explain it clearly. 

    Tutoring, with its small group format, is the ideal space to encourage students’ cognitive lift. While direct instruction and clear explanations are essential at the right times in the learning process, tutorials offer a powerful opportunity for students to engage deeply and productively practice with support.

    The unique power of tutorials

    Small-group tutorials create conditions that are harder to foster in a full classroom. Having just a few students, tutors can track individual student thinking and adjust support quickly. Students gain more chances to voice reasoning, test ideas, and build confidence. Tutorials rely on strong relationships, and when students trust their tutor, they’re more willing to take risks, share half-formed thoughts, and learn from mistakes. 

    It’s easier to build space for every student to participate and shine in a tutorial than in a full class. Tutors can pivot when they notice students aren’t actively thinking. They may notice they’re overexplaining and can step back, shifting the cognitive responsibility back to the students. This environment gives each learner the opportunity to thrive through cognitive lift.

    What does cognitive lift look like?

    What does cognitive lift look like in practice? Picture two tutorials where students solve equations like they did in class. In the first, the tutor explains every step, pausing only to ask quick calculations like, “What’s 5 + 3?” The student might answer correctly, but solving isolated computations doesn’t mean they’re engaged with solving the equation.

    Now imagine a second tutorial. The tutor begins with, “Based on what you saw in class, where could we start?” The student tries a strategy, gets stuck, and the tutor follows up: “Why didn’t that work? What else could you try?” The student explains their reasoning, reflects on mistakes, and revises. Here, they do the mental heavy lifting–reaching a solution and building confidence in their ability to reason through challenges.

    The difference is the heart of cognitive lift. When tutors focus on students applying knowledge and explaining thinking, they foster longer-term learning. 

    Small shifts, big impact

    Building cognitive lift doesn’t require a complete overhaul. It comes from small shifts tutors can make in every session. The most powerful is moving from explaining to asking. Instead of “Let me show you,” tutors can try “How might we approach this?” or “What do you notice?” Tutoring using questions over explanations causes students to do more work and learn more.

    Scaffolds–temporary supports that help students access new learning–can support student thinking without taking over. Sentence stems and visuals guide thinking while keeping responsibility with the student. Simple moves like pausing for several seconds after questions (which tutors can count in their heads) and letting students discuss with a partner also create space for reasoning. 

    This can feel uncomfortable for tutors–resisting the urge to “rescue ” students too quickly can be emotionally challenging. But allowing students to wrestle with ideas while still feeling supported is where great learning happens and is the essence of cognitive lift.

    The goal of tutoring

    Tutors aren’t there to make learning easy–they’re there to create opportunities for students to think and build confidence in facing new challenges. Just like a personal trainer doesn’t lift the weights, tutors shouldn’t do the mental work for students. As athletes progress, they add weight and complete harder workouts. Their muscles strengthen as their trainer encourages them to persist through the effort. In the same way, as the academic work becomes more complex, students strengthen their abilities by wrestling with the challenge while tutors coach, encourage, and cheer.

    Success in a tutorial isn’t measured by quick answers, but by the thinking students practice. Cognitive lift builds independence, deepens understanding, and boosts persistence. It’s also a skill tutors develop, and with the right structures, even novices can foster it. Imagine tutorials where every learner has space to reason, take risks, and grow. When we let students do the thinking, we not only strengthen their skills, we show them we believe in their potential.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • What college leaders should know about the $100K H-1B visa fee

    What college leaders should know about the $100K H-1B visa fee

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

    President Donald Trump caught the higher education world by surprise on Sept. 19, when he signed a proclamation announcing a new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. Before the new policy, employers paid between $2,000 and $5,000 for new H-1B petitions, according to the American Immigration Council. 

    Colleges, especially large research universities, rely on H-1B visas to recruit foreign faculty, scholars and researchers. Stanford University, the University of Michigan and Columbia University all employed over 200 workers through H-1B visas in fiscal 2025. 

    The new fee could impede colleges’ ability to recruit those workers — potentially curtailing research, slowing scientific innovation and even leading to reduced course offerings for students, according to higher education experts. 

    “There’s no doubt that it will deter global talent that is not in the U.S.,” Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. “We lose the benefit of their skills, expertise and talent. It is not only a loss for them, it is just clearly a loss for campuses and other employers.”

    Higher education and legal experts are still trying to understand some elements of the new policy, such as if colleges and other employers can secure exemptions to the $100,000 fee for workers they’d like to sponsor. However, they shared insights about who the policy impacts, what could change in the future and how colleges can navigate this moment. 

    Which workers are impacted by the $100,000 fee? 

    When the Trump administration first rolled out the policy, confusion abounded about which types of workers would trigger the fee. That’s in part because U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick initially said the fee would be paid annually, according to Reuters. 

    But a day after the policy’s rollout, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt walked back Lutnick’s remarks and said on social media that it would be a one-time free for new petitions only. Since then, the Trump administration has provided guidance further narrowing the policy’s impact. 

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration and Services said in October that the fee would not apply to someone already in the U.S. that is requesting a change of status. According to Joshua Wildes, associate attorney at immigration law firm Wildes & Weinberg, that means that students on F-1 and J-1 visas may not be subject to the fee if they are in the U.S. and are seeking to switch to H-1B status. 

    However, they would have to stay within the U.S. until they secure H-1B status to avoid incurring the fee. 

    “They’re going to have to decide whether or not they are willing to stay put in the U.S.,” Wildes said. That could include forgoing traveling to see their families or taking vacation outside of the country, Wildes said. 

    Those who already have H-1B visas, however, can travel outside the U.S. and return without triggering the fee. 

    Even with the latest guidance, colleges are still reeling from the new policy, as it still applies to new petitions for workers who are outside of the U.S.

    No institution wants to pay the fee, “regardless of how small or big you are,” Wildes said. “The smaller ones that don’t have the funds, they simply cannot afford it. The bigger ones that do have the funds, they don’t want to do it because it’s a lot of money.”

    The guidance said the U.S. secretary for the Department of Homeland Security could grant exemptions to the fee for certain workers, though it added they will be “extraordinarily rare.” 

    To qualify, the secretary would have to determine a worker “is in the national interest,” doesn’t pose a security risk to the U.S. and that no American citizen is able to perform the role they would be brought in to fill. The secretary would also have to determine if requiring the new H-1B fee from the sponsoring employer would “significantly undermine” the nation’s interest.

    USCIS on Thursday referred Higher Ed Dive to the proclamation and existing guidance when asked for details about which workers would qualify for these exceptions. It added that those requests are handled by DHS and not USCIS. 

    Will the $100,000 fee stay in place for the higher education sector? 

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Divestment from Predatory Education Stocks: A Moral Imperative

    Higher Education Inquirer : Divestment from Predatory Education Stocks: A Moral Imperative

    Calls for divestment from exploitative industries have long been part of movements for social and economic justice—whether opposing apartheid, fossil fuels, or private prisons. Today, another sector demands moral scrutiny: the network of for-profit education corporations and student loan servicers that have turned higher learning into a site of mass indebtedness and despair. From predatory colleges to the companies that profit from collecting on student debt, the system functions as a pipeline of extraction. For those who believe education should serve the public good, the issue is not merely financial—it is moral.

    The Human Cost of Predatory Education

    For decades, for-profit college chains such as Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, the University of Phoenix, DeVry, and Capella targeted low-income students, veterans, single parents, and people of color with high-pressure marketing and promises of career advancement. These institutions, funded primarily through federal student aid, often charged premium tuition for substandard programs that left graduates worse off than when they began.

    When Corinthian and ITT Tech collapsed, they left hundreds of thousands of students with worthless credits and mountains of debt. But the collapse did not end the exploitation—it simply shifted it. The business model has re-emerged in online form through education technology and “online program management” (OPM) firms such as 2U, Coursera, and Academic Partnerships. These firms, in partnership with elite universities like Harvard, Yale, and USC, replicate the same dynamics of inflated costs, opaque contracts, and limited accountability.

    The Servicing of Debt as a Business Model

    Beyond the schools themselves, student loan servicers and collectors—Maximus, Sallie Mae, and Navient among them—have built immense profits from managing and pursuing student debt. Sallie Mae, once a government-sponsored enterprise, was privatized in the 2000s and evolved into a powerful lender and loan securitizer. Navient, its spinoff, became notorious for deceptive practices and aggressive collections that trapped borrowers in cycles of delinquency.

    Maximus, a major federal contractor, now services defaulted student loans on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. These companies profit directly from the misery of borrowers—many of whom are victims of predatory schools or structural inequality. Their incentive is not to liberate students from debt, but to sustain and expand it.

    The Role of Institutional Investors

    The complicity of institutional investors cannot be ignored. Pension funds, endowments, and major asset managers have consistently financed both for-profit colleges and loan servicers, even after repeated scandals and lawsuits. Public sector pension funds—ironically funded by educators—have held stock in Navient, Maximus, and large for-profit college operators. Endowments that pride themselves on ethical or ESG investing have too often overlooked education profiteering.

    Investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street collectively hold billions of dollars in these companies, stabilizing an industry that thrives on the financial vulnerability of students. To profit from predatory education is to participate, however indirectly, in the commodification of aspiration.

    Divestment as a Moral and Educational Act

    Divesting from predatory education companies and loan servicers is not just an act of conscience—it is an educational statement in itself. It affirms that learning should be a vehicle for liberation, not a mechanism of debt servitude. When universities, pension boards, and faith-based investors divest from corporations like Maximus, Navient, and 2U, they are reclaiming education’s moral purpose.

    The divestment movement offers a broader civic lesson: that profit and progress are not synonymous, and that investment must align with justice. Faith communities, student debt activists, and labor unions have made similar stands before—against apartheid, tobacco, and fossil fuels. The same principle applies here. An enterprise that depends on deception, coercion, and financial harm has no place in a socially responsible portfolio.

    A Call to Action

    Transparency is essential. Pension boards, university endowments, and foundations must disclose their holdings in for-profit education and student loan servicing companies. Independent investigations should assess the human consequences of these investments, particularly their disproportionate impact on women, veterans, and people of color.

    The next step is moral divestment. Educational institutions, public pension systems, and religious organizations should commit to withdrawing investments from predatory education stocks and debt servicers. Funds should be redirected to debt relief, community college programs, and initiatives that restore trust in education as a public good.

    The corporate education complex—spanning recruitment, instruction, lending, and collection—has monetized both hope and hardship. The time has come to sever public and institutional complicity in this cycle. Education should empower, not impoverish. Divestment is not merely symbolic—it is a declaration of values, a demand for accountability, and a reaffirmation of education’s original promise: to serve humanity rather than exploit it.

    Sources:

    • U.S. Department of Education, Borrower Defense to Repayment Reports

    • Senate HELP Committee, For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success (2012)

    • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) enforcement actions against Navient and Sallie Mae

    • The Century Foundation, Online Program Managers and the Public Interest

    • Student Borrower Protection Center, Profiting from Pain: The Financialization of the Student Debt Crisis

    • Higher Education Inquirer archives

    Source link

  • How Social Media Changed the Way We Communicate

    How Social Media Changed the Way We Communicate

    The Impact of Social Platforms on Higher Education Marketing

    There are currently more than 5.6 billion social media users worldwide, according to Statista. This means that about two-thirds of the world’s population uses some form of social media to communicate. 

    For many of us, using social media has become second nature. But the digital space has changed drastically since we saw the emergence of social media marketing in the early 2000s and beyond. So, too, should your social media marketing strategy, so that you can effectively reach your institution’s intended audience and make an impact when everyone else is trying to do the same.   

    While social media is a commonplace platform for communication today, have you ever considered how significantly social media has changed the way we communicate?

    4 Top Social Media Platforms Changing Communication

    Let’s take a look at what the most used social platforms have contributed to our new way of communication and how you can utilize them in your higher education marketing campaigns.

    1. Facebook

    Facebook is seen as the most predominant social media platform, and it has the numbers to back it up, with nearly 3.1 billion monthly users. While Meta’s Facebook still remains one of the top social media platforms since its conception, its audience demographics have shifted with the rise of Instagram and TikTok. With the dominating demographic now being women ages 25 to 34, Facebook is not the higher education marketing platform it once was. Not for traditional prospective and current students, anyway. 

    However, this platform can be effective for marketing flexible, online degree programs that target adult learners. It’s also a great avenue for communicating with alumni, recent graduates, and even parents of students.

    2. YouTube

    With nearly 2.6 billion monthly active users, YouTube was launched in 2005 and quickly grew to become one of the top social media platforms by 2010. 

    YouTube isn’t focused on generating content for short-term attention spans like other platforms. While Instagram, TikTok, and even Facebook primarily host short-form videos averaging 30 seconds to a minute long, YouTube’s premise is to expand on short-form content and host longer videos, such as how-tos, influencer lifestyle content, and vlogs, allowing viewers to form a more intimate connection with the content. 

    One of the main ways institutions utilize YouTube is with the rise of virtual campus tours, allowing potential students from anywhere to experience a university campus. This allows universities to expand their applicant pool by reaching potential students who may not be able to attend an in-person campus tour. 

    Take a look at a couple of examples of virtual campus tours from Clemson University and Cornell University, which have received 62,000 and 136,000 views, respectively:

    Clemson University

    Cornell University

    YouTube can also be a great place to highlight student success stories and testimonials.

    3. Instagram

    This Meta-owned social media platform has about 3 billion monthly users. In 2017, Instagram edged out Snapchat for one of the top spots among the most popular social media platforms. How? Instagram saw a gap in its algorithm where it wasn’t meeting younger audiences’ needs that Snapchat excelled at: catering to short attention spans. 

    In 2016, Instagram expanded on its platform offerings, including not only the ability to share photos in a timeline, but also launching a Stories feature. Similar to Snapchat, IG Stories gave users the ability to showcase shorter bursts of content that showcased the use of filters, stickers, and more, making the platform more interactive. With the launch of IG Reels in 2020, Instagram rounded out its offerings within the platform, giving users the ability to view and create short-form videos. 

    Since Instagram is most popular among a large younger demographic of users ages 18 to 34, Instagram is one of the number one tools higher ed marketers should be using to reach a wide variety of their university community, from prospective students to current students and young alumni.

    4. TikTok 

    TikTok has nearly 2 billion users. After its launch in 2018, TikTok quickly grew into one of the most popular social media platforms, surpassing X (formerly Twitter) and Snapchat and creating a new demand for short-form video across all platforms. 

    Primarily geared towards Gen Z and Millennial audiences, TikTok is a fast-paced, trend-focused app, making it one of the ideal platforms for marketing to university students. The original TikTok algorithm was unique compared to other social media platforms because it continually personalizes content to keep users engaged.

    How Did Social Media Change the Way We Communicate?

    Social media has changed how we communicate with one another in many ways. It has allowed us to share information in new ways, quickly gain global insights into worldwide news and trends, and forge new online communities of like-minded individuals.

    Fostered the Ability to Share 

    Since its launch in 2004, Facebook, one of the first ever social media platforms, has created a place to share anything from daily thoughts to groundbreaking ideas. This has continued to be the foundation of social media platforms that have followed in Facebook’s footsteps, from Snapchat to Instagram to TikTok. 

    Each of these platforms has expanded on the original foundation to add features such as stories, short-form video, and interactive filters. This further encouraged immediate, frequent sharing among participants and a sense of urgency around being an active social media user. This illustrates our first point: Social media has given audiences the opportunity to share and collaborate in real-time on a global scale. Over time, we shifted from passive consumers of information to active participants in content creation and distribution.

    In higher ed, this has greatly impacted how institutions communicate with prospective and current students, alumni, and other members of their wider community. Institutions have been given the opportunity to share with their communities in real time: Student successes are immediately celebrated, university news can be instantly delivered to a For You page (FYP) or timeline in a matter of seconds, and audiences can immediately communicate back. Social media has fostered this ability to share, allowing institutions to create stronger brand awareness and community engagement.    

    Provided Global Perspective

    This brings us to our second point: Social media has enabled people, brands, institutions, and organizations to come together in one common place, erasing traditional communication boundaries that once hindered our ability to connect. 

    Students in one part of the world can now explore what campus life looks like in another, simply by watching a TikTok tour, reading Instagram stories, or following a university ambassador on YouTube. These behind-the-scenes glimpses, often created by real students, offer an authentic, unfiltered perspective of life at institutions that might have otherwise been unreachable. 

    Faculty benefit from this reach too, using platforms like LinkedIn or X to share academic work, engage with global peers, and promote collaborative initiatives. Conferences, lectures, and panels can now be live-streamed or shared widely after the fact, broadening access to educational content for international audiences who may never set foot on campus.

    From a marketing standpoint, this global connectivity has changed the way institutions can position themselves and expand their offerings. Nearly two-thirds of institutions are exploring how to bring traditional on-campus programs online, utilizing the global reach driven by social media to appeal to nontraditional learners, including working parents and older adults. 

    Ultimately, the rise of social media has made it possible for institutions to extend their mission and messaging farther than ever before. 

    Encouraged Personal Connections 

    If you’re a social media user, you’ve likely experienced the benefits of how digital platforms have improved our overall communication. One of the most notable benefits is how platforms — from Facebook to LinkedIn and Instagram to TikTok — have given people the ability to connect on a personal level, whether it’s reconnecting with old friends, networking with new professional acquaintances, or sparking life-long friendships through comments, likes, and shares. 

    As social media has grown over the years, we’ve developed interest-based communities that allow us to communicate with like-minded individuals, sharing ideas and building a sense of belonging that might not be easily found in the “real world.” For nontraditional and online students, this can be life changing. 

    For institutions working towards appealing to this modern student demographic, utilizing these features can be beneficial in showcasing how nontraditional and online students can be part of the school’s community.

    The Challenge: Creating Bite-Size Messaging 

    With all of the ways social media has improved our communication, there are also some negative effects. One of which is particularly challenging for marketers: shortened attention spans. 

    The digital world moves quickly, and evidence has shown that the average attention span when looking at a screen has decreased from 2.5 minutes in 2004 to just 47 seconds in recent years. Many audience demographics, particularly younger generations, have become accustomed to “snackable” content. 

    Think about it: An average TikTok or Reel is 15 to 30 seconds long, Stories on Snapchat and Instagram disappear within 24 hours, and even static image carousels average only 3-5 slides. Because of this, marketers are left with less time to capture interest and low engagement on traditional content formats like text-only posts and longer videos.

    With social media being one of the most beneficial marketing tools in higher ed, it’s imperative that marketers learn to work with its fast-paced nature, not against it. We can do this by prioritizing visual content. Social media has made us into visual communicators: memes, gifs, short-form video, graphics, and more have begun to dominate our FYPs and timelines. 

    Shifting your strategy to prioritize content like eye-catching graphics and short-form video can push your content to the forefront of your audience’s feed and encourage higher engagement activity.   

    Improve Your Social Media Strategy With Archer 

    Looking to up your social media marketing game? Archer Education can help. We offer a variety of tech-enabled marketing, enrollment, and retention services, and our enrollment marketing team helps higher ed institutions with social media marketing, content creation, search engine optimization (SEO), academic thought leadership, and more. 

    Here at Archer, we partner with accredited universities to enable higher-ed leaders and marketers to accelerate their online program growth and enrollment. We believe that education is the great equalizer in our society, and we strive to help institutions make education more accessible for all adult learners. 

    If you’d like to learn more, contact our team and explore our offerings today. 

    Source link

  • UNC Chapel Hill Won’t Sign Compact

    UNC Chapel Hill Won’t Sign Compact

    The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill made clear Friday that it won’t sign the federal “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that has been extended to all institutions after seven of the original nine universities invited rejected the offer, WRAL reported. 

    Last month the Trump administration floated a plan for preferential treatment on federal funding in exchange for universities overhauling admissions and hiring practices, freezing tuition for five years, capping international enrollment at 15 percent, and making various other concessions that many critics have warned will undermine academic freedom.

    UNC Chapel Hill chancellor Lee Roberts said Friday that while the university has not received a formal invitation from the Trump administration, he is not interested in the arrangement.

    “There are some parts of the compact that we are already doing and there are some parts that would be difficult or impossible,” Roberts said in a faculty council meeting, according to WRAL. “There’s no way we can sign the compact as written and we don’t plan to.”

    Invitations to the compact were initially sent to Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. All but two declined—Vanderbilt said it would provide feedback and Texas has yet to offer a public response.

    Multiple others also announced pre-emptive rejections after the initial invitation went out, including Emory University, Pennsylvania State University, Syracuse University and the University of Kansas. So far, only two institutions have announced intentions to sign the compact: New College of Florida and Valley Forge Military College in Pennsylvania.

    Source link

  • Faculty Lead AI Usage Conversations on College Campuses

    Faculty Lead AI Usage Conversations on College Campuses

    Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, higher education as a sector has grappled with the role large language models and generative artificial intelligence tools can and should play in students’ lives.  

    A recent survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that nearly all college students say they know how and when to use AI for their coursework, which they attribute largely to faculty instruction or syllabus language.

    Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they know when to use AI, with the share of those saying they don’t shrinking from 31 percent in spring 2024 to 13 percent in August 2025.

    The greatest share of respondents (41 percent) said they know when to use AI because their professors include statements in their syllabi explaining appropriate and inappropriate AI use. An additional 35 percent said they know because their instructors have addressed it in class.

    “It’s good news that students feel like they understand the basic ground rules for when AI is appropriate,” said Dylan Ruediger, principal for the research enterprise at Ithaka S+R. “It suggests that there are some real benefits to having faculty be the primary point of contact for information about what practices around AI should look like.”

    The data points to a trend in higher education to move away from a top-down approach of organizing AI policies to a more decentralized approach, allowing faculty to be experts in their subjects.

    “I think that faculty should have wide latitudes to teach their courses how they see fit. Trusting them to understand what’s pedagogically appropriate for their ways of teaching and within their discipline” is a smart place to start, Ruediger said.

    The challenge becomes how to create campuswide priorities for workforce development that ensure all students, regardless of major program, can engage in AI as a career tool and understand academic integrity expectations.

    Student Perspectives

    While the survey points to institutional efforts to integrate AI into the curriculum, some students remain unaware or unsure of when they can use AI tools. Only 17 percent of students said they are aware of appropriate AI use cases because their institution has published a policy on the subject, whereas 25 percent said they know when to use AI because they’ve researched the topic themselves.

    Ruediger hypothesizes that some students learn about AI tools and their uses from peers in addition to their own research.

    Some demographic groups were less likely than others to be aware of appropriate AI use on campus, signaling disparities in who’s receiving this information. Nearly one-quarter of adult learners (aged 25 or older) said they don’t  know how or when to use AI for coursework, compared to 10 percent of their traditional-aged peers. Similarly, two-year college students were less likely to say they are aware of appropriate use cases (20 percent) than their four-year peers (10 percent).

    Students working full-time (19 percent) or those who had dropped out for a semester (20 percent) were also more likely to say they don’t know when to use AI.

    While decentralizing AI policies and giving autonomy to faculty members can better serve academic freedom and AI applications, having clearly outlined and widely available policies also benefits students.

    “There is a scenario here where [AI] rules are left somewhat informal and inconsistent that ends up giving an advantage to students who have more cultural capital or are better positioned to understand hidden curricular issues,” Ruediger said.

    In a survey of provosts and chief academic officers this fall, Inside Higher Ed found that one in five provosts said their institution is taking an intentionally hands-off approach to regulating AI use, with no formal governance or policies about AI. Fourteen percent of respondents indicated their institution has established a comprehensive AI governance policy or institutional strategy, but the greatest share said they are still developing policies.

    A handful of students also indicated they have no interest in ever using AI.

    In 2024, 2 percent of Student Voice survey respondents (n=93) wrote in “other” responses to the question, “Do you have a clear sense of when, how or whether to use generative artificial intelligence to help with your coursework?” More than half of those responses—55—expressed distrust, disdain or disagreement with the use of generative AI. That view appears to be growing; this year, 3 percent of respondents (n=138) wrote free responses, and 113 comments opposed AI use in college for ethical or personal reasons.

     “I hate AI we should never ever ever use it,” wrote one second-year student at a community college in Wyoming. “It’s terrible for the environment. People who use AI lack critical thinking skills and just use AI as a cop out.”

    The Institutional Perspective

    A separate survey fielded by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that more than half of student success administrators (55 percent) reported that their institution is “somewhat effective” at helping students understand how, when and whether to use generative AI tools in academic settings. (“Somewhat effective” is defined as “there being some structured efforts, but guidance is not consistent or comprehensive.”)

    More than one-third (36 percent) reported their institution is not very effective—meaning they offer limited guidance and many students rely on informal or independent learning—and 2 percent said their institution is “very effective,” or that students receive clear guidance across multiple channels.

    Ithaka S+R published its own study this spring, which found that the average instructor had at least experimented with using AI in classroom activities. According to Inside Higher Ed’s most recent survey of provosts, two-thirds of respondents said their institution offers professional development for faculty on AI or integrating AI into the curriculum.

    Engaging Students in AI

    Some colleges and universities have taken measures to ensure all students are aware of ethical AI use cases.

    Indiana University created an online course, GenAI 101, for anyone with a campus login to earn a certificate denoting they’ve learned about practical applications for AI tools, ethical considerations of using those tools and how to fact-check content produced by AI.

    This year the University of Mary Washington offered students a one-credit online summer course on how to use generative AI tools, which covered academic integrity, professional development applications and how to evaluate AI output.

    The State University of New York system identified AI as a core competency to be included in all general education courses for undergraduates. All classes that fulfill the information literacy competency requirement will include a lesson on AI ethics and literacy starting fall 2026.

    Touro University is requiring all faculty members to include an AI statement in their syllabi by next spring, Shlomo Argamon, associate provost for artificial intelligence, told Inside Higher Ed in a podcast episode. The university also has an official AI policy that serves as the default if faculty do not have more or less restrictive policies.

    Source link

  • Federal Policy Changes Impact Student Veterans (opinion)

    Federal Policy Changes Impact Student Veterans (opinion)

    Every year on Veterans Day, we pause to honor those who have served our country—but our gratitude must extend beyond a single day of reflection. One of the most powerful ways to repay veterans’ service is through education, a goal long supported by the general public and Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Student veterans bring leadership, discipline and unique experiences to college campuses; their postsecondary success strengthens both our communities and economies.

    Yet despite their proven academic potential and deep motivation to earn a degree, too many veterans face unnecessary barriers to completing college. At Ithaka S+R, we’ve reported on the value of enrolling and supporting student veterans and the unique challenges these students face in getting to and through higher education, for several years running. From underresourced institutions to opaque transfer processes and predatory recruitment practices, these obstacles result in lower bachelor’s degree attainment among veterans compared to their civilian peers.

    Right now, policy and appropriations decisions (including the current government shutdown) could undermine the progress the country has made in providing educational opportunities for our veterans. As we celebrate Veterans Day, it’s time for higher education leaders and policymakers to renew their commitment to supporting those who’ve served. Here are three developing situations that we’re monitoring for their potential impact on student veterans.

    Cuts to Veterans Upward Bound

    Veterans Upward Bound is a federally funded TRIO program focused on precollege, college transition and college success support for veterans. Started in 1972, the program now supports more than 8,000 veterans looking to enroll in or return to college by providing academic instruction, tutoring and counseling. There are 60-plus programs nationally, run by individual colleges and universities. The programs have proven highly effective: Participants are 42 percent more likely than their peers to earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

    There is significant uncertainty about whether the federal government will sustain the current and future funding for these Veterans Upward Bound programs. The federal government delayed payment for the majority of TRIO programs this fall, including all Veterans Upward Bound programs. The funding delay came on the heels of proposals to decrease, or even eliminate completely, TRIO programs in next year’s federal budget. The Department of Education got a head start this year, canceling many thousands of dollars in already-allocated funding for TRIO programs, including for VUB programs, in mid-September. Although some of that funding has since been restored, the uncertainty leaves many programs struggling to plan for the year ahead.

    VA Staffing Cuts and GI Bill Processing Times

    Enrolled student veterans rely on the federal government for the processing of their GI Bill funds. The combination of staffing cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the recent federal government shutdown has created delays, confusion and, ultimately, financial stress for student veterans.

    This summer, student veterans and campus advisers reported that benefit eligibility determinations and payments for the GI Bill took three times longer than previously because of understaffing and increased administrative errors. This meant that housing and textbook payments were delayed, which led to some student veterans missing the start of classes (and, in more severe cases, dropping or stopping out).

    The situation has worsened since the federal government shut down on Oct. 1. Although education benefits themselves are primarily funded through advance appropriations and thus can continue to be paid out, critical support services have ceased operation during the shutdown. The VA’s GI Bill phone hotline, which many rely on for questions about eligibility, payments and school certification, is closed. Regional VA offices, which normally handle in-person assistance, are also closed. Not only do these closures create challenges in the current moment, but resulting processing delays will result in a backlog even after the government reopens.

    For student veterans on fixed schedules, with tight budgets and in transitional life phases, the time and energy to deal with unsettled paperwork add up to real risks for academic progress and financial stability.

    Measuring Student Veteran Success

    The uncertainty of federal support for student veterans comes at a time when there is shrinking programmatic and rhetorical support for students that higher education has historically struggled to welcome. Veterans are increasingly more likely to belong to other underrepresented groups, such as racial minorities and adult learners, so the challenges they face in accessing and affording higher education may be multiplied.

    The states, systems and institutions interested in continuing to serve student veterans are also facing immense challenges as they confront federal policy changes that have downstream financial impacts, such as changes to graduate student loans and the decline in international student enrollment. While these challenges make it even more imperative for institutions to enroll a wider range of students, including student veterans, there is simultaneously increased difficulty in doing so.

    Investing in veteran-specific admissions strategies and academic advising, providing efficient credit transfer mechanisms, and tracking postcollege outcomes are initiatives that can help boost student veteran success. The full scope of that success, however, remains elusive, as the data landscape for student veterans remains fragmented and incomplete. Alongside institutional efforts to ensure success, regional and national efforts are needed to more fully understand how many new veterans could benefit from enrolling in higher education each year and in what degree programs they are most interested. To truly understand the scope of the impact of the federal budget and staffing cuts and how other parts of higher education can help fill that breach and prioritize veterans’ enrollment, it is essential to know more about the size and scope of the potential student veteran population we are looking to serve.

    Conclusion

    As federal uncertainty grows, from cuts to Veterans Upward Bound programs to delays in GI Bill processing, and the shutdown drags on, student veterans risk being left behind just when they need institutional support most. At the same time, colleges face shrinking budgets and shifting demographics that make it harder to serve those who’ve already given so much.

    But these challenges also present an opportunity for stakeholders throughout higher education to refocus on veterans. By investing in veteran-specific recruitment, advising and data collection efforts, institutions, states and veteran-serving organizations can open doors to a new generation of leaders ready to contribute to their campuses and communities.

    The promise of higher education for veterans should not only depend on bureaucratic stability or federal budget cycles; it requires a collective effort from within and beyond the field of higher education. This Veterans Day and every day after, let’s recommit to ensuring that those who served our nation have every chance to succeed in the classroom and beyond.

    Emily Schwartz is a principal of bachelor’s attainment at the nonprofit Ithaka S+R, which conducts research and offers strategic advice on student access and success, among other topics related to higher education and research. Michael Fried is a senior researcher and Daniel Braun is senior development and operations specialist, both at Ithaka S+R.

    Source link

  • Trump Gutted ED’s Civil Rights Office. Could States Step Up?

    Trump Gutted ED’s Civil Rights Office. Could States Step Up?

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which is supposed to protect students from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, age and disability status, isn’t what it once was.

    The Trump administration laid off nearly half the staff in March, shuttered seven of its 12 regional offices, shifted the hollowed-out agency’s focus to new priorities (including keeping transgender women out of women’s sports) and then reportedly terminated more employees amid the ongoing shutdown.

    Philadelphia was among the cities that lost its OCR regional office in the first round of layoffs. Lindsey Williams, a Pennsylvania state senator who serves as minority chair of the Senate Education Committee, said the region’s cases now go to Atlanta, “where they may or may not be heard.”

    To fill this void, Williams, a Democrat, announced she will file legislation to establish an Office of Civil Rights within the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The bill has yet to be written, but Williams said she wants to “create new authorities for the Pennsylvania Department of Education to investigate and enforce federal civil rights violations.” She noted, “There may be opportunity as well to strengthen our state laws in this regard.”

    “We’re looking at all of it to see what we can do,” she said, “because we haven’t been here before.”

    Students facing discrimination across the country now have far fewer staff in the federal Education Department OCR who can respond to their complaints. The agency had a large backlog of cases even before President Trump retook office, and then it dismissed thousands of complaints in the spring. Some advocates have expressed particular concern about OCR’s current capacity to process complaints of disability discrimination.

    And those left at OCR appear to be applying a conservative interpretation of civil rights law that doesn’t recognize transgender students’ gender identity. The Trump-era OCR has actively targeted institutions for allowing trans women in women’s sports. It’s also focused on ending programs and practices that specifically benefit minorities, to the exclusion of whites.

    Civil rights advocates are calling for states to step up.

    “We cannot stop what is happening at the federal level,” Williams said. “There’s plenty of lawsuits that are trying … but, in the meantime, what do we as a state do?”

    One of those ongoing suits, filed by the Victim Rights Law Center and two parents in April, alleges that shrinking OCR harms students from protected classes. It argues that the federal OCR cuts left “a hollowed-out organization incapable of performing its statutorily mandated functions,” adding that “without judicial intervention, the system will exist in name only.” But that intervention may not work in students’ favor—judges have issued preliminary injunctions, but the Supreme Court has, so far, allowed the Education Department layoffs to continue.

    Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center and a Pennsylvania resident, said, “States need to be picking up some of the slack.”

    “If more states with Democratic leaders started to propose such offices or legislation or money, it would likely create a bigger conversation,” Chestnut said.

    He noted that during the Obama administration, the federal government sued North Carolina over its controversial law banning trans people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity. But that’s not something the Trump administration would do. Chestnut said some states are now saying—and more should be saying—“OK, you won’t do your job, so we’ll do your job for you.”

    Beth Gellman-Beer, who was director of the Philadelphia regional office of the federal OCR before the Trump administration laid her off, said she doesn’t know of other states creating a new state-level agency like the one that’s been proposed in Pennsylvania. Even there, Republicans control the state Senate, and the legislation isn’t certain to pass. She said other state legislatures “should be really thinking about this and taking immediate steps to build out some kind of civil rights unit to help students in their state.”

    Some states already have their own agencies that protect civil rights in higher ed, Gellman-Beer said, including the existing Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. But she said these entities “are traditionally severely understaffed and don’t have the resources and relied heavily on OCR.”

    Chad Dion Lassiter, executive director of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, agreed with Gellman-Beer’s assessment of commissions like his. Lassiter said he feels “sheer exuberance” over the proposed legislation—which he said would be even greater if the new Office of Civil Rights were created in his agency.

    “Give us 20 additional staff and we’ll do the work,” Lassiter said. Ideally, 15 would be investigators in his agency’s education division and five would be attorneys, he said.

    “Each state that has a human relations commission should have an educational component,” he said. “Fund these commissions.”

    Gellman-Beer said the only true fix is to restore a federal OCR—because even if some states do step up, students’ rights will be contingent on where they live.

    “It used to be, under the model prior to this administration, that the promise for equal educational opportunity was across the board,” she said.

    Unequal Rights Across States

    For a student going before a state-level OCR in a state that doesn’t recognize their identity, the process could be as fruitless as seeking help from the Trump-era federal OCR. The Movement Advancement Project, which advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, says 27 states have laws banning trans students from participating in sports matching their gender identity. Such laws don’t all affect postsecondary students, but they often do, the organization said.

    Nicholas Hite, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBTQ+ people in court, said the federal OCR was supposed to provide a single, consistent application of federal legal protections. Now, he said, “that just isn’t happening—they’re just refusing to do it.”

    “If we’re relying on states to be the enforcement mechanism, we’ve created this patchwork where each state is going to take their own approach,” Hite said.

    Universities in states with laws recognizing trans students’ rights have to decide whether to comply with those laws or with the Trump administration’s approach. The administration, using massive cuts to federal research funding, forced concessions from the University of Pennsylvania for allowing a trans woman to compete in women’s sports. But Scott Lewis—a co-founder of the Association of Title IX Administrators and managing partner of TNG Consulting, which advises higher ed institutions on civil rights issues—said so far he’s seen blue-state universities handling discrimination complaints like they did before Trump retook office.

    Lassiter, of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, said, “It’s important for people to know you still have protections under the state.” But protections for trans students can be unclear.

    His agency enforces state laws protecting students against discrimination based on gender identity, but wouldn’t directly answer whether that means it would order a university to allow a trans woman to play on a woman’s sports team. Lassiter said his agency avoids “cultural wars.”

    Students facing discrimination of all sorts can still sue under federal civil rights law in lieu of seeking help from the federal OCR or any state version of that agency. But personal lawsuits can be expensive.

    Williams, the Pennsylvania state senator, noted that lawsuits may also not wrap up by the time a student graduates. Gellman-Beer, the former federal OCR employee, said they also often lead to individual remedies for a victim, rather than “systemic interventions to make sure that the problem doesn’t occur again for other students.” That was the kind of broad solution the federal OCR could achieve, she said.

    Hite welcomed people whose rights are being infringed, or who are concerned about others’ rights, to reach out to Lambda Legal. He noted the federal OCR did much of its work through negotiating with universities to fix issues, rather than pursuing litigation. If the federal OCR is no longer doing these negotiations, the burden is placed on students and parents to sue to uphold their own rights—while an added cost of litigation is also placed on universities, he said.

    Lewis said that if the Trump administration continues its trajectory, people who don’t feel they’re being served at the federal level will go to the state level.

    “If the federal government won’t do it,” he said, “the states are going to be left to do it.”

    Source link