ASHE COUNTY, N.C. — In the time it took to read an email, the federal money vanished before Superintendent Eisa Cox’s eyes: dollars that supported the Ashe County school district’s after-school program, training for its teachers, salaries for some jobs.
The email from the Department of Education arrived June 30, one day before the money — $1.1 million in total — was set to materialize for the rural western North Carolina district. Instead, the dollars had been frozen pending a review to make sure the money was spent “in accordance with the President’s priorities,” the email said.
In a community still recovering from Hurricane Helene, where more than half of students are considered economically disadvantaged, Cox said there was no way they could replace that federal funding. “It is scary to think about it, you’re getting ready to open school and not have a significant pot of funds,” she said.
School leaders across the country were reeling from the same news. The $1.1 million was one small piece of a nearly $7 billion pot of federal funding for thousands of school districts that the Trump administration froze — money approved by Congress and that schools were scheduled to receive on July 1. For weeks, leaders in Ashe County and around the country scrambled to figure out how they could avoid layoffs and fill financial holes — until the money was freed July 25, after an outcry from legislators and a lawsuit joined by two dozen states.
“I had teachers crying, staff members crying. They thought they were going to lose their jobs a week before school,” said Curtis Finch, superintendent of Deer Valley Unified School District in Phoenix.
About $1.1 million was at stake for the Ashe County school district in western North Carolina this summer when a portion of K-12 schools’ federal funding was frozen. Credit: Ariel Gilreath/The Hechinger Report
Now, as educators welcome students back to classrooms, they can no longer count on federal dollars as they once did. They must learn to plan without a playbook under a president intent on cutting education spending. For many districts, federal money is a small but crucial sliver of their budgets, potentially touching every part of a school’s operations, from teacher salaries to textbooks. Nationally, it accounts for about 14 percent of public school funding; in Ashe County, it’s 17 percent. School administrators are examining their resources now and budgeting for losses to funding that was frozen this summer, for English learners, after-school and other programs.
So far, the Trump administration has not proposed cutting the largest pots of federal money for schools, which go to services for students with disabilities and to schools with large numbers of low-income students. But the current budget proposal from the U.S. House of Representatives would do just that.
At the same time, forthcoming cuts to other federal support for low-income families under the Republican “one big, beautiful bill” — including Medicaid and SNAP — will also hammer schools that have many students living in poverty. And some school districts are also grappling with the elimination of Department of Education grants announced earlier this year, such as those designed to address teacher shortages and disability services. In politically conservative communities like this one, there’s an added tension for schools that rely on federal money to operate: how to sound the alarm while staying out of partisan politics.
For Ashe County, the federal spending freeze collided with the district’s attempt at a fresh start after the devastation of Helene, which demolished roads and homes, damaged school buildings and knocked power and cell service out for weeks. Between the storm and snow days, students here missed 47 days of instruction.
Cox worries this school year might bring more missed days: That first week of school, she found herself counting the number of foggy mornings. An old Appalachian wives’ tale says to put a bean in a jar for every morning of fog in August. The number of beans at the end of the month is how many snow days will come in winter.
“We’ve had 21 so far,” Cox said with a nervous laugh on Aug. 21.
Fragrant evergreen trees blanket Ashe County’s hills, a region that bills itself as America’s Christmas Tree Capital because of the millions of Fraser firs grown for sale at the holidays. Yet this picturesque area still shows scars of Hurricane Helene’s destruction: fallen trees, damaged homes and rocky new paths cut through the mountainsides by mudslides. Nearly a year after the storm, the lone grocery store in one of its small towns is still being rebuilt. A sinkhole that formed during the flooding remains, splitting open the ground behind an elementary school.
Ashe County Schools Superintendent Eisa Cox visits classrooms at Blue Ridge Elementary School during the first week of the school year in Warrensville, N.C. Credit: Ariel Gilreath/The Hechinger Report
As students walked into classrooms for the first time since spring, Julie Taylor — the district’s director of federal programs — was reworking district budget spreadsheets. When federal funds were frozen, and then unfrozen, her plans and calculations from months prior became meaningless.
Federal and state funding stretches far in this district of 2,700 students and six schools, where administrators do a lot with a little. Even before this summer, they worked hard to supplement that funding in any way possible — applying to state and federal grants, like one last year that provided money for a few mobile hot spots for families who don’t have internet access. Such opportunities are also narrowing: The Federal Communications Commission, for example, recently proposed ending its mobile hot spot grant program for school buses and libraries.
“We’re very fiscally responsible because we have to be — we’re small and rural, we don’t have a large tax base,” Taylor said.
When the money was frozen this summer, administrators’ minds went to the educators and kids who would be most affected. Some of it paid for a program through Appalachian State University that connects the district’s three dozen early-career teachers with a mentor, helps them learn how to schedule their school days and manage classroom behavior.
The program is part of the reason the district’s retention rate for early career teachers is 92 percent, Taylor said, noting the teachers have said how much the mentoring meant to them.
Also frozen: free after-school care the district provides for about 250 children throughout the school year — the only after-school option in the community. Without the money, Cox said, schools would have to cancel their after-school care or start charging families, a significant burden in a county with a median household income of about $50,000.
Sixth grade students make self-portraits out of construction paper during the first week of the school year at Blue Ridge Elementary School in Warrensville, N.C., in August. Credit: Ariel Gilreath/The Hechinger Report
The salary for Michelle Pelayo, the district’s migrant education program coordinator for nearly two decades, was also tied up in that pot of funding. Because agriculture is the county’s biggest industry, Pelayo’s work in Ashe County extends far beyond the students at the school. Each year, she works with the families of dozens of migrant students who move to the area for seasonal work on farms, which generally involves tagging and bundling Christmas trees and harvesting pumpkins. Pelayo helps the families enroll their students, connects them with supplies for school and home, and serves as a Spanish translator for parent-teacher meetings — “whatever they need,” she said.
Kitty Honeycutt, executive director of the Ashe County Chamber of Commerce, doesn’t know how the county’s agriculture industry would survive without the migrant students Pelayo works with. “The need for guest workers is crucial for the agriculture industry — we have to have them,” she said.
A couple of years ago, Pelayo had the idea to drive to Boone, North Carolina, where Appalachian State University’s campus sits, to gather unwanted appliances and supplies from students moving out of their dorm rooms at the end of the year to donate to migrant families. She’s a “find a way or make a way” type of person, Honeycutt said.
Cox is searching for how to keep Pelayo on if Ashe County loses these federal funds next year. She’s talked with county officials to see if they could pay Pelayo’s salary, and begun calculating how much the district would need to charge families to keep the after-school program running. Ideally, she’d know ahead of time and not the night before the district is set to receive the money.
Districts across the country are grappling with similar questions. In Detroit, school leaders are preparing, at a minimum, to lose Title III money to teach English learners. More than 7,200 Detroit students received services funded by Title III in 2023.
In Wyoming, the small, rural Sheridan County School District 3 is trying to budget without Title II, IV and V money — funding for improving teacher quality, updating technology and resources for rural and low-income schools, among other uses, Superintendent Chase Christensen said.
Schools are trying to budget for cuts to other federal programs, too — such as Medicaid and food stamps. In Harrison School District 2, an urban district in Colorado Springs, Colorado, schools rely on Medicaid to provide students with counseling, nursing and other services.
The district projects that it could lose half the $15 million it receives in Medicaid next school year.
“It’s very, very stressful,” said Wendy Birhanzel, superintendent of Harrison School District 2. “For a while, it was every day, you were hearing something different. And you couldn’t even keep up with, ‘What’s the latest information today?’ That’s another thing we told our staff: If you can, just don’t watch the news about education right now.”
There’s another calculation for school leaders to make in conservative counties like Ashe, where 72 percent of the vote last year went for President Donald Trump: objecting to the cuts without angering voters. When North Carolina’s attorney general, a Democrat, joined the lawsuit against the administration over the frozen funds this summer, some school administrators told state officials they couldn’t publicly sign on, fearing local backlash, said Jack Hoke, executive director of the North Carolina School Superintendents’ Association.
Cox sees the effort to slash federal funds as a chance to show her community how Ashe County Schools uses this money. She believes people are misguided in thinking their schools don’t need it, not malicious.
“I know who our congresspeople are — I know they care about this area,” Cox said, even if they do not fully grasp how the money is used. “It’s an opportunity for me to educate them.”
If the Education Department is shuttered — which Trump said he plans to do in order to give more authority over education to states — she wants to be included in state-level discussions for how federal money flows to schools through North Carolina. And, importantly, she wants to know ahead of time what her schools might lose.
As Cox made her rounds to each of the schools that first week back, she glanced down at her phone and looked up with a smile. “We have hot water,” she said while walking in the hall of Blue Ridge Elementary School. It had lost hot water a few weeks earlier, but to Cox, this crisis was minor — one of many first-of-the-year hiccups she has come to expect.
Still, it’s one worry she can put out of her mind as she looks ahead to a year of uncertainties.
Meanwhile, the anxiety about this school year hasn’t reached the students, who were talking among themselves in the high school’s media center, creating collages in the elementary school’s art class and trekking up to Mount Jefferson — a state park that sits directly behind the district’s two high schools — for an annual trip.
They were just excited to be back.
Marina Villeneuve contributed data analysis to this story.
Contact staff writer Ariel Gilreath on Signal at arielgilreath.46 or at [email protected].
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
If you loved the Teaching Excellence Framework, were thrilled by the outcomes (B3) thresholds, lost your mind for the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register, and delighted to the sporadic risk-based OfS investigations based on years-old data you’ll find a lot to love in the latest set of Office for Students proposals on quality assurance.
In today’s Consultation on the future approach to quality regulation you’ll find a cyclical, cohort based TEF that also includes a measurement (against benchmarks) of compliance with the thresholds for student outcomes inscribed in the B3 condition. Based on the outcomes of this super-TEF and prioritised based on assessment of risk, OfS will make interventions (including controls on recruitment and the conditions of degree awarding powers) and targeted investigation. This is a first stage consultation only, stage two will come in August 2026.
It’s not quite a grand unified theory: we don’t mix in the rest of the B conditions (covering less pressing matters like academic standards, the academic experience, student support, assessment) because, in the words of OfS:
Such an approach would be likely to involve visits to all providers, to assess whether they meet all the relevant B conditions of registration
The students who are struggling right now with the impacts of higher student/staff ratios and a lack of capacity due to over-recruitment will greatly appreciate this reduction in administrative burden.
Where we left things
When we last considered TEF we were expecting an exercise every four years, drawing on provider narrative submissions (which included a chunk on a provider’s own definition and measurement of educational gain), students’ union narrative submissions, and data on outcomes and student satisfactions. Providers were awarded a “medal” for each of student outcomes and student experience – a matrix determined whether this resulted in an overall Bronze, Silver, Gold or Requires Improvement.
The first three of these awards were deemed to be above minimum standards (with slight differences between each), while the latter was a portal to the much more punitive world of regulation under group B (student experience) conditions of registration. Most of the good bits of this approach came from the genuinely superb Pearce Review of TEF conducted under section 26 of the Higher Education and Research Act, which fixed a lot of the statistical and process nonsense that had crept in under previous iterations and then-current plans (though not every recommendation was implemented).
TEF awards were last made in 2023, with the next iteration – involving all registered providers plus anyone else who wanted to play along – was due in 2027.
Perma-TEF
A return to a rolling TEF rather than a quadrennial quality enhancement jamboree means a pool of TEF assessors rather than a one-off panel. There will be steps taken to ensure that an appropriate group of academic and student assessors is selected to assess each cohort – there will be special efforts made to use those with experience of smaller, specialist, and college-based providers – and a tenure of two-to-three years is planned. OfS is also considering whether its staff can be included among the storied ranks of those empowered to facilitate ratings decisions.
Likewise, we’ll need a more established appeals system. Open only to those with Bronze or Needs Improvement ratings (Gold and Silver are passing grades) it would be a way to potentially forestall engagement and investigations based on an active risk to student experience or outcomes, or a risk of a future breach of a condition of registration for Bronze or Requires Improvement.
Each provider would be assessed once every three years – all providers taking part in the first cycle would be assessed in either 2027-28, 2028-29, or 2029-30 (which covers only undergraduate students because there’s no postgraduate NSS yet – OfS plan to develop one before 2030). In many cases they’ll only know which one at the start of the academic year in question, which will give them six months to get their submissions sorted.
Because Bronze is now bad (rather than “good but not great” as it used to be) the first year’s could well include all providers with a 2023 Bronze (or Requires Improvement) rating, plus some with increased risks of non-compliance, some with Bronze in one of the TEF aspects, and some without a rating.
After this, how often you are assessed depends on your rating – if you are Gold overall it is five years till the next try, Silver means four years, and Bronze three (if you are “Requires Improvement” you probably have other concerns beyond the date of your next assessment) but this can be tweaked if OfS decides there is an increased risk to quality or for any other reason.
Snakes and ladders
Ignore the gradations and matrices in the Pearce Review – the plan now is that your lowest TEF aspect rating (remember you got sub-awards last time for student experience and student outcomes) will be your overall rating. So Silver for experience and Bronze for outcomes makes for an overall Bronze. As OfS has decided that you now have to pay (likely around £25,000) to enter what is a compulsory exercise this is a cost that could lead to a larger cost in future.
In previous TEFs, the only negative consequence for those outside of the top ratings have been reputational – a loss of bragging rights of, arguably, negligible value. The new proposals align Bronze with the (B3) minimum required standards and put Requires Improvement below these: in the new calculus of value the minimum is not good enough and there will be consequences.
We’ve already had some hints that a link to fee cap levels is back on the cards, but in the meantime OfS is pondering a cap on student numbers expansion to punish those who turn out Bronze or Requires Improvement. The workings of the expansion cap will be familiar to those who recall the old additional student numbers process – increases of more than five per cent (the old tolerance band, which is still a lot) would not be permitted for poorly rated providers.
For providers without degree awarding powers it is unlikely they will be successful in applying for them with Bronze and below – but OfS is also thinking about restricting aspects of existing providers DAPs, for example limiting their ability to subcontract or franchise provision in future. This is another de facto numbers cap in many cases, and is all ahead of a future consultation on DAPs that could make for an even closer link with TEF.
Proposals for progression
Proposal 6 will simplify the existing B3 thresholds, and integrate the way they are assessed into the TEF process. In a nutshell, the progression requirement for B3 would disappear – with the assessment made purely on continuation and completion, with providers able to submit contextual and historic information to explain why performance is not above the benchmark or threshold as a part of the TEF process.
Progression will still be considered at the higher levels of TEF, and here contextual information can play more of a part – with what I propose we start calling the Norland Clause allowing providers to submit details of courses that lead to jobs that ONS does not consider as professional or managerial. That existing indicator will be joined by another based on (Graduate Outcomes) graduate reflections on how they are using what they have learned, and benchmarked salaries three years after graduation from DfE’s Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data – in deference to that random Kemi Badenoch IFS commission at the tail end of the last parliament.
Again, there will be contextual benchmarks for these measures (and hopefully some hefty caveating on the use of LEO median salaries) – and, as is the pattern in this consultation, there are detailed proposals to follow.
Marginal gains, marginal losses
The “educational gains” experiment, pioneered in the last TEF, is over: making this three times that a regulator in England has tried and failed to include a measure of learning gain in some form of regulation. OfS is still happy for you to mention your education gain work in your next narrative submission, but it isn’t compulsory. The reason: reducing burden, and a focus on comparability rather than a diversity of bespoke measures.
Asking providers what something means in their context, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all measure of student success was an immensely powerful component of the last exercise. Providers who started on that journey at considerable expense in data gathering and analysis may be less than pleased at this latest development – and we’d certainly understood that DfE were fans of the approach too.
Similarly, the requirement for students to feed back on students in their submissions to TEF has been removed. The ostensible reason is that students found it difficult last time round – the result is that insight from the valuable networks between existing students and their recently graduated peers is lost. The outcomes end of TEF is now very much data driven with only the chance to explain unusual results offered. It’s a retreat from some of the contextual sense that crept in with the Pearce Review.
Business as usual
Even though TEF now feels like it is everywhere and for always, there’s still a place for OfS’ regular risk-based monitoring – and annex I (yes, there’s that many annexes) contains a useful draft monitoring tool.
Here it is very good to see staff:student ratios, falling entry requirements, a large growth in foundation year provision, and a rapid growth in numbers among what are noted as indicators of risk to the student experience. It is possible to examine an excellent system designed outside of the seemingly inviolate framework of the TEF where events like this would trigger an investigation of provider governance and quality assurance processes.
Alas, the main use of this monitoring is to decide whether or not to bring a TEF assessment forward, something that punts an immediate risk to students into something that will be dealt with retrospectively. If I’m a student on a first year that has ballooned from 300 to 900 from one cycle to the next there is a lot of good a regulator can do by acting quickly – I am unlikely to care whether a Bronze or Silver award is made in a couple of years’ time.
International principles
One of the key recommendations of the Behan review on quality was a drawing together of the various disparate (and, yes, burdensome) streams of quality and standards assurance and enhancement into a unified whole. We obviously don’t quite get there – but there has been progress made towards another key sector bugbear that came up both in Behan and the Lords’ Industry and Regulators Committee review: adherence to international quality assurance standards (to facilitate international partnerships and, increasingly, recruitment).
OfS will “work towards applying to join the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education” at the appropriate time – clearly feeling that the long overdue centring of the student voice in quality assurance (there will be an expanded role for and range of student assessors) and the incorporation of a cyclical element (to desk assessments at least) is enough to get them over the bar.
It isn’t. Principle 2.1 of the EQAR ESG requires that “external quality assurance should address the effectiveness of the internal quality assurance processes” – philosophically establishing the key role of providers themselves in monitoring and upholding the quality of their own provision, with the external assurance process primarily assessing whether (and how well) this has been done. For whatever reason OfS believes the state (in the form of the regulator) needs to be (and is capable of being!) responsible for all, quality assurance everywhere, all the time. It’s a glaring weakness of the OfS system that urgently needs to be addressed. And it hasn’t been, this time.
The upshot is that while the new system looks ESG-ish, it is unlikely to be judged to be in full compliance.
Single word judgements
The recent use of single headline judgements of educational quality being used in ways that have far reaching regulatory implications is hugely problematic. The government announced the abandonment of the old “requires improvement, inadequate, good, and outstanding” judgements for schools in favour of a more nuanced “report card approach” – driven in part by the death by suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry in 2023. The “inadequate” rating given to her Cavendish Primary School would have meant forced academisation and deeper regulatory oversight.
Regulation and quality assurance in education needs to be rigorous and reliable – it also needs to be context-aware and focused on improvement rather than retribution. Giving single headline grades cute, Olympics-inspired names doesn’t really cut it – and as we approach the fifth redesign of an exercise that has only run six times since 2016 you would perhaps think that rather harder questions need to be asked about the value (and cost!) of this undertaking.
If we want to assess and control the risks of modular provision, transnational education, rapid expansion, and a growing number of innovations in delivery we need providers as active partners in the process. If we want to let universities try new things we need to start from a position that we can trust universities to have a focus on the quality of the student experience that is robust and transparent. We are reaching the limits of the current approach. Bad actors will continue to get away with poor quality provision – students won’t see timely regulatory action to prevent this – and eventually someone is going to get hurt.
The arrival of Ofsted inspections of degree apprenticeships in higher education was never going to be smooth. But what’s become clear is just how underprepared some universities were for the emotional and organisational demands that these inspections bring.
As part of my doctoral research, I conducted a qualitative study, based on 20 semi-structured interviews with academic and professional services (PS) staff from 19 English universities. What I found reveals more than just overstretched teams or complaints about workload. It tells a story of institutional neglect within a sector where the rhetoric is one of apprenticeships being embraced while quietly sidelining the staff delivering this provision.
As government policy surrounding apprenticeships, flexible/modular provision, and the growth and skills levy starts to become clearer, the findings act as a warning shot. The issues higher education staff face during Ofsted inspections reflect deeper structural and cultural problems – ones that won’t be solved with another “you’ve got this!” email from the vice chancellor’s office.
A marginalised provision
Apprenticeships have always had an awkward status in HE. They’re professionally significant and they can attract noteworthy employer relationships, but they remain institutionally peripheral. As one participant put it, “we’ve never been invited to a senior leader’s meeting to talk about apprenticeships.”
Almost all academic participants described their apprenticeship work as invisible in workload models and poorly understood by senior leaders. One participant reported that they get “50 hours a year to look after apprenticeships, even though I would consider it to be my full-time role.” Another simply said, “we feel like the poor relation.” PS staff described the work during the Ofsted inspection creating “a permanent status of panic” and detailed 12-hour working days that ran through weekends until they were “running on fumes”. One cancelled a long-planned family holiday. Others reported stress-related illness, insomnia, extended sick leave, and the need for medication.
The most striking point during many of the interviews wasn’t just the volume of work to support apprenticeship delivery or the Ofsted inspection – it was the sense that senior leaders within their institution didn’t acknowledge it or even care.
Inspections as emotional events
There are multiple other accountability mechanisms within HE: the Teaching Excellence Framework, the Office for Students’ conditions of registration, the Quality Assurance Agency, the Department for Education apprenticeship accountability framework, and professional accreditation processes. This results in a complex and multi-agency system of regulation and scrutiny. However, among participants, Ofsted inspections weren’t experienced as just another audit or review. They were felt as emotional, personal, a question of professional competence, and in many cases traumatic.
The anticipation alone triggered stress symptoms and anxiety. One PS participant said:
Before the inspection started, I was terrified because I was going to be representing my university. What if I get it wrong? I kept feeling sick.
Another participant feared that the inspection outcome, if unsuccessful, could undermine years of hard work and this loss of control and emotional volatility left them feeling depleted and unwilling to experience an Ofsted inspection again:
I cannot be here in five years’ time. I’m not going through that again. I had some stress symptoms which didn’t let up for six to eight months.
Teaching staff viewed the inspection as a test of professional credibility and the emotional toll was compounded by the expectation to present calm professionalism: “I spent time telling everyone to be careful and not let your guard down” while managing their own fears and “the impending pit of doom” and those of their colleagues. Another said: “I was really worried about my colleague being pulled into an observation with an inspector. Her practice is wonderful, but she would have fallen apart. I wanted to protect her wellbeing.”
The need to “perform professionalism” while internally unravelling created a specific kind of emotional labour which was often invisible to those in leadership roles. It was obvious that participants weren’t just preparing evidence: they were absorbing institutional risk. In doing so, they became the shock absorbers for their university’s unpreparedness.
The problem isn’t Ofsted, it’s us
One might assume the findings are a critique of Ofsted. In fact, most participants described the inspectors as “courteous”, “professional”, “kind”, “amazing” or “approachable”. The frustration wasn’t aimed at the inspectors; it was aimed at the system.
One problem was the mismatch between Ofsted’s frameworks and the reality of delivering apprenticeships in higher education. Teaching staff spoke of “squeezing your programme, pedagogy, everything into an arbitrary box” that didn’t reflect their practice. Others questioned why Ofsted couldn’t operate more like consultants, “sharing best practice and providing exemplars” rather than simply evaluating.
While almost all participants described inspectors as courteous and supportive, they also expressed concerns about the disempowering effects of inspection dynamics. One noted
The power dynamic is… ‘If we don’t think you’re good enough, we’re going to close you down’. There are other regulatory bodies that don’t have the ability to put people out of jobs. It’s crazy.
That perception of existential risk was heightened because many institutions appeared to have no clear inspection plan. No training. No joined-up strategy. “We only got Ofsted training two days before the inspection,” said one participant. Others had to “design and deliver” their own training from scratch “without any support” from their leadership which meant it was difficult to get people to engage with it.
Teaching staff shared their views that traditional academic CPD (such as research outputs and pedagogic innovation) continues to be prioritised over compliance-linked work like Ofsted inspections, despite the institutional reputational risks:
If any of us wanted to go off to London to present a research paper, we would have accommodation paid for us, we’d be able to go to that conference, no problem. But if we ask for £150 worth of CPD on how to improve apprenticeship delivery it wouldn’t be allowed. It’s not a business priority.
Not malicious, just indifferent
Overall, my research tells a story about institutional neglect. Unlike toxic leadership or micro-management, this form of harm is quieter. It’s not what leaders do; it’s what they fail to do. It’s the absence of engagement and the unwillingness to fund training. Most importantly, it’s the lack of psychological safety during a high-pressured event like an Ofsted inspection. As one participant said, “when the Ofsted inspectors came in, it was really hard to listen to senior leaders talking about how much they support staff… the reality is very different.”
This isn’t about bad management, it’s about structural marginalisation. Apprenticeship provision was described as falling outside the strategic priorities of some institutions and their senior leaders were perceived as having “no awareness, no understanding” and that they “don’t particularly care about apprenticeships”. Research, undergraduate teaching, and the TEF occupied the centre of institutional gravity. Apprenticeships did not.
Some participants said they almost wished for a “requires improvement” judgement just to get leadership to take them seriously. One observed:
I had hoped that we would get ‘requires improvement’ because it would have made senior leadership pay attention to the changes we need to make. Senior staff have this sense of complacency as if the ‘good’ rating shows that we’re fine.
The government is watching
With this government promising a reshaping of apprenticeships and skills, and the growth and skills levy pushing modular/skills learning into new territory, the pressures experienced in apprenticeship provision in HE are likely to spread. Inspection and regulation in this space aren’t going away. Nor should they. But my findings suggest the real threat to quality and staff wellbeing is not external scrutiny, it’s internal culture.
The risks here are reputational and ethical. Strategic responsibility for inspection readiness and staff wellbeing needs to sit at the top table, not with the most overworked and marginalised staff in the room. Here are five things that universities should do, right now:
Stop marginalising apprenticeship teams. If universities are serious about their current apprenticeship provision and the imminent skills/flexible learning opportunities coming our way, the teams supporting these activities must be embedded into institutional strategy, not treated as marginalised, compliance-heavy provision.
Build inspection readiness into annual planning, not panic-mode two days before the inspection starts.
Invest in meaningful CPD for apprenticeships, including training on inspection frameworks, evidence expectations, managing emotional load during inspection periods, and conference attendance for the skills and apprenticeships agenda.
Create psychological safety. No one should feel personally responsible for the entire institution’s regulatory fate.
Use governance structures to ask hard questions. Boards and Senates should demand answers: how are we resourcing our skills and apprenticeship provision? What preparations do we have in place for the new skills/modular provision that will inevitably be inspected? Does leadership in schools/faculties understand their skills and apprenticeships provision fully? Do all colleagues get equal access to relevant CPD to do their job effectively?
Ofsted didn’t bring stress into higher education; it just exposed a stretched system and the fragility of institutional operations and governance which relies on invisible labour.
With the introduction of the growth and skills levy and a significant shift toward modular and flexible provision, the emotional and operational burdens seen in apprenticeship delivery and Ofsted inspections risk being replicated at scale unless universities adapt. When senior leaders are thinking about the structures and metrics for expanding into new opportunities such as modular/skills provision, they also need to carefully consider culture, responsibility, support, and compassionate leadership.
If they replicate the same dynamics – underfunded, misunderstood, marginalised, and shouldered by isolated staff – universities risk institutionalising burnout and anxiety as conditions of participation in apprenticeships and skills.
Analyses of fascism too often fixate on its most spectacular expressions: staggering inequality, systemic racism, the militarization of daily life, unbridled corruption, monopolistic control of the media, and the concentration of power in financial and political elites. Fascism thrives on a culture of fear and racial cleansing and the normalization of cruelty, lies, and state violence. Yet what is often overlooked is how culture and education now function as decisive forces in legitimating these authoritarian passions and in eroding democratic commitments. As Hannah Arendt, Jason Stanley, Richard Evans, Chris Hedges, and others remind us, the protean origins of fascism are never fully buried; they return in altered and often disguised forms, seeping into everyday life and reshaping the common sense of a society.
Under US President Donald Trump, we face a terrifying new horizon of authoritarian politics: the erosion of due process, mass abductions, vicious attacks on higher education, and the steady construction of a police state. Canada has not yet descended into such full-fledged authoritarianism, but troubling echoes are undeniable. Public spaces and public goods are under assault, book bans have appeared in Alberta, languages of hate increasingly target those deemed disposable, the mass media bends to corporate interests, labour is suppressed, and democratic values are met with disdain. These may not replicate the worst horrors of the past, but they reveal how culture and education become the terrain upon which democracy is dismantled and authoritarianism gains legitimacy. These are warning signs of a gathering darkness that must be confronted before they harden into something far more sinister.
Culture and Pedagogy
Fascism thrives not only on brute police power, prisons, or economic violence but also on culture and pedagogy. Culture has increasingly become a site in the service of pedagogical tyranny. It works through erasure and repression, through memory stripped of its critical force, and through dissent silenced in the name of order. Fascism is never solely a political or economic system; it is a pedagogical project, a machinery of teaching and unlearning that narrows the horizon of what can be said, imagined, or remembered.
Today authoritarianism seeps insidiously into everyday life, embedded in seemingly obvious maneuvers that consolidate power under the guise of technical or bureaucratic necessity. Its mobilizing passions often emerge unobtrusively in maneuvers that hide in the shadows of the mundane, often at the level of everyday experience.
This creeping logic is starkly visible in Ontario, where Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative (PC) government has moved to seize control of local school boards. What may look like routine administrative measures should be read as a warning: authoritarianism does not arrive only with grandiose spectacles or open attacks on democracy’s foundations; it gains ground quietly, through the erosion of the ordinary, the capture of the local, and above all, through the weaponization of education as a tool to dismantle democracy itself.
The Ford government’s seizure of the Toronto, Toronto Catholic, Ottawa-Carleton, and Dufferin-Peel Catholic district school boards is extraordinary, even for this democracy-averse regime. Education Minister Paul Calandra has even mused about eliminating trustees altogether before the 2026 local elections, declaring “Everything is on the table.” His justification that Ontario’s Ministry of Education (MOE) has allowed them to make too many decisions on their own is both unsupported and revealing. It exposes a deeper authoritarian project: the desire to centralize power and strip away democratic oversight from institutions closest to local communities. It curbs liberal instincts of trustees who see first-hand the vast diversity of lives and needs of the families who rely on their schools.
This is precisely how authoritarian control operates: by eroding intermediary structures that connect people to power. Just as Donald Trump sought to bend national cultural institutions like the Smithsonian Museum to his will, Ford dismantles the modest democratic functions of trusteeship. Both cases illustrate how authoritarianism works through the fine print of governance as much as through grandiose pronouncements.
Manufactured Deficits and Structural Starvation
The pretext for takeover was financial mismanagement. Yet none of the investigators found evidence of serious fiscal incompetence. The truth is that boards submitted balanced budgets year after year but only after slashing programs and services, closing outdoor education centres, selling property, cutting staff, and raising fees. What really drives their fiscal crises is a decades-old funding model – first imposed by the Mike Harris PC government in 1997 – that shifted resources from local taxes to provincial grants. This was not a move toward equitable funding; these were neoliberals of the first order who believed in central control of funding so they could squeeze school boards and education workers to contain costs.
This model, based on enrolment rather than actual need, starved boards of resources for special education, transportation, salaries, and infrastructure. For instance, school boards don’t get funding for actual children who need special education support but rather on the basis of a predictive model MOE devised. Boards pay for the kids MOE doesn’t fund. The Ford government hasn’t funded the full increase for statutory teacher benefits for years, leaving boards short by millions. The result is a structural deficit: chronic underfunding that leaves even well-managed boards teetering on insolvency. The Ford government, while claiming to increase spending, has in fact cut funding per student by $1,500 in real terms since 2018. This is the problem faced by with 40 percent of Ontario school boards.
It is this manufactured insolvency that led Minister Calandra to get the most out of a useful crisis and put the four school boards under supervision and maybe next eliminate all school boards in the province. Here we see neoliberal austerity converging with authoritarian ambition. Underfunding is not a policy mistake; it is a deliberate strategy to weaken public education, undermine trust in democratic institutions, and prepare the ground for privatization schemes such as vouchers and charter schools. In this instance, the policy of underfunding is a way of weakening public education and then blaming whatever problems occur on education itself. This is gangster capitalism at work, cloaked in the language of fiscal responsibility but fueled by a pedagogy of dispossession.
Eliminating Trustees, Silencing Communities
If board takeovers were simply about money, supervisors would have been told to just find savings. Instead, elected trustees were suspended, their offices shuttered, their tiny stipends cut off, and their ability to communicate with constituents forbidden. Calandra’s power grab has all the elements of Elon Musk’s DOGE assaults in the US: move fast, offer absurd excuses, and blame the victims. The supervisors replacing trustees – accountants, lawyers, and former politicians with no background in education – now wield greater power than the elected community representatives they displaced.
This substitution of technocrats for democratically accountable representatives is part of fascism’s pedagogy. It teaches the public to accept disenfranchisement as efficiency, to see obedience as order. Parents who ask why a program disappeared or why their child’s special education class has grown larger are now met with silence. In this vacuum, the lesson learned is that participation is futile and resistance meaningless – precisely the kind of civic numbing oligarchic fascism requires.
Command, Control, and the Policing of Education
Ford’s government frames these takeovers as a “broader rethink” of governance, but the real project is clear: the imposition of command and control over education. This move sends a strong message that it’s time to duck our heads and get back to basics: teaching “reading, writing, spelling, and arithmetic and the whole shebang…” as Doug Ford complained last fall after teachers and students attended a rally in support of the Grassy Narrows First Nation and its efforts to deal with generations of mercury contamination in their area. He proclaimed, with no evidence, that the field trip was “indoctrination” by teachers because activists protesting Israeli genocide were present. Community members who supported an Indigenous curriculum, modern sexual education, or even school-name changes honoring anti-colonial figures are dismissed or painted as obstacles. The message from Ford and Calandra is blunt: stick to the basics – reading, writing, arithmetic – and leave politics at the door.
Yet politics hangs over classrooms like a shroud. Despite his Captain Canada complaints about the Trump tariffs, Ford admires the President quick-marching America toward fascism. In an off-mic moment he commented recently: “Election day, was I happy this guy won? One hundred per cent I was.” It’s not the racism, the authoritarianism, the compulsive lying, the fraud, the sexual assaults that bothers the Premier; it’s that he got stiffed by his friend.
Usurping trustees according to University of Ottawa professor Sachin Maharaj is just another step toward the Progressive Conservatives’ goal to “squelch the pipeline of more progressive leaders” like those gaining notice and experience attending to the needs of local schools.
The banning of the Toronto Muslim Student Alliance’s screening of the film No Other Land, which documents Israeli settler violence, shows how censorship now masquerades as neutrality. This is the pedagogy of repression in action: narrowing what can be taught, remembered, or discussed until education is reduced to obedience training. What parades as a “broader rethink” is part of the authoritarian language of censorship and control. Like Trump’s attacks on “critical race theory” or his censorship of the Smithsonian, Ford’s moves are not about protecting students from politics but about protecting power from critique. The real issue here is constructing authoritarian policies that narrow critical thinking, teacher autonomy, essential funding, and knowledge that enable schools to both defend and facilitate democracy.
For Ford and his adherents, the real issue is not that schools are failing but that they are public and have a vital role to play in a democracy. The real threat to Ford is that a democracy can only exist with informed citizens. Yet that is precisely the role education should assume.
Bill 33: Codifying Authoritarianism
The perversely named Bill 33, the Supporting Children and Students Act extends this authoritarian logic. It allows the Minister to investigate boards or trustees on the mere suspicion they might act “inappropriately” or against the “public interest” – an elastic phrase that grants unchecked power. It checks much-maligned Diversity Equity and Inclusion efforts by refusing boards the right to name schools, forcing them to abandon diversity-affirming figures in favor of colonial or sanitized names. It mandates the reintroduction of police officers into schools, despite community opposition to surveillance and “unaccountable access to youth by cops.”
At work here is the legacy of colonialism, a legacy that is terrified of diversity, of those deemed other, being able to narrate themselves. Viewed as threat, this anti-democratic language ultimately falls back on issues of control and security. This is one instance of how authoritarianism consolidates itself, not through tanks in the streets but through legislation that transforms education into an arm of the security state. Pedagogical spaces are militarized, memory is policed, and students are taught that surveillance is normal and dissent dangerous.
Trumpasitic Authoritarianism
Ford’s methods echo those of his southern counterpart. Just as Trump’s politics thrive on dispossession, erasure, and the weaponization of culture, Ford borrows from the same authoritarian playbook. The takeover of school boards not only tightens political control but also grants easy access to billions of dollars in public land, enriching developers tied to his government. Here, neoliberal profiteering fuses seamlessly with authoritarian centralization, an example of the merging of gangster capitalism with the pedagogy of repression.
What do you expect from a government that makes decisions reflecting the arrogance of power? The Ford government cut Toronto city council in half soon after took office in 2018 and threatened to use a constitutional override, the Notwithstanding Clause, Section 33 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to overturn a Superior Court justice’s decision that the move was unconstitutional. Ford actually used the clause to push through a bill restricting election advertising in 2021 and again, pre-emptively, in 2022, buttressing back-to-work legislation against striking public workers, among the lowest paid in the province. He’s considering using it again after his decision to remove bike lanes from Toronto streets was overturned in court; power makes you petty.
Democracy in the Smallest Details
The takeover of Ontario school boards may appear less dramatic than Trump’s assaults on national institutions, but its implications are just as dire. Authoritarianism advances not only through spectacle but through the slow erosion of local democratic practices that once seemed secure.
If fascism is a pedagogy of fear, amnesia, and conformity, then resistance must be a pedagogy of memory, solidarity, and imagination. To defend education is to defend democracy itself, for schools are not simply sites of instruction but laboratories of citizenship, places where young people learn what it means to speak, to question, to remember, and to act. When trustees are silenced, when curricula are censored, when communities are stripped of their voice, what is lost is not only oversight but the very possibility of democratic life.
What is at stake, then, is far larger than budget shortfalls or bureaucratic reshuffling. It is whether the future will be governed by communities or dictated from above by those who mistake obedience for learning and silence for peace. Fascism thrives in these small erasures, in the details that seem technical until they harden into structures of domination.
The lesson could not be clearer: democracy dies in increments, but it can also be rebuilt in increments – through collective memory, through civic courage, through the refusal to allow education to become a weapon of obedience. To resist the Ford government’s authoritarian incursions is not only to protect local school boards; it is to reclaim the very ground on which democratic hope stands. •
Henry A. Giroux currently is the McMaster University Professor for Scholarship in the Public Interest and The Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include The Violence of Organized Forgetting (City Lights, 2014), Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism (Routledge, 2015), coauthored with Brad Evans, Disposable Futures: The Seduction of Violence in the Age of Spectacle (City Lights, 2015), and America at War with Itself (City Lights, 2016). His website is henryagiroux.com.
William Paul is editor of School Magazine website.
This article first appeared at the Social Project Bullet
With the UK Government moving to a posture of ‘war fighting readiness’ amid intensifying global conflict, a new HEPI Policy Note warns higher education remains an untapped asset in national preparedness.
The Wartime University: The role of Higher Education in Civil Readiness by Gary Fisher argues UK universities must be recognised as central pillars of national security and resilience. The paper highlights how higher education institutions represent a ‘composite capability’ to enhance and sustain civil readiness, spanning defence, health, skills, logistics and democratic continuity, but warns this potential remains under-recognised and poorly integrated into emergency planning frameworks.
You can read the press release and access the full report here.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Elon University and Queens University of Charlotte plan to merge by summer 2026, the private North Carolina institutions said Tuesday.
While leaders are still ironing out the details, Elon intends to operate Queens “in partnership” with the latter’s leaders once the merger is complete, according to a joint news release. The universities said more details about the new institution’s leadership structure and programming details will be released in early 2026.
Leaders from Elon and Queens plan a fall listening tour in the Charlotte area to get feedback on the proposed merger from students, faculty, staff, alumni and civic leaders, and they will use the input to help develop a plan for the combination, the institutions said.
Dive Insight:
Elon and Queens, which sit about 115 miles apart, framed their intent to merge as complementary for each institution and a way to help meet the educational needs of the Charlotte area in the coming years.
The combination “creates new advantages of scale, bringing together resources, faculty expertise, research capacity and student services across both universities,” they said in the release.
The trustees of both institutions unanimously supported the proposed merger and will hold a joint meeting next month ahead of planning for integrating the institutions’ operations, the universities said. The boards are expected to finalize the partnership details in November.
Students at both universities will be able to continue their programs uninterrupted, according to a merger FAQ.
Elon is by far the larger institution, and the one on a growth trajectory. Between 2018 and 2023, fall enrollment rose 3.1% to 7,207 students.During that same period, Queens’ fall headcount dropped 27.2% to 1,846.
Of the two institutions, Elon also has deeper financial resources, with assets amounting to $1.3 billion in fiscal 2024 compared to $337.8 million for Queens.
Queens’ budget has suffered from falling tuition revenues and a decline in government grants and contracts, in addition to rising expenses.In 2024, it reported a total deficit of $8.7 million. Meanwhile, Elon logged a hefty surplus of $70.4 million during the same year.
But in the FAQ, the universities said their plan to merge did not stem from financial distress and is “not driven by crisis.”
Instead, they pointed to the workforce needs of the Charlotte area, noting growing demand for graduate degrees as well as a growing shortage of nurse practitioners, physician assistants and lawyers in the area.
The merger would “accelerate new programs across vital industries” and expand access to Elon’s law school in Charlotte — the only one in the city today, the institutions said.
Queens has deep roots in Charlotte. It was founded in 1857, initially as a women’s college before becoming fully coed in the 1980s. Elon was founded in the city of the same name in 1889.
“Queens has long been a leader in undergraduate and graduate education, deeply connected to Charlotte’s civic and business community and committed to shaping the region and nation through thought leadership,” Jesse Cureton, who took over as acting president of Queens this summer, said in a statement.
He added that the merger with Elon “ensures continuity for our students and faculty while creating bold new opportunities to expand our impact and strengthen Charlotte’s role as a hub for higher education.”
Elon President Connie Ledoux Book said that the combination “unites two institutions deeply committed to student success, and together, we will expand relevant, high-impact programs that connect academic excellence with real-world opportunity in service to the Charlotte region.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
A coalition of University of California faculty groups and employee unions sued the Trump administration Tuesday over the federal government’s efforts to “exert ideological control” over the system and its 10 institutions.
Over the past three months, the federal government has cut off at least $584 million in grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, sought $1 billion from the system to restore that funding and delivered a wide-ranging list of ultimatums that would dramatically reshape the state’s university system through political interference.
In their lawsuit, the coalition — which represented tens of thousands of faculty, staff and students within the university system — called the cuts unconstitutional and an “arbitrary, ideologically driven, and unlawful use of financial coercion” that threatened U.S. higher education and advancement.
“The administration has made clear its intention to commandeer this public university system and to purge from its campuses viewpoints with which the President and his administration disagree,” the lawsuit said.
“Campaign to control universities”
President Donald Trump began laying the groundwork for “his administration’s coordinated attack on academic freedom and free speech and campaign to control universities” shortly after retaking office in January, the lawsuit alleged.
“Rather than acknowledging educational institutions like the UC as the assets to this nation that they are, the Trump administration views them as barriers to the President’s agenda of ideological dominance,” the lawsuit said.
At the end of July, the U.S. Department of Justice ruled that UCLA had violated civil rights law by failing to adequately protect Jewish and Israeli students from harassment. A week later, the federal government suspended $584 million in grants to UCLA over the allegations.
Tuesday’s lawsuit alleged DOJ picked and chose from university documents to make the argument it had wanted to from the start. For example, the agency relied heavily on an October report from UCLA that found antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias on its campus. But DOJ entirely failed to address the improvements UCLA had undertaken since — a factor similar to one cited by a federal judge when she struck down the Trump administration’s $2.2 billion funding freeze at Harvard earlier this month.
DOJ also did not explain what connection the specific research funding cuts had to alleged antisemitism, forcing all university employees to prepare “for the possibility of significant and immediate termination of funding,” the lawsuit said.
The University of California, one of the largest research systems in the country, derives a third of its annual operating budget — $17 billion — from federal funding, according to the lawsuit.
The Trump administration has also unlawfully disregarded the process by which the government can terminate or withhold federal funds, the lawsuit argued.
Addressing the cuts on Aug. 6, system President James Milliken said they did “nothing to address antisemitism,” but said the University of California would enter into negotiations with the Trump administration to have the funding restored.
In the event of a major loss of federal funding, the system would need, at minimum, between $4 million and $5 billion just to survive, Milliken told state lawmakers this month.
Dramatic and expensive ultimatums
On Aug. 8, two days after Milliken announced the forthcoming negotiations, the system received an unprecedented list of wide-ranging demands from the Trump administration tying its federal funding to total compliance, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs cited a copy of the list, obtained by the Los Angeles Times, which the University of California has not made public.
The letter would require UCLA to install a “resolution monitor” — appointed with final approval by the Trump administration — who would hold significant authority over campus affairs.
UCLA would also be forced to provide the federal government regular access to “a wide variety of records” on faculty, staff and students, “as deemed necessary by the resolution monitor.”
“The only exception is for attorney-client privilege, not for speech, association, or privacy purposes,” the lawsuit said.
The Trump administration also demanded that UCLA inhibit speech by its non-citizen students, enact policies to bar international students who are “likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions or harassment,” and implement required trainings to “socialize” international students to campus norms.
“In making these demands, the Trump administration is seeking to impose speech restrictions upon students, faculty, academic employees, and staff employees that would violate the First Amendment if imposed directly either by the university itself or by the federal government,” the lawsuit said.
UCLA would further be compelled to cooperate with all local and federal law enforcement, including immigration authorities, and enact specific restrictions on expressive activities and bar demonstrators from wearing masks.
In addition to the ultimatums, the university would have to pay, at minimum, $1 billion to restore the $584 million in grants.
The plaintiffs, along with state lawmakers, lambasted the proposed payment as extortion. The lawsuit argued that no federal agency has the authority to demand a $1 billion monetary penalty for civil rights violations and disputed the DOJ’s findings.
A legal blockade — maybe
Citing ongoing irreparable harm, the plaintiffs — who do not include the University of California or its institutions — are asking a federal court to block the cuts and coercive actions by the federal government while their case is heard.
The system and its universities have already begun “to alter its policies and practices seemingly in capitulation to the Trump administration,” resulting in a widespread chilling effect, the lawsuit said.
As examples, it listed a new policy allowing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement expanded access to the system’s medical centers and the University of California, Berkeley’s decision to turn over the names of 160 students and employees to the federal government.
Todd Wolfson, president of AAUP, framed the lawsuit as a move to combat “the authoritarian takeover of our universities.”
“We will not stand by as the Trump administration destroys one of the largest public university higher education systems in the country and bludgeons academic freedom at the University of California, the heart of the revered free speech movement,” Wolfson said in a Tuesday statement.
The list of plaintiffs includes:
The American Association of University Professors.
The American Federation of Teachers.
AFSCME Local 3299.
California Nurses Association and National Nurses United.
Council of UC Faculty Associations.
Faculty associations from each University of California campus.
Teamsters Local 2010.
International UAW.
UAW Local 4811.
University of California Los Angeles Faculty Association.
University Council-AFT.
UPTE-CWA 9119.
UCLA has already racked up one legal win against the federal government.
Last month, a federal judge ordered NSF to restore the funding it “indefinitely suspended” from UCLA in July — potentially hundreds of millions of dollars — allegedly over antisemitism concerns. The agency did not seek to appeal and said the funding has been reinstated.
The next wave of college applicants is almost here. Generation Alpha, born roughly between 2010 and 2024, will begin entering higher education by the end of this decade. They are the first cohort born entirely in the 21st century, carrying the name “Alpha” to mark a new beginning. With a global population now estimated above two billion, Gen Alpha is among the largest cohorts on record.
Raised primarily by Millennials, this generation is growing up in households that are more diverse, globally minded, and digitally connected than any that came before. Their worldview is shaped not just by rapid technological change but also by formative events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. For higher education, this means a fresh set of expectations around how, where, and why learning happens.
By 2028, the first wave of Gen Alpha, those born in 2010, will be setting foot on college campuses. They will arrive as the most technologically fluent and digitally empowered students to date, bringing with them new definitions of access, engagement, and community. Institutions that understand who they are and prepare now to meet their needs will be best positioned to thrive in the coming years.
In this article, we’ll explore ten key insights about Generation Alpha: their learning preferences, values, and challenges, as well as what higher education can do to connect with them meaningfully. Let’s dive in.
Struggling to stand out in a crowded market?
Boost enrollment with digital marketing strategies!
1. Gen Alpha Is the First Fully 21st-Century Generation
Every generation reflects the world it grows up in, and for Gen Alpha, that world is fully digital. Born after 2010, the same year the iPad and Instagram launched, they have never known life without smartphones, apps, and social media. Social researcher Mark McCrindle coined “Generation Alpha” to signal a true reset, not a return to the alphabet cycle, but the beginning of something entirely new.
This generation is also massive. With millions of births each week, particularly in countries like India, China, Indonesia, and Nigeria, Gen Alpha is on track to be one of the largest cohorts on record. They’re also growing up in more diverse societies; in the United States, Gen Alpha will be among the most ethnically diverse cohorts.
What is the education of the Alpha Generation like? Generation Alpha’s educational experience has been distinct. They’ve grown up with personal technology from day one, many using tablets in preschool, and experienced hybrid or remote learning early due to COVID. Generation Alpha education is more personalized and tech-infused than past generations. Gen Alpha students often use online resources (YouTube, learning apps, even AI tools) alongside formal schooling. Going forward, they are expected to pursue higher levels of education than prior cohorts, with global tertiary enrolment continuing to rise.
For higher education, the implications are clear: campuses will need to serve a digital-first, globally minded, and highly pluralistic student body unlike any before.
Example: Cal Poly’s Diverse Incoming Classes: In recent years, universities have reported that each incoming class is breaking diversity records – reflecting Gen Alpha’s unprecedented pluralism. For instance, California Polytechnic State University announced that its 2022 freshman cohort was “the most diverse in the university’s history,” marking the fifth consecutive year of record diversity. Cal Poly noted all-time highs in enrolment of Hispanic/Latino, Asian, first-generation, and low-income students, crediting “intentional and strategic work to make [the campus] more reflective of the diversity of our state”.
If Gen Z grew up tech-savvy, Gen Alpha takes it further. They are the first generation to experience constant digital immersion from birth. Many had access to tablets before they could walk, and by around age 11, most already have a mobile phone. For them, Wi-Fi, apps, and streaming are simply part of daily life, not innovations.
This early and seamless exposure has made them fluent in digital environments. They learn to swipe before they can write, widely use YouTube, and gravitate toward short, visual, and interactive content on platforms like TikTok. Traditional, text-heavy approaches hold less appeal, and educators already note a growing preference for summaries over long-form reading.
What is the learning style of Gen Alpha? Gen Alpha students tend to be visual, interactive learners who are comfortable multitasking in digital environments. They often prefer short-form content and videos (having grown up on platforms like YouTube and TikTok) and learn well through gamification and hands-on exploration.
For higher education, this dual reality signals both opportunity and challenge. Gen Alpha will thrive in tech-enabled classrooms and adapt quickly to digital tools, but only if institutions deliver engaging, mobile-first, and frictionless experiences that match their expectations.
Example, 1:1 Device Programs for Digital Learning:Schools and colleges are increasingly providing personal devices to ensure Gen Alpha learners have constant access to online tools and content. Bowdoin College (USA) launched a Digital Excellence Commitment that equips every student with a 13-inch MacBook Pro, an iPad mini, and an Apple Pencil, plus required course software, regardless of financial need.. Initially begun during the pandemic to facilitate remote learning, Bowdoin’s program became permanent in 2022 after faculty saw how a common device platform spurred “numerous and unexpected learning and teaching innovations”.
3. Childhood in the COVID Era: Resilient but Impacted
Generation Alpha’s early years were shaped profoundly by COVID-19. The oldest were around 9 or 10 during the 2020 lockdowns, old enough to remember school closures, Zoom classrooms, and virtual birthdays. Some have even been nicknamed “Generation Covid,” underscoring how deeply the pandemic disrupted their formative experiences.
Yet these disruptions also bred resilience. Gen Alpha grew up watching their parents work remotely, mastering online learning platforms early on, and staying connected via FaceTime and Zoom. They learned early that the world is interconnected, a virus spreading globally, or friendships forming online, taught them how actions ripple across borders. Educators note that this has made many students flexible and globally aware.
Example, Virtual Global Exchanges Maintain Connection:Example, Virtual Global Exchanges Maintain Connection: When COVID-19 shuttered travel and classrooms, Penn State University’s College of Education used Experiential Digital Global Engagement (EDGE) to run virtual exchange classes with partners in countries such as Ecuador and Japan. American and Ecuadorian teacher trainees were paired as one-on-one “buddies” for weekly discussions, and later, Japanese college students joined in virtual seminars with Penn State classmates. Through these exchanges, students “developed friendships [and] learned a lot about language, culture, multilingualism and global awareness” despite never meeting in person.
Still, challenges remain. Teachers report learning loss, social delays, and uneven skills, particularly among those who missed hands-on early schooling. For higher ed, this means preparing to welcome students who are digitally skilled but may need added academic or social support to thrive.
4. A Looming Literacy and Learning Crisis
Gen Alpha faces what some experts call a literacy crisis. In 2022, only 33% of U.S. fourth graders were proficient in reading, the lowest rate in decades, down from 37% in 2017. That means two-thirds of 9- and 10-year-olds could not read at grade level, sparking widespread concern. Teachers report capable readers often avoid “complex or extended texts,” gravitating instead toward summaries and short-form content. The pandemic amplified these issues, disrupting early-grade instruction just as foundational skills were developing.
For higher education, this means incoming students may be digitally fluent yet uneven in academic literacy. Colleges will need bridge programs, tutoring, and first-year support to close gaps. Recruitment and communication strategies may also have to evolve, favouring concise text, visuals, and interactive formats better suited to Gen Alpha’s reading habits. At the same time, institutions can play a role in reversing these trends through innovative, tech-enabled literacy initiatives.
Example – New York City’s “NYC Reads” Phonics Initiative:Confronting a worrying drop in reading proficiency, the nation’s largest school district has overhauled how it teaches literacy. In 2023, New York City launched “New York City Reads,” a campaign to put “proven science-of-reading and phonics-based methods” at the core of all elementary instruction. Starting in the 2023–24 school year, every NYC public elementary school must adopt one of a few evidence-based, science-of-reading curricula, replacing the patchwork of programs used previously.
5. Behavioural and Mental Health Challenges in the Classroom
Teachers often describe Gen Alpha as creative and curious, but also more difficult to manage with traditional classroom discipline. Surveys show that misbehaviour and student morale have worsened since the COVID-19 pandemic, with many children struggling to focus, regulate emotions, or manage anxiety and depression. Some educators even lament that “the bar is the floor” when it comes to classroom readiness, as basic social skills and self-control lag behind earlier cohorts.
A major driver is digital overstimulation. Constant access to screens and instant entertainment has shortened attention spans, making structured, slower-paced classrooms feel tedious. Pandemic disruptions only compounded this problem, fueling apathy and disengagement. Pediatric experts warn that Gen Alpha is at higher risk of ADHD, anxiety, and depression than previous generations.
For higher ed, this means preparing for students who may arrive brilliant with tech but uneven in discipline, resilience, and emotional regulation. Colleges will need robust wellness services, proactive support systems, and learning approaches that balance rigor with engagement.
Example, in the United States, several states have passed laws to ensure students learn about mental health and get support. In 2019, Florida approved a rule requiring at least five hours per year of mental-health instruction for students in grades 6–12. Florida’s policy mandates at least “five hours of required instruction related to mental and emotional health” per year for students in grades 6–12. Lessons include recognizing signs of mental illness, finding help, and developing healthy coping strategies. Other states (such as New York and Virginia) have instituted similar requirements for integrating mental health into health education classes.
6. Independent Learners With a Skeptical Eye for Authenticity
Gen Alpha has grown up believing that knowledge is always just a click away. Many already feel that “there is nothing their teacher can teach them that they cannot discover online.” Information is available 24/7 through Google, YouTube, or even AI assistants, and this has fueled both independence and skepticism. They don’t passively accept authority; instead, they cross-check, self-learn, and seek multiple perspectives before forming opinions.
This independence comes with a demand for authenticity. They are wary of polished institutional messaging and are more likely to trust peer voices, reviews, and unfiltered student experiences. For universities, that means transparency will matter more than prestige. Peer-to-peer storytelling, student ambassadors, and honest engagement will resonate far more than glossy brochures.
Example,Lancaster University: In 2020, it engaged its student ambassadors to create content for a digital open-day campaign on TikTok. Students filmed honest, playful snippets about campus life and academics, which the university then used as ads. The result: over 10 million impressions and strong engagement from prospects.
7. Values-Driven: Inclusivity, Empathy, and Social Impact Matter
Generation Alpha is growing up in an era defined by both upheaval and progress, from climate change and social justice movements to greater representation in media. As a result, they are emerging as a values-driven cohort that places inclusivity, empathy, and impact at the core of how they see the world.
Research underscores this: Gen Alpha is growing up amid greater diversity and social awareness; U.S. children are increasingly diverse (about a quarter are Hispanic), and this cohort places strong emphasis on inclusion, fairness, and real-world impact. Many are drawn to careers that help the planet or improve lives, and they value authentic representation in media. Family and peer relationships remain central.”
For higher education, the implications are clear. Gen Alpha students will actively seek institutions that live their values, not just promote them. Colleges that demonstrate real commitments to sustainability, equity, and diversity, and that showcase authentic student voices leading these efforts, will stand out. This generation will be drawn to campuses where community, inclusivity, and social responsibility are visible every day.
Example, Connecticut’s Statewide Inclusive Curriculum Law: Gen Alpha’s commitment to inclusion and representation has already influenced legislation. In Connecticut, high school students successfully advocated for a more diverse history curriculum, leading the state to adopt a groundbreaking African American/Black and Puerto Rican/Latino studies requirement. Starting fall 2022, every Connecticut high school must offer an elective course on these communities’ contributions to U.S. history. The change came after students testified that their standard history classes “didn’t reflect their heritage.”
8. New Learning Preferences: Hybrid, High-Tech, and Hands-on
Gen Alpha has grown up in classrooms that blend formats, from traditional to fully remote. They’re highly flexible learners, with many indicating a preference for hybrid models and a minority favouring strictly on-campus courses. Many are open to fully remote learning if it’s engaging and high-quality.
Technology is central to their expectations. Sector surveys report expectations that universities will provide or loan essential devices like laptops or tablets. While 84% own smartphones, many lack personal laptops, highlighting their assumption that institutions will supply what’s needed. Fast Wi-Fi, mobile-first platforms, and seamless online access aren’t perks; they’re the baseline.
Gen Alpha also embraces emerging tech: Many are curious about AI tools (e.g., chatbots) and coding, often exploring these independently; in higher education, pilots increasingly integrate AI into coursework. Combined with their preference for project-based, experiential learning, this signals a need for universities to deliver hybrid, tech-enhanced, and hands-on programs that balance flexibility with meaningful outcomes.
Example, Bowdoin College’s Tech-Equipped, Experiential Learning:In addition to format flexibility, Gen Alpha craves hands-on, tech-enabled experiences. Bowdoin College (USA) exemplifies how institutions are responding on both fronts. Beyond providing every student with a MacBook Pro, iPad mini, and Apple Pencil (to ensure digital access), Bowdoin has invested in what it calls “digital equity…in tools essential for success in the twenty-first century.” All students and faculty have access to course-specific software and creative apps, leveling the field so that a geology major can 3D-model rock formations and an art student can experiment with Adobe Illustrator.
9. College on the Radar: High Aspirations, High Expectations
Despite speculation about younger generations skipping college, Gen Alpha shows strong intent to pursue higher education, yet with heightened expectations.
High Aspirations:Recent surveys indicate strong intent among teens to attend university; at the same time, expectations around flexibility, outcomes, and value are rising. Globally, demographers predict that over half of Gen Alpha will earn a degree, surpassing Gen Z.
Parental Influence: Raised largely by Millennials, Gen Alpha has absorbed a strong emphasis on education as a pathway to opportunity.
Example: The University of Arizona runs an annual “Arizona Road Trip” program where high school freshmen and sophomores visit campus for a day. The program brings high school freshmen and sophomores to campus for a day, giving an early taste of university life. Such programs are responses to parental interest – surveys by Morning Consult show that about 79% of Gen Alpha parents expect their child to get a four-year degree. Universities are capitalizing on this by expanding outreach to elementary and middle schools as well (STEM camps, coding competitions, etc., for young students).
Consumer Mindset: They view education as a service, expecting customization, relevance, and alignment with personal values. Academic reputation and location rank highest in their decision-making, closely followed by career outcomes.
Campus Expectations:
Tech-forward infrastructure: fast Wi-Fi, device support, smart study spaces, will be assumed, not optional. As one expert cautioned, “You can’t wake up and suddenly fix bandwidth or charging access when the Alpha generation arrives; you have to plan.”
Flexible learning formats: hybrid classes, online options, and stackable credentials – will matter.
Outcome-driven opportunities: internships, industry ties, and career development – will weigh heavily.
Bottom Line: Gen Alpha won’t dismiss higher ed; in fact, they’re poised to engage with it more than any previous cohort. But universities must deliver an experience that feels modern, future-focused, and worth the investment.
10. Preparation Is Key: Is Higher Ed Ready for Gen Alpha?
The oldest members of Generation Alpha will begin entering higher education in the late 2020s. That means colleges and universities need to start adapting now. Rising costs, shifting student expectations, and rapid digital change are already reshaping higher ed—and Gen Alpha will accelerate the pace.
Here’s how institutions can prepare:
Invest in Technology and Infrastructure
Ensure campus-wide high-speed connectivity, modern IT support, and cybersecurity.
Provide device support and experiment with AI tutors, adaptive learning platforms, and data analytics.
Evolve Teaching and Curriculum
Train faculty in hybrid pedagogy, active learning, and educational tech.
Update curricula with future-focused topics like AI literacy, digital ethics, and climate change.
Example: MIT’s Experiment with an AI Physics Tutor: At MIT, educators are rethinking course design itself with Gen Alpha’s digital proclivities in mind. In the introductory Physics I course (mechanics), MIT implemented an LLM-based tutor system to assist students with problem-solving practice. Essentially, the instructors developed a custom interface on top of ChatGPT where students can work through physics problems step-by-step, check the correctness of each step, and even request hints or explanations if they get stuck. This tool generates new practice problems on demand and flags any discrepancies between the student’s solution and the expected approach.
Enhance Student Services and Support
Expand academic tutoring, bridge programs, and wellness services.
Train advisors to handle highly informed, skeptical students who will come with detailed questions.
Foster Authentic Community
Create avenues for student voice and feedback.
Build inclusive, peer-driven communities both on-campus and online.
Communicate Value Clearly
Provide transparent data on graduate outcomes, alumni impact, and real career pathways.
Bottom line: Gen Alpha could inject creativity, entrepreneurship, and fresh ideas into higher ed. Institutions that start preparing now will be best positioned not only to serve this cohort but also to learn from them and innovate alongside them.
Example: MIT has implemented use cases in several courses where generative AI (LLMs) serve as practice tools or “tutors.” For instance, in their Physics I class, they used AI to provide guided practice problems, discrepancy checks, and support material for students to work through before live problem sessions. This model shows how institutions are integrating AI and digital tools directly into the curriculum to enhance learning, another example of the readiness higher ed will need for Gen Alpha.
Generation Alpha represents a new beginning for higher education. Born fully into the digital era, shaped by global events like COVID-19, and driven by values of inclusivity, empathy, and social impact, they will arrive on campus with high aspirations and equally high expectations.
Is Gen Alpha harder to teach? They can be challenging to teach with traditional methods, yes. Teachers find that Gen Alpha students often won’t passively sit through lectures or worksheets – their digitally trained brains crave interaction and stimulation. Standard classroom management tactics sometimes falter, as these kids might be less patient and more prone to distraction if not engaged.
Additionally, some arrive in class with weaker basic skills (due to the factors discussed above), making teaching them the usual curriculum harder without remediation. However, “harder to teach” doesn’t mean unable to teach; it means educators must adapt.
For colleges and universities, this means preparation cannot wait. From investing in digital infrastructure and adaptive teaching methods to strengthening student support services and demonstrating authentic values, institutions must begin laying the groundwork now. Gen Alpha will look for education that is flexible, technology-driven, and deeply connected to real-world outcomes.
The encouraging news is that these students are resilient, creative, and eager to make a difference. By embracing innovation and authenticity, higher ed has an opportunity not just to serve them well, but to evolve alongside them, building a learning environment that reflects the future they are poised to shape.
Struggling to stand out in a crowded market?
Boost enrollment with digital marketing strategies!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is the learning style of Gen Alpha? Answer: Gen Alpha students tend to be visual, interactive learners who are comfortable multitasking in digital environments. They often prefer short-form content and videos (having grown up on platforms like YouTube and TikTok) and learn well through gamification and hands-on exploration.
Question: What is the education of the Alpha Generation like? Answer: Generation Alpha’s educational experience has been distinct. They’ve grown up with personal technology from day one, many using tablets in preschool, and experienced hybrid or remote learning early due to COVID. Generation Alpha education is more personalized and tech-infused than past generations. Gen Alpha students often use online resources (YouTube, learning apps, even AI tools) alongside formal schooling. Going forward, they are expected to be the most educated generation in history, with over half projected to earn university degrees.
Question: Is Gen Alpha harder to teach?
Answer: They can be challenging to teach with traditional methods, yes. Teachers find that Gen Alpha students often won’t passively sit through lectures or worksheets – their digitally trained brains crave interaction and stimulation. Standard classroom management tactics sometimes falter, as these kids might be less patient and more prone to distraction if not engaged.
Demartravion “Trey” Reed was a 21-year-old student at the Mississippi institution.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images
Delta State University has been rocked by the discovery of a Black student’s body hanging from a tree in the middle of campus on Monday.
Demartravion “Trey” Reed was a 21-year-old student at the Mississippi institution. Recalling a long, painful history of lynchings, his death has spurred an outpouring of grief and anger across the country.
The Bolivar County Coroner’s Office said on Monday that a preliminary examination of Reed’s body showed no evidence of foul play, including “any lacerations, contusions, compound fractures, broken bones or injuries consistent with an assault.”
But Reed’s family members are calling for their own investigation, including an independent autopsy, and have demanded access to video footage that might reveal more details of his death.
“From the beginning, the family has been seeking transparency in this investigation,” Vanessa J. Jones, an attorney representing the family, told Inside Higher Ed. “Especially after a tragic incident like this occurs, and you’re dealing with a state that has a past history which includes a painful history of racial violence … transparency is paramount.”
The Reed family’s distrust in the handling of the student’s death was deepened when officials allowed his mother to view her son’s body from the neck up only, Jones said.
Officers also shared conflicting details of Reed’s death when they first spoke to his family, Jones said. According to Jones, the Grenada County Sheriff’s Department went to Reed’s grandfather’s home on Monday and said Reed was found dead in his dorm room “from an apparent suicide.”
Prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump has taken on the family’s case and said in a post on X that he will lead a team of civil rights leaders and organizers in “pursuing transparency for Trey’s family.”
“We cannot accept vague conclusions when so many questions remain,” he wrote. Crump described Reed as a “young man full of promise and warmth, deeply loved and respected by all who knew him.”
Lawmakers are also demanding more information.
“We’ll never have true justice for Trey, because that would mean he would still be with us—but there must be answers,” Massachusetts representative Ayanna Pressley wrote on X.
Mississippi representative Bennie G. Thompson called for a federal investigation into Reed’s death.
“It is always a tragedy when a young life is cut short,” Thompson said in a statement. “We must leave no stone unturned in the search for answers. While the details of this case are still emerging, we cannot ignore Mississippi’s painful history of lynching and racial violence against African Americans.”
Updates From the University
At a press conference Wednesday, Delta State University president Daniel J. Ennis said Reed’s loss was “devastating” and “the manner of how Trey was discovered has stirred many emotions in this community and many emotions around the state and the nation.”
Ennis reiterated the coroner’s early conclusions but said he recognized the psychological impact of Reed’s death. “This is not only about facts,” Ennis said. “It’s about emotions and it’s about feelings and the way this loss and how it was discovered affects people’s lives.”
Ennis, who is white, said he acknowledged his weakness in not being “adequate to speak to the imagery that this incident raises.”
Delta State serves roughly 2,800 students, about 40 percent of whom are Black. Ennis said the campus has been receiving threatening phone calls and messages since Reed’s death.
“I can say that my heartbreak is comprehensive, not just for Trey—although it is primarily for Trey—but for the fact that the rest of the world has an impression of Delta State that is so at odds with what I know to be this institution,” which is “the joy and the grace of people living and working together and respecting each other,” he said.
Mike Peeler, Delta State University chief of police, told the press that Reed’s body was transported to the Mississippi State Medical Examiner’s Office for a full autopsy on Wednesday morning. Authorities expect preliminary autopsy results within 24 to 48 hours. He said DSU Police, the Cleveland Police Department, the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation and the Bolivar County Sheriff’s Office planned to update the public on the findings after first meeting with Reed’s next of kin.
He told reporters law enforcement officials were reviewing relevant video, but he couldn’t offer any more details. Peeler also said he had no information about Reed’s family being told his death took place in his dorm room.
He emphasized during the press conference that “this is an isolated incident” and “there are currently no active threats to the campus,” which “remains a safe environment for students, faculty and staff.”
‘Heartbroken’ Students
Nonetheless, the grisly incident has frightened Black students on campus.
“Hearing that happened to another Black student, it really makes me feel unsafe,” a Delta State student, Stacie Hoskins, told WAPT16.
The nature of Reed’s death has had an emotional impact on Black students on other campuses as well; some treated it as a foregone conclusion that Reed was killed and issued statements of support to fellow students.
The Black Student Union at Illinois State University directed students to campus counseling resources, and its executive board said it was “heartbroken by the tragic loss of Trey Reed, whose life was cut short by a horrific act of violence.”
North Carolina A&T University’s NAACP chapter posted on Instagram that Reed “could have been any of us. Any Black student. Any campus.”
“Our education is under attack. Our sanity is under attack. Our very existence is under attack,” the chapter said. “We refuse to stay silent. Black lives matter. Black students matter. Always.”
