Blog

  • Higher Education Inquirer : America’s Creepiest College Presidents

    Higher Education Inquirer : America’s Creepiest College Presidents

     Across the United States, a quiet but unmistakable chill has settled over many college campuses. It isn’t the weather. It’s the behavior of a particular class of leaders—the college presidents whose decisions, priorities, and public personas have begun to feel, for lack of a better word, creepy. Not criminal, necessarily. Not always abusive in the legal sense. Just profoundly unsettling in ways that undermine trust, erode shared governance, and push higher education further into the shadows of authoritarianism and corporate capture.

    This piece introduces criteria for what makes a college president “creepy,” highlights examples of the types of leaders who fit the mold, and invites reader feedback to build a more accountable public record.

    Criteria for a “Creepy” College President

    “Creepy” here is not about personality quirks. It’s about behavior, power, and material consequences. Based on the reporting and analysis at HEI, we propose the following criteria:


    1. First Amendment Hostility

    Presidents who suppress speech, restrict student journalism, punish dissent, or hide behind overbroad “time, place, and manner” rules fall squarely into this category. The creepiness intensifies when universities hire outside PR firms or surveillance contractors to monitor campus critics, including students and faculty.

    2. Student Rights Violations

    Presidents who treat students as risks rather than people, who hide data on assaults, who enable over-policing by campus security, or who weaponize conduct codes to silence protest movements—from Palestine solidarity groups to climate activists—fit the profile.

    3. Civil Rights Erosion

    Administrators who undermine Title IX protections, retaliate against whistleblowers, protect abusive coaches, or ignore discrimination complaints are not just negligent—they’re institutionally creepy. Their public statements about “inclusion” often ring hollow when compared with their actions behind closed doors.

    4. Worker Rights Suppression

    Union busting. Outsourcing. Wage stagnation. Anti-transparency tactics. Presidents who preach community while crushing collective bargaining efforts, freezing staff pay, or firing outspoken employees through “restructuring” deserve a place on any such list.

    5. Climate Denial or Delay

    Presidents who sign glossy climate pledges yet continue fossil-fuel investments, partner with extractive corporations, or suppress environmental activism on campus epitomize a uniquely twenty-first-century creepiness: a willingness to sacrifice future generations to maintain donor relationships and boardroom comfort.

    Examples: The Multi-Modal Creep Typology

    Rather than name only individuals—something readers can help expand—we outline several recognizable types. These composites reflect the emerging patterns seen across U.S. higher education.

    The Surveillance Chancellor

    Obsessed with “campus safety,” this president quietly expands the university’s security apparatus: license plate readers at entrances, contracts with predictive-policing vendors, facial recognition “pilots,” and backdoor relationships with state or federal agencies. Their speeches emphasize “community,” but their emails say “monitoring.”

    The Union-Busting Visionary

    This leader talks the language of innovation and social mobility while hiring anti-union law firms to intimidate graduate workers and dining staff. Their glossy strategic plans promise “belonging,” but their HR memos rewrite job classifications to avoid paying benefits.

    The Donor-Driven Speech Regulator

    Terrified of upsetting trustees, corporate sponsors, or wealthy alumni, this president cracks down on student protests, bans certain speakers, or manipulates disciplinary procedures to neutralize campus activism. They invoke “civility” while undermining the First Amendment.

    The DEI-Washing Chief Executive

    This president loves diversity statements—for marketing. Meanwhile, they ignore racial harassment complaints, target outspoken faculty of color, or cut ethnic studies under the guise of “realignment.” Their commitment to equity is perfectly proportional to the next accreditation review.

    The Climate Hypocrite

    At Earth Day, they pose with solar panels. In the boardroom, they argue that divesting from fossil fuels is “unrealistic.” Student climate groups often face administrative smothering, and sustainability staffers are rotated out when they ask uncomfortable questions.

    Why “Creepiness” Matters

    Creepy leaders normalize:

    • an erosion of democratic rights on campus,

    • the quiet expansion of surveillance,

    • the targeting of vulnerable students and workers, and

    • a form of managerial governance that undermines the public purpose of higher education.

    Higher education is supposed to be a refuge for inquiry, dissent, creativity, and collective imagination. Presidents who govern through fear—whether subtle or overt—pose a deeper threat than those who merely mismanage budgets. They hollow out the civic core of academic life.

    A Call for Reader Feedback

    HEI is building a more comprehensive and accountable registry of America’s Creepiest College Presidents, and we want your help.

    • Who on your campus fits these criteria?

    • Which presidents (past or present) deserve examination?

    • What specific stories, patterns, or documents should be highlighted?

    • What additional criteria should be added for future reporting?

    Send your confidential tips, analyses, and suggestions. Together, we can shine light into administrative corners that have remained dark for far too long.

    Higher Education Inquirer welcomes further input and encourages readers to share this article with colleagues, student groups, labor organizers, and university newspapers.

    Source link

  • Why international education must be central to the Square Mile’s success

    Why international education must be central to the Square Mile’s success

    Earlier this month, the City of London staged one of its most time-honoured traditions: the annual parade marking the inauguration of its new civic leader. But this year’s event was historic for more than its pageantry.

    For the first time in 697 years, the Lord Mayor’s Show became the Lady Mayor’s Show, as Dame Susan Langley DBE took office under a title that signals both continuity and change.

    The Lady Mayor’s pledge to “un-square the Square Mile” – to make the City more open, inclusive and innovative – could also not be more timely. If she is serious about modernising the mayoralty, then championing international education must be at the heart of her agenda.

    Education as trade and investment

    The City of London is not just a major global financial centre; it is a thoroughly international student city. As well as being home to the large multi-faculty institution of City St George’s, University of London, the City also boasts the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and has historic links to several prestigious further and higher education providers across the capital.

    The overseas students that these institutions collectively attract feed a talent pipeline underpinning every sector of the City’s economy. According to research by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), just one year’s cohort of international students in the Cities of London and Westminster brings in £352 million of net benefits annually, equating to £2,940 per resident.

    London’s businesses understand this importance. New research from London Higher shows 90% of firms in the capital say global graduates are essential for filling skills gaps and driving innovation, and more than half admit they would consider relocating if access to this talent were curtailed.

    From financial services to tech companies and the creative industries, London’s employers value the language skills, cultural awareness and global networks that international graduates provide. These are the assets that give the Square Mile its competitive edge in a fiercely global marketplace.

    Storm clouds ahead

    However, these assets are under threat. Headwinds facing UK higher education are stiffening: financial pressures, rising operating costs and ongoing policy uncertainty around visas and an international fee levy are all working to lessen London’s overseas appeal. Universities are continually being asked to do more with less, while negative rhetoric around immigration risks deterring the very global talent that the City needs to thrive.

    Universities are continually being asked to do more with less, while negative rhetoric around immigration risks deterring the very global talent that the City needs to thrive

    Should the City of London’s higher education institutions start losing ground in the international education export market then the ripple effects will be felt far beyond their campuses – from student housing markets, restaurants and local coffee shops to the big city businesses that rely on a steady flow of skilled graduates with the nous to operate in a globally connected world.

    Convening power

    This is where the Lady Mayor’s convening power matters. Her role is not merely ceremonial. As the elected head of the City of London Corporation, she is a global ambassador for the UK’s financial and professional services sector, tasked with driving growth and innovation through diplomacy and engagement.

    In an era when rival financial centres such as New York, Singapore and Dubai are doubling down on talent attraction, London cannot afford to be complacent. A modern mayoralty should see universities and colleges as strategic assets in the City’s success, not peripheral players around its financial prowess. Opening the doors of Mansion House for events that champion education as a cornerstone of competitiveness would send a powerful signal of support.

    Advocacy for higher education is not a fringe issue. It is ultimately about future-proofing the City for the challenges that lie ahead. Higher education fuels innovation, entrepreneurship and cultural capital – all the qualities that the City prizes in its pursuit of growth and prosperity. Alumni of London’s institutions go on to become global decision-makers in a variety of sectors and industries and carry with them an affinity for the City that often translates into investment and influence later down the line.

    A new narrative for growth

    At a time when the City’s economy is crying out for high-level skills – and the UK government is doubling down on local responsiveness through a civic policy lens – the Square Mile has a golden opportunity to lead by example under its new Lady Mayor: forging partnerships between business and education, supporting pathways into high-demand sectors and amplifying the City of London’s message as a welcoming destination for learners and workers from all backgrounds – particularly women inspired by their new figurehead.

    The Lady Mayor has said herself that, “The City is not about walls to keep people out, but about welcoming people in.” That ethos should extend to students as much as to investors because, if we fail to keep London open to global talent, we risk diminishing the City’s universities and weakening the very foundations of the Square Mile’s success.

    The Lady Mayor’s tenure in Mansion House offers a chance for the City to reset its narrative and show that international education is a strategic lever for the City’s growth. By championing international students and forging stronger ties between academia and industry, the City can secure its place as the world’s most connected financial hub – thriving on openness, talent and ideas.

    If the City of London wants to remain the beating heart of global commerce, then it must also be the beating heart of global learning.

    Source link

  • London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

    London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

    As the UK prepares for the Graduate Route to be shortened from two years to 18 months, London’s business leaders have had their say on international graduates in the workforce, with 90% showing support.

    The results of London Higher‘s recent survey of 1,000 business leaders found that international talent is highly valued across London businesses – 62% of respondents view international talent as essential and a further 28% say it is important. Only 10% say foreign talent is not very important or not at all important.

    “Global graduates give London its competitive edge. Every sector of our economy benefits from the talent and energy they bring. This research shows that they don’t take opportunities away – they help create them,” said Liz Hutchinson, chief executive of London Higher – the membership organisation that promotes and acts as an advocate for higher education in the city.

    The majority of those surveyed believe that international talent plugs skills gaps (93%), drives innovation (89%) and supports London’s global competitiveness, while only a small minority of business leaders felt it reduced scope for domestic talent and innovation.

    Some 93% of respondents say that international talent helps address skills gaps in their industry, with only 4% saying that international workers reduce opportunities for UK talent.

    “By helping businesses expand, [global graduates] generate more jobs and opportunities for everyone. As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors,” added Hutchinson.

    As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors
    Liz Hutchinson, London Higher

    Elsewhere, 91% of those surveyed view international workers as essential or helpful for the city’s competitiveness against global cities such as New York, Singapore or Paris, with only 7% saying that their relevance is limited or non-existent.

    The survey shows that support for international talent is strongest in larger, growth sector companies – and in those that think they are outperforming their competitors.

    The survey comes as anti-immigration rhetoric in the UK intensifies and the government pushes ahead with stricter immigration rules.

    As domestic politics play out in headlines overseas and concerns grow around the UK’s stance as a welcoming destination for international talent, Harry Coath, head of the talent and skills programme at London’s growth agency, London & Partners, said he sees an opportunity for London to position itself as a city that truly embraces diversity – a factor he noted is central to why so many businesses choose to be here.

    Speaking at London Higher’s conference this week, alongside Coath, Ruth Arnold, executive director of external affairs at Study Group, said the latest research is arguably the most important report London Higher has ever produced, taking into consideration this political context and the importance of employability and post-study work to today’s international students.

    The UK government’s decision to cut the Graduate Route visa from two years to 18 months was first announced in May in the UK government’s white paper on immigration, and the change is set to to take effect from January 2027.

    The survey showed that business leaders think international students should be able to access work visas – 59% want to see easier access for international students to stay in the country 28% feel the current system works, while only 10% are vying for tighter controls.

    John Dickie, CEO of BusinessLDN, commented on the report’s findings, highlighting the importance that the UK “does all it can to remain attractive to highly skilled individuals from across the globe, particularly at a time when some of our rivals are closing their doors to international students”.

    Dickie noted the government’s proposed levy on international student fees, and urged ministers to scrap these “misguided plans” that he said would “hit growth, exacerbate the sector’s financial challenges and undermine [the UK’s] soft power”.

    Source link

  • Phoenix Education Partners, FAFSA Fraud, and the Familiar Dance of Blame

    Phoenix Education Partners, FAFSA Fraud, and the Familiar Dance of Blame

    When Phoenix Education Partners (PXED) CEO Chris Lynne publicly blamed the U.S. Department of Education for missing fraud in FAFSA applications—fraud that allowed the University of Phoenix to enroll individuals engaged in financial-aid misconduct—he likely hoped to redirect scrutiny away from his own shop. Instead, the maneuver sent up a flare. For many observers of the for-profit college sector, it felt like the return of a well-worn tactic: deflect, distract, and deny responsibility until the heat dies down.

    The pivot toward blaming the Department of Education does not merely look defensive; it echoes a pattern that helped bring down an entire generation of predatory schools. And it raises a simple question: why is PXED responding like institutions that have something to hide?


    The Old Script, Updated

    The University of Phoenix, under PXED’s ownership, carries not just a long memory of investigations and settlements but a structural DNA shaped by years of aggressive enrollment management, marketing overreach, and high-pressure tactics. When the industry was confronted with evidence of systemic abuses—lying about job placement, enrolling ineligible students, manipulating financial-aid rules—the typical industry defense was to claim that problems were caused by bad actors, by misinterpreted regulations, or by a sluggish and incompetent Department of Education.

    Those excuses were not convincing then, and they ring even more hollow now.

    If individuals involved in financial-aid fraud managed to slip into the system, an institution with PXED’s history should be the first to strengthen internal controls, not pass the buck. Schools are required under federal law to verify eligibility, prevent fraud, and monitor suspicious patterns. Pretending that ED is solely responsible ignores the compliance structure PXED is obligated—by statute—to maintain.

    Why Blame-Shifting Looks So Suspicious

    Instead of demonstrating transparency or releasing information about internal controls that failed, PXED’s leadership has opted for a public relations gambit: blame the regulator. This raises several concerns.

    First, shifting responsibility before releasing evidence suggests that PXED may be more focused on reputational management than on institutional accountability. If the organization’s processes were sound, those facts would speak louder—and more credibly—than an accusatory press statement.

    Second, the posture is déjà vu for people who have tracked the sector for decades. Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, Education Management Corp., and Career Education Corporation all blamed ED at various stages of their collapses. In each case, deflection became part of the pattern that preceded deeper revelations of systemic abuse.

    When PXED’s CEO adopts similar rhetoric, observers reasonably wonder whether history is repeating itself—again.

    Finally, PXED’s argument undermines trust at a moment when the University of Phoenix is already under skepticism from accreditors, policymakers, student-borrower advocates, and the public. Instead of strengthening compliance, PXED’s messaging signals defensiveness. Institutions with nothing to hide usually take a different approach.

    The Structural Issues PXED Doesn’t Want to Discuss

    PXED acquired the University of Phoenix with promises of modernization, stabilization, and responsible stewardship. But beneath the marketing, core challenges remain:

    A business model dependent on federal aid. The more a school relies on federal dollars, the stronger its responsibility to prevent fraud—not the weaker.

    A compliance culture shaped by profit pressure. For-profit education has repeatedly shown how financial incentives can distort admissions and oversight.

    A credibility deficit. PXED took over an institution known internationally for deceptive advertising and financial-aid abuses. Blaming ED only magnifies the perception that nothing has fundamentally changed.

    A fragile regulatory environment. With oversight tightening and student-protection rules returning, PXED cannot afford to gesture toward the old for-profit playbook. Doing so suggests they are trying to manage optics instead of outcomes.

    What Accountability Would Look Like

    If PXED wanted to demonstrate leadership rather than defensiveness, a different response was available:

    • Conduct and publish a full internal review of financial-aid intake processes
    • Outline steps to prevent enrollment of fraudulent actors
    • Acknowledge institutional lapses—and explain how they occurred
    • Invite independent audits rather than blaming federal partners
    • Demonstrate an understanding of fiduciary obligations to students and taxpayers

    This is the standard expected of Title IV institutions. It is also the standard PXED insists they meet.

    A Familiar Pattern at a Familiar Institution

    Every moment of pressure reveals something about institutional culture. PXED’s choice to immediately fault the Department of Education—without presenting evidence of its own vigilance—suggests that the company may still be operating according to the old Phoenix playbook: when in doubt, blame someone else.

    But in 2025, the public, regulators, and students have seen this movie before. And they know how it ends.

    Sources
    U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Handbook
    Senate HELP Committee, For-Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success
    Federal Trade Commission, University of Phoenix Settlement Documents
    U.S. Department of Education, Program Review and Compliance Requirements
    Higher Education Inquirer archives

    Source link

  • Liverpool University’s India campus to open in major Bangalore township

    Liverpool University’s India campus to open in major Bangalore township

    While more details are expected at the University of Liverpool India’s launch event in Bangalore on December 15, the campus in the integrated township — which includes residential, commercial, and institutional facilities — will feature “flexible spaces”, according to the university.

    The campus will have smart classrooms, research and collaborative spaces, specialised labs, and comprehensive co-working hubs for faculty, students, and entrepreneurs, offering a “state-of-the-art, 360-degree learning environment” for its inaugural cohort, set to begin in August 2026.

    “We are looking forward to welcoming our inaugural cohort of talented students in 2026 and providing them with an exceptional learning experience that strengthens their skills and employability,” said Lucy Everest, chief operating officer, University of Liverpool.

    She visited Bangalore and Mumbai this week to meet educators, potential applicants, and alumni as the university plans to grow the campus to 5,000 students in five years and 10,000 in 10.

    “Alembic City is the perfect place to realise this vision and our new campus will provide our students with the very best facilities to support their learning journey with us.”

    By the time we open next summer, we’ll have developed relationships with a wide range of businesses and social enterprises in Bangalore, which will be really important for students
    Tim Jones, University of Liverpool

    The university has also opened admissions for 2026, offering postgraduate programs in accounting and finance and computer science, alongside undergraduate courses in business management, biomedical sciences, computer science, accounting and finance, and a game design program — “which combines the university’s music and computer science departments, something not many other UK campuses are offering in India”, according to vice-chancellor, Tim Jones.

    “What we will ensure is that there’s a ‘Liverpool feel’ to the campus. Students who come to the University of Liverpool, Bangalore, should experience the distinctive elements of Liverpool,” Jones told The PIE News.

    “There will be unique features in the design that I hope students will really appreciate.”

    For Jones — who was part of the 126-member UK delegation to India led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which included entrepreneurs, cultural figures and university leaders following the landmark trade deal between the two countries — Bangalore was a natural choice for the new campus for a range of reasons.

    The city, a major IT hub with leading Indian and multinational tech and biotech firms, is familiar ground for the red-brick Russell Group university, which has a long-standing, research partnership with the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) and ongoing collaborations with the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bangalore. Both institutions also happen to have two of the world’s oldest and most prominent biochemistry departments.

    Moreover, one of the University of Liverpool’s biggest corporate partners is Unilever, which has an R&D centre in Bangalore, with pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca and IT firms like Wipro also expected to play a role in research, innovation and industry collaboration through the India campus.

    “We did explore other cities, but it was quite easy for us to pick Bangalore because we had already begun building strong relationships in the city and the wider Karnataka region,” stated Jones, who praised the city’s tech-entrepreneurial culture and the opportunities it offers for a university to “engage, collaborate and grow”.

    “By the time we open next summer, we’ll have developed relationships with a wide range of businesses and social enterprises in Bangalore, which will be really important for students. This is a big focus for us this year — we have already started, and we’ll be doing much more.”

    In the lead-up to the campus opening next year, the University of Liverpool will focus on faculty exchanges between the Liverpool and Bangalore campuses, attracting international students, and expanding scholarship opportunities for its India-based cohort, according to Jones.

    But the university — which views global engagement and partnerships as central to its Liverpool 2031 strategy — is not the only UK institution advancing its India campus plans.

    Nine UK universities now have approval to establish campuses in the South Asian country, with the University of Southampton leading the pack, already welcoming around 150 students in the first cohort at its Gurugram campus in August this year.

    In this landscape, the University of Liverpool aims to distinguish itself from other UK institutions by offering distinctive programs and embedding research from “day one”, drawing on lessons from its only other international branch campus — the Xi’an Jiaotong–Liverpool University (XJTLU) in Suzhou, China — as it shapes its approach in India.

    “We have experience from our successful campus in China, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary and has nearly 30,000 students. That experience gives us confidence that we can succeed in India as well,” stated Jones.

    “The funding model was also different 20 years ago. But the exchange of staff and students is embedded in what we do in China. I see the same happening with India as the campus develops.”

    However, despite the China campus’s success, recent reports suggest it may require stronger oversight amid concerns about teaching methods, class sizes, and students’ English proficiency.

    While the rapid push to establish branch campuses in India has also sparked debate about the trend among major UK universities, Jones says he is focused on making Liverpool’s India launch a “big success”.

    “It took us 20 years to go from China to India. There will likely be other ventures in the future, but right now, I’m very focused on making this a big success — for the students, for the university, and for India,” stated Jones.

    Source link

  • Can you believe it? | News Decoder

    Can you believe it? | News Decoder

    Can you tell the difference between a rumor and fact?

    Let’s start with gossip. That’s where you talk or chat with people about other people. We do this all the time, right? Something becomes a rumor when you or someone else learn something specific through all the chit chat and then pass it on, through chats with other people or through social media.

    A rumor can be about anyone and anything. The more nasty or naughty the tidbit, the greater the chance people will pass it on. When enough people spread it, it becomes viral. That’s where it seems to take on a life of its own.

    A fact is something that can be proven or disproven. The thing is, both fact and rumor can be accepted as a sort of truth. In the classic song “The Boxer,” the American musician Paul Simon once sang, “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

    Once a piece of information has gone viral, whether fact or fiction, it is difficult to convince people who have accepted it that it isn’t true.

    Fact and fiction

    That’s why it is important — if you care about truth, that is — to determine whether or not a rumor is based on fact before you pass it on. That’s what ethical journalists do. Reporting is about finding evidence that can show whether something is true. Without evidence, journalists shouldn’t report something, or if they do they must make sure their readers or listeners understand that the information is based on speculation or unproven rumor.

    There are two types of evidence they will look for: direct evidence and indirect evidence. The first is information you get first-hand — you experience or observe something yourself. All else is indirect. Rumor is third-hand: someone heard something from someone who heard it from the person who experienced it.

    Most times you don’t know how many “hands” information has been through before it comes to you. Understand that in general, stories change every time they pass from one person to another.

    If you don’t want to become a source of misinformation, then before you tell a story or pass on some piece of information, ask yourself these questions:

    → How do I know it?

    → Where did I get that information and do I know where that person or source got it?

    → Can I trace the information back to the original source?

    → What don’t I know about this?

    Original and secondary sources

    An original source might be yourself, if you were there when something happened. It might be a story told you by someone who was there when something happened — an eyewitness. It might be a report or study authored by someone or a group of people who gathered the data themselves.

    Keep in mind though, that people see and experience things differently and two people who are eyewitness to the same event might have remarkably different memories of that event. How they tell a story often depends on their perspective and that often depends on how they relate to the people involved.

    If you grow up with dogs, then when you see a big dog barking you might interpret that as the dog wants to play. But if you have been bitten by a dog, then a big dog barking seems threatening. Same dog, same circumstance, but contrasting perspectives based on your previous experience.

    Pretty much everything else is second-hand: A report that gets its information from data collected elsewhere or from a study done by other researchers; a story told to you by someone who spoke to the person who experienced it.

    But how do videos come into play? You see a video taken by someone else. That’s second-hand. But don’t you see what the person who took the video sees? Isn’t that almost the same as being an eyewitness?

    Not really. Consider this. Someone tells you about an event. You say: “How do you know that happened?” They say: “I was there. I saw it.” That’s pretty convincing. Now, if they say: “I saw the video.” That’s isn’t as convincing. Why? Because you know that the video might not have shown all of what happened. It might have left out something significant. It might even have been edited or doctored in some way.

    Is there evidence?

    Alone, any one source of information might not be convincing, even eyewitness testimony. That’s why when ethical reporters are making accusations in a story or on a podcast, they provide multiple, different types of evidence — a story from an eyewitness, bolstered by an email sent to the person, along with a video, and data from a report.

    It’s kind of like those scenes in murder mysteries where someone has to provide a solid alibi. They can say they were with their spouse, but do you believe the spouse?

    If they were caught on CCTV, that’s pretty convincing. Oh, there’s that parking ticket they got when they were at the movies. And in their coat pocket is the receipt for the popcorn and soda they bought with a date and time on it.

    Now, you don’t have to provide all that evidence every time you pass on a story you heard or read. If that were a requirement, conversations would turn really dull. We are all storytellers and we are geared to entertain. That means that when we tell a story we want to make it a good one. We exaggerate a little. We emphasize some parts and not others.

    The goal here isn’t to take that fun away. But we do have a worldwide problem of misinformation and disinformation.

    Do you want to be part of that problem or part of a solution? If the latter, all you have to do is this: Recognize what you actually know and separate it in your head from what you heard or saw second hand (from a video or photo or documentary) and let people know where you got that information so they can know.

    Don’t pass on information as true when it might not be true or if it is only partially true. Don’t pretend to be more authoritative than you are.

    And perhaps most important: What you don’t know might be as important as what you do know.

    Questions to consider:

    1. What is an example of an original source?

    2. Why should you not totally trust information from a video?

    3. Can you think of a a time when your memory of an event differed from that of someone else who was there?

     

    Source link

  • Test yourself on the past week’s K-12 news

    Test yourself on the past week’s K-12 news

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

    How well did you keep up with this week’s developments in K-12 education? To find out, take our five-question quiz below. Then, share your score by tagging us on social media with #K12DivePopQuiz.

    Source link

  • Education Department breakup divides K-12 community

    Education Department breakup divides K-12 community

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

    Reaction to the U.S. Department of Education’s announcement this week that it is shifting management of a handful of programs to other federal agencies ranged from celebration to condemnation.

    The moves fulfill “a promise made and a promise kept to put students first and return education to the states,” said Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, on X on Tuesday. 

    Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform, applauded the federal education management shifts in a Tuesday statement. “It won’t be seamless, and it won’t succeed unless the new agencies clearly communicate with states, communities, and parents about their new flexibility — how funds can be better spent, and how to avoid getting snared in fresh compliance traps. But shifting power closer to communities is the right direction.”

    But opponents say the transfers will create more burdens and inefficiencies. 

    MomsRising, a grassroots organization focused on economic security and anti-discrimination practices against women and moms, called the moves “reckless, harmful, and unlawful” in a Wednesday statement.

    “Further dismantling the Department of Education will undermine learning opportunities for children in every state, harming families and undermining our workforce, our economy, and our country as a whole for generations to come,” MomsRising said.

    Although management of special education, civil rights enforcement and federal student aid is not moving out of the Education Department, the agency is still exploring the best options for the structure of those activities, a senior department official said during a press call on Tuesday.

    The ​​six new interagency agreements will help “break up the federal education bureaucracy, ensure efficient delivery of funded programs, activities, and move closer to fulfilling the President’s promise to return education to the states,” the Education Department said in a Tuesday statement.

    Management of career and technical education moved out of the Education Department to the U.S. Department of Labor earlier this year. CTE and K-12 administrative organizations had voiced reservations, saying they feared CTE would lose its education and career exploration focus and that programming would be driven solely by workforce needs.

    Spreading education responsibilities across agencies

    Interagency agreements and other cross-agency collaborations have been used by the Education Department in the past, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. These practices typically have broad support, because they address alignment on specific programs between two or more agencies through shared funding and programming.

    Tuesday’s announcement was significant for the large-scale movement of certain core programs out of the agency. Included in the new partnerships is an IAA with the U.S. Department of Labor to handle the management of about $28 billion in K-12 funding for low-income school districts, homeless youth, migrant students, academic support, afterschool programs, districts receiving Impact Aid, as well as other activities.

    This partnership, the Education Department said, would streamline the administration of K-12 programs and align education programs with DOL’s workforce programs to improve the nation’s education and workforce systems.

    Denise Forte, president and CEO of EdTrust, a nonprofit that seeks to eliminate economic and racial barriers in schools, said in a Tuesday statement that the changes will exacerbate hardships faced by underserved students.  

    “These new directives only serve to further distance students — particularly students of color, those from low-income backgrounds, students with disabilities, and multilingual learners — from educational opportunities,” Forte said. “The other agencies that are now charged with protecting students’ educational civil rights simply do not have the relationships, expertise, or staff capacity to do so.”

    On the flip side, the America First Policy Institute applauded the changes in a Thursday statement, saying the move would “preserve program service levels and responsiveness while reducing costs and giving states more flexibility to meet the needs of students and families.”

    While many organizations and individuals praised or criticized the shift in management, several others said they want more details about logistics and exactly what would change.

    Source link

  • Higher education outlook remains negative for 2026, Moody’s says

    Higher education outlook remains negative for 2026, Moody’s says

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Moody’s Ratings anticipates another tough year ahead financially for U.S. colleges as the sector navigates enrollment pressures, rising expenses and political headwinds under the Trump administration. 
    • The ratings agency recently issued a negative outlook for the higher education sector for fiscal 2026 amid economic uncertainty and shrinking margins.
    • “Federal policy and a shrinking population of high school graduates create an increasingly difficult and shifting operating environment for colleges and universities,” analysts said in a report last week.

    Dive Insight:

    Higher ed started the year with a stable outlook overall from Moody’s. That changed less than two months after President Donald Trump retook office, when the ratings agency downgraded its 2025 outlook to negative. 

    By then, the Trump administration had begun curtailing research funding, increasing investigations into colleges over antisemitism-related claims, cracking down on immigrants and international students, and supporting massive changes to higher ed policy like higher endowment taxes. 

    The political challenges have only intensified since then, with the summer passage of Republicans’ massive spending bill that contains major higher ed policy shifts. The administration has also moved to start dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, slow down the visa system, and impose ideological and operational changes on colleges. 

    In last week’s report, Moody’s analysts highlighted changes to the student loan system as potentially the most painful. 

    Under the spending bill, the federal government next year will begin phasing out the Grad PLUS loan program, which helps graduate students finance their programs up to the cost of attendance. The government will also cap student borrowing at $100,000 for most graduate programs, with a $200,000 limit for professional programs such as medical school. 

    “Institutions with large master’s degree offerings will be particularly vulnerable to shifts in student demand if prospective students are not able to fully access the private loan market,” analysts said.

    All of those disruptions come on top of economic trends already pressuring the sector. Moody’s highlighted demographic challenges as the national population of high school graduates is projected to decline beginning next year. 

    For colleges, that means a slowdown in revenue growth. Moody’s estimates 3.5% growth overall in revenue, down from 3.8% in 2025. For smaller colleges, the 2026 increases could be even smaller — 2.5% for small public institutions and 2.7% for small privates.

    Expenses, on the other hand, will grow 4.4% by Moody’s estimates. While that represents more modest inflation compared to this year’s 5.2% increase, it’s still higher than revenue growth and will eat into institutions’ margins. 

    Moody’s forecast that the share of private colleges with negative earnings margins (before taxes, depreciation and amortization) will increase to 16% next year. That’s compared to an estimated 12.2% in 2025 and 7.2% in 2024. 

    “Given the strained revenue forecast, management’s ability to control costs and identify creative operational efficiencies will take on even greater importance even at the largest and wealthiest institutions,” analysts said. 

    Margin pressures could lead to more early retirement buyouts, workforce cuts, benefit reductions, shared services and mergers to “address fundamental business model weakness,” they added.

    Source link

  • Powering college readiness through community partnerships

    Powering college readiness through community partnerships

    Key points:

    Texas faces a widening gap between high school completion and college readiness. Educators are already doing important and demanding work, but closing this gap will require systemic solutions, thoughtful policy, and sustained support to match their efforts.

    A recent American Institutes for Research report shows that just 56.8 percent of Texas’ graduating seniors met a college-readiness standard. Furthermore, 27 percent of rural students attend high schools that don’t offer Advanced Placement (AP) courses. This highlights a significant gap in preparedness and accessibility.

    This summer, distinguished K-12 educators and nonprofit leaders discussed how to better support college-bound students.

    The gap widens

    Among them was Saki Milton, mathematics teacher and founder of The GEMS Camp, a nonprofit serving minority girls in male-dominated studies. She stressed the importance of accessible, rigorous coursework. “If you went somewhere where there’s not a lot of AP offerings or college readiness courses … you’re just not going to be ready. That’s a fact.”

    Additional roundtable participants reminded us that academics alone aren’t enough. Students struggle considerably with crucial soft skills such as communication, time management, and active listening. Many aspiring college-bound students experience feelings of isolation–a disconnect between their lived experiences and a college-ready mentality, often due to the lack of emotional support.

    Says Milton, “How do we teach students to build community for themselves and navigate these institutions, because that’s a huge part? Content and rigor are one thing, but a college’s overall system is another. Emphasizing how to build that local community is huge!”

    “Kids going to college are quitting because they don’t have the emotional support once they get there,” says Karen Medina, director of Out of School Time Programs at Jubilee Park. “They’re not being connected to resources or networking groups that can help them transition to college. They might be used to handling their own schedule and homework, but then they’re like, ‘Who do I go to?’ That’s a lot of the disconnection.”

    David Shallenberger, vice president of advancement at the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Dallas, indicates that the pandemic contributed to that soft skills deficit. “Many students struggled to participate meaningfully in virtual learning, leaving them isolated and without opportunities for authentic interaction. Those young learners are now in high school and will likely struggle to transition to higher education.”

    Purposeful intervention

    These challenges–academic and soft skills gaps–require purposeful intervention.

    Through targeted grants, more than 35,000 North Texas middle and high school students can access college readiness tools. Nonprofit leaders are integrating year-round academic and mentorship support to prepare students academically and emotionally.

    Latoyia Greyer of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Tarrant County introduced a summer program with accompanying scholarship opportunities. The organization is elevating students’ skills through interview practice. Like ours, her vision is to instill confidence in learners.

    Greyer isn’t alone. At the Perot Museum of Nature and Science, Development Officer Elizabeth Card uses the grant to advance college readiness by strengthening its high school internship program. She aims to spark students’ curiosity, introduce rewarding career pathways, and foster a passion for STEM. She also plans to bolster core soft skills through student interactions with museum guests and hands-on biology experiments.

    These collaborative efforts have clarified the message: We can do extraordinary things by partnering. Impactful and sustainable progress in education cannot occur in a vacuum. Grant programs such as the AP Success Grant strengthen learning and build equity, and our partners are the driving force toward changing student outcomes.

    The readiness gap continues to impact Texas students, leaving them at a disadvantage as they transition to college. School districts alone cannot solve this challenge; progress requires active collaboration with nonprofits, businesses, and community stakeholders. The path forward is clear–partnerships have the power to drive meaningful change and positively impact our communities.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link