Blog

  • In Philly, a new generation finds its voice — and the tools to defend it

    In Philly, a new generation finds its voice — and the tools to defend it

    Katie Ratke is a rising senior and Shloka Mehta is a rising sophomore, both working as FIRE summer interns.

    Nearly 250 years ago, mere steps from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a group of men locked in sweltering rooms debated the blueprint for a new nation, conceived in liberty. First among the freedoms they secured was the right to speak one’s mind, free from the chill of government meddling or the heat of mob intimidation. 

    Today, the floor echoes in the National Constitution Center. The walls are lined with powerful quotes. Along the gentle curve of the tall, marble ceilings hang the flags of all 50 states. And normally, these rooms are relatively still. But this July, the Center came alive when over 100 students from 70 universities across the country gathered there, not to write a constitution, but to figure out how to keep its promises alive.

    From July 11-13, FIRE hosted its annual Student Network Summer Conference at the National Constitution Center — a weekend-long crash course in civil liberties for young Americans who still believe the First Amendment matters, especially on campuses today. And, thanks to the generosity of FIRE’s donors, they were able to attend at no cost — with their travel, lodging, and meals entirely covered.

    “Hosting FIRE’s Summer Conference serves as a way to unite college students who care about preserving a climate of free expression on their campuses,” said Molly Nocheck, FIRE’s vice president of Student Development. “We hope students are able to take the lessons from this weekend and use them to foster a culture of civil discourse at their institutions.”

    The conference kicked off Friday evening in the Grand Hall Overlook, perched above exhibits of the very Constitution students had come to defend. FIRE’s Chief Operating Officer Alisha Glennon opened the program with a brief history of FIRE’s work protecting Americans’ First Amendment rights.

    Then came a crowd favorite: a live podcast recording of Advisory Opinions, hosted by New York Times columnist and former FIRE President David French, alongside Politico contributing editor Sarah Isgur, who is also former senior counsel to the deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice. The two unpacked a grab bag of pressing legal issues, including a new Florida decision regulating the use of pronouns in public schools and the long-running tug-of-war over campaign finance.

    Isgur ended the podcast with a rousing call-to-action: “To all you students, go out there and fight the fight!”

    Judging from the energy and spirit of debate on display throughout the weekend, the audience seemed ready to take up Isgur’s challenge.

    Saturday morning kicked off with “Free Speech 101,” led by FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley in a no-frills tour of key Supreme Court precedents and core First Amendment concepts. Afterwards, FIRE’s undergraduate summer interns turned up the heat with a fast-paced quiz game asking students to identify whether landmark cases involved protected or unprotected speech. 

    Next, FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London joined Creeley in dissecting the recent Supreme Court decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. This talk focused on the reasons why age restrictions burden free speech and raise privacy concerns. 

    After lunch, participants engaged in small group sessions where they discussed everything from global censorship to the underlying philosophy behind free speech. One student said the philosophy session was their favorite event of the weekend. “One of the exercises we did was about making the strongest cases against free speech,” they noted, “which was very useful.”

    Later that evening, David French returned for an open Q&A session that pulled no punches. Students asked about political polarization in the digital age and how to foster bipartisan dialogue on college campuses. These questions sparked probing discussions that continued well into dinner.

    The final day blended reflection with application. On Sunday morning, students put their First Amendment knowledge to the test with a Kahoot! quiz featuring scenarios based on Supreme Court cases, hosted by FIRE’s summer interns. Participants were then given the opportunity to play a massive game of  “This or That,” a political debate in which peers defended opposing views in real time. 

    Then came one of the weekend’s most forward-looking sessions. Ari Cohn, FIRE’s lead counsel for tech policy, gave a talk on the growing role of artificial intelligence in shaping public discourse and its relationship to freedom of speech.

    Before wrapping up, students heard from FIRE’s Chief People Officer Cait Scanlan, who mapped out career pathways within the civil liberties world. 

    Then the FIRE summer interns closed out the weekend with a session introducing FIRE’s “Let’s Talk!” curriculum, which teaches respectful civil discourse. Participants demonstrated key free speech principles through considering the arguments for their opponents side and ensuring everyone had an opportunity for their voice to be heard. 

    “A version of ‘Let’s Talk’ will definitely make an appearance on my campus,” one student said. But it’s not just this curriculum. This year’s cohort returns with more than just a handful of business cards. They walk away with a newfound mission to return to campus and begin work reviving the culture of civil discourse in this nation. Philadelphia may have been where free speech first became law, but for these students, it’s where their fight for it began.

    Want to join us next time? Stay tuned here for details about next year’s Student Network Summer Conference.

    Source link

  • In Philly, a new generation finds it voice — and the tools to defend it

    In Philly, a new generation finds it voice — and the tools to defend it

    Katie Ratke is a rising senior and Shloka Mehta is a rising sophomore, both working as FIRE summer interns.

    Nearly 250 years ago, mere steps from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a group of men locked in sweltering rooms debated the blueprint for a new nation, conceived in liberty. First among the freedoms they secured was the right to speak one’s mind, free from the chill of government meddling or the heat of mob intimidation. 

    Today, the floor echoes in the National Constitution Center. The walls are lined with powerful quotes. Along the gentle curve of the tall, marble ceilings hang the flags of all 50 states. And normally, these rooms are relatively still. But this July, the Center came alive when over 100 students from 70 universities across the country gathered there, not to write a constitution, but to figure out how to keep its promises alive.

    From July 11-13, FIRE hosted its annual Student Network Summer Conference at the National Constitution Center — a weekend-long crash course in civil liberties for young Americans who still believe the First Amendment matters, especially on campuses today. And, thanks to the generosity of FIRE’s donors, they were able to attend at no cost — with their travel, lodging, and meals entirely covered.

    “Hosting FIRE’s Summer Conference serves as a way to unite college students who care about preserving a climate of free expression on their campuses,” said Molly Nocheck, FIRE’s vice president of Student Development. “We hope students are able to take the lessons from this weekend and use them to foster a culture of civil discourse at their institutions.”

    The conference kicked off Friday evening in the Grand Hall Overlook, perched above exhibits of the very Constitution students had come to defend. FIRE’s Chief Operating Officer Alisha Glennon opened the program with a brief history of FIRE’s work protecting Americans’ First Amendment rights.

    Then came a crowd favorite: a live podcast recording of Advisory Opinions, hosted by New York Times columnist and former FIRE President David French, alongside Politico contributing editor Sarah Isgur, who is also former senior counsel to the deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice. The two unpacked a grab bag of pressing legal issues, including a new Florida decision regulating the use of pronouns in public schools and the long-running tug-of-war over campaign finance.

    Isgur ended the podcast with a rousing call-to-action: “To all you students, go out there and fight the fight!”

    Judging from the energy and spirit of debate on display throughout the weekend, the audience seemed ready to take up Isgur’s challenge.

    Saturday morning kicked off with “Free Speech 101,” led by FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley in a no-frills tour of key Supreme Court precedents and core First Amendment concepts. Afterwards, FIRE’s undergraduate summer interns turned up the heat with a fast-paced quiz game asking students to identify whether landmark cases involved protected or unprotected speech. 

    Next, FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London joined Creeley in dissecting the recent Supreme Court decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. This talk focused on the reasons why age restrictions burden free speech and raise privacy concerns. 

    After lunch, participants engaged in small group sessions where they discussed everything from global censorship to the underlying philosophy behind free speech. One student said the philosophy session was their favorite event of the weekend. “One of the exercises we did was about making the strongest cases against free speech,” they noted, “which was very useful.”

    Later that evening, David French returned for an open Q&A session that pulled no punches. Students asked about political polarization in the digital age and how to foster bipartisan dialogue on college campuses. These questions sparked probing discussions that continued well into dinner.

    The final day blended reflection with application. On Sunday morning, students put their First Amendment knowledge to the test with a Kahoot! quiz featuring scenarios based on Supreme Court cases, hosted by FIRE’s summer interns. Participants were then given the opportunity to play a massive game of  “This or That,” a political debate in which peers defended opposing views in real time. 

    Then came one of the weekend’s most forward-looking sessions. Ari Cohn, FIRE’s lead counsel for tech policy, gave a talk on the growing role of artificial intelligence in shaping public discourse and its relationship to freedom of speech.

    Before wrapping up, students heard from FIRE’s Chief People Officer Cait Scanlan, who mapped out career pathways within the civil liberties world. 

    Then the FIRE summer interns closed out the weekend with a session introducing FIRE’s “Let’s Talk!” curriculum, which teaches respectful civil discourse. Participants demonstrated key free speech principles through considering the arguments for their opponents side and ensuring everyone had an opportunity for their voice to be heard. 

    “A version of ‘Let’s Talk’ will definitely make an appearance on my campus,” one student said. But it’s not just this curriculum. This year’s cohort returns with more than just a handful of business cards. They walk away with a newfound mission to return to campus and begin work reviving the culture of civil discourse in this nation. Philadelphia may have been where free speech first became law, but for these students, it’s where their fight for it began.

    Want to join us next time? Stay tuned here for details about next year’s Student Network Summer Conference.

    Source link

  • NCCU Receives $500K Grant to Study Career Barriers Facing Young Men in Research Triangle

    NCCU Receives $500K Grant to Study Career Barriers Facing Young Men in Research Triangle

    NDr. Tryan McMickensorth Carolina Central University has received a $500,000 grant from the Walton Family Foundation to launch a  research initiative addressing the systemic barriers that prevent young men in the Research Triangle region from accessing career pathways and educational opportunities.

    The two-year study, titled “Understanding Education as a Career Choice for NC Research Triangle Youth,” will focus on what researchers term “opportunity youth” – young men between ages 18 and 24 who have become disconnected from both education and employment systems. Despite broader national gains in educational access, this demographic continues to face significant obstacles that contribute to high dropout rates and limited postsecondary success.

    Dr. Tryan McMickens, professor of higher education and coordinator of NCCU’s higher education administration program, will lead the initiative alongside Dr. Jim Harper II, professor of history and associate dean of the School of Graduate Studies. Their research team will include faculty members, six graduate students from the higher education administration and history programs, and a dedicated project manager.Dr. Jim Harper II Dr. Jim Harper II

    “I am thrilled that the Walton Foundation has chosen to invest in NCCU faculty to advance research on postsecondary attainment among boys and young men,” said Dr. Ontario Wooden, NCCU provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs. “This support highlights the importance of this critical area and empowers our faculty to deliver meaningful, evidence-based results. I eagerly anticipate the insights and impact this work will bring.”

    The research aims to move beyond simply identifying problems to developing concrete solutions through research-based interventions, community engagement, and policy recommendations. The project will culminate in a two-day conference planned for 2026, where findings and potential interventions will be shared with stakeholders across the region.

    McMickens brings extensive expertise in higher education access and the experiences of Black male students to the project. His research centers on college mental health and historically Black colleges and universities, and he authored Black Male College Students’ Mental Health: Providing Holistic Support in Higher Education. Harper’s scholarship focuses on African and African American education and innovative uses of technology for public engagement with history. He co-authored With Faith in God and Heart in Mind: A History of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc.

    The Research Triangle region, encompassing Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, represents one of the nation’s most concentrated areas of higher education institutions and technology companies. However, the economic opportunities created by this educational and technological hub have not been equally accessible to all young people in the region, particularly young men from underserved communities.

    The Walton Family Foundation, established by descendants of Walmart founders Sam and Helen Walton, focuses its philanthropic efforts on three primary areas: improving K-12 education, protecting rivers and oceans along with their communities, and investing in Northwest Arkansas and the Arkansas-Mississippi Delta. The foundation also supports projects reflecting individual family members’ personal interests.

    The timing of this research initiative comes as higher education institutions nationwide are examining their role in addressing broader social and economic inequities, particularly those affecting young men of color who face disproportionate barriers to educational and career advancement.

    Source link

  • Can you make your podcast sound great?

    Can you make your podcast sound great?

    Emotion and identity

    The third layer gives a podcast emotion and the three elements, together, make the sound of a podcast, he said. 

    “So, it’s not just music,” he said. “These three elements move together during the narration.”

    The goal is to combine music and sound effects to create a “rhythm of narration.” After an important word, he might create a pause and in it increase the music. After that, come sound effects.  

    Caminero wanted to know what Micheli considers when creating music to give a podcast emotion and identity. Micheli said that an important part of the process is to re-listen to what you have done to try to create consistent sound.

    “It’s very important because we spend a lot of time on the timeline,” he said. “We work a lot in depth on the details, but at a certain point you have to change your position and change your mind and you have to become not a creator, you have to become a listener.”

    You don’t always need to create original music for your podcast soundtrack. Micheli suggests combining original music with music you can find in a sound library, but note that it isn’t easy. “It is quite a job to find the right music, right sound in this gigantic archive and match together original music and other music,” he said. “I think it’s the best way for creating the sound for a podcast.”

    Creating original music makes the most sense for podcasts that are documentaries or fiction, Micheli said. But most important is that the podcast must have a good story and script first. 

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What does Micheli mean by a “rhythm of narration”?

    2. How can you add great sound to a podcast if you can’t compose music yourself?

    3. If you were to create a podcast series what would it be about and what kind of sound would you use?

     

    Source link

  • The move from principal to district leader was fraught–here’s what I missed the most

    The move from principal to district leader was fraught–here’s what I missed the most

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    I didn’t expect to grieve.

    I knew taking a central office role meant trading the school building for a district badge. I knew the days would be filled with policy, meetings, and personnel issues. What I didn’t know was how much I would miss morning announcements, front office chatter, and the small but sacred chaos of classroom life.

    When I accepted my central office role at Knox County Schools nearly three years ago, I heard words of congratulations and encouragement, and a lot of “You’ll be great at this.” What I didn’t hear was, “You’re going to miss the cafeteria noise” or “You’ll feel phantom pain for your walkie and reach for it like it’s still there.” No one warned me I’d find myself lingering too long during school visits, trying to feel like I still belong.

    What I lost wasn’t just proximity; it was identity.

    As a principal, I was part of everything. Students shouted greetings across the parking lot. Parents stopped me in the grocery store to ask about bus routes or share weekend news. Teachers popped into my office with questions or just to drop off a piece of cake from the lounge. I wasn’t above the work. I was in it. I was woven into the messy, beautiful rhythm of a school day.

    Shifting to the central office changed not just the pace of my day, but the feel of the work. The space was quieter, the communication more deliberate. There are no morning announcements. No car rider line and morning high-fives from kids. No spontaneous TikTok dances during class change. I moved from the rhythm of a living, breathing school to a place where school leadership feels more technical, more filtered, and more removed.

    The relationships changed, too. As a principal, you’re not just part of a team; you’re a part of a family. You laugh together, carry each other’s burdens, and share both the stress and the wins. Move into a district role, and you’re now “from downtown,” even if your heart still lives on campus. You walk into buildings with a badge that means something different, and the conversations shift just enough for you to notice.

    None of this means the central office work doesn’t matter. It does. Or that I don’t love it. I do. Central office work gives me a systems-level view of how our schools function. I find purpose in improving not just individual outcomes, but the structures that guide them.

    Still, the change in relational gravity caught me off guard. And once the initial disorientation passed, it left me with a deeper concern: How will I stay connected to how the work is actually experienced and carried out in schools if I’m no longer living in it each day?

    At first, I told myself it was just a learning curve, that it would pass, that I’d find new rhythms soon enough. And I did — but not before realizing that central office leadership requires a different kind of muscle. One I hadn’t needed before.

    As a principal, I lived in fast feedback loops. I saw the effects of my decisions by lunchtime. I knew which teachers were having a hard week, which student needed extra eyes, which parent was about to call. Even hard conversations came with a certain clarity because I was close to the context and knew the culture I wanted to build.

    At the district level, the impact is broader but harder to track. The wins take longer to see. The feedback is quieter.

    I had to become more intentional about noticing what I could no longer see. That meant listening differently during school visits, paying closer attention to what leaders were navigating, and asking better questions. Not just about what was happening, but what it was costing them to make it happen.

    One of the advantages of working at a systems level is being able to recognize patterns across multiple settings. They can reveal root causes that individual concerns might never expose. That clarity opens the door to more aligned, lasting support.

    I began thinking less about whether expectations were clear and more about whether they were sustainable. My role was not to direct the work but to support the people carrying it out.

    These changes didn’t come naturally. They came because I didn’t want to become a leader who made good decisions in theory but stayed out of touch in practice. I didn’t want to lead by spreadsheet, even though color-coded tabs bring me great joy. I wanted to lead by understanding.

    Eventually, I began to see that even though I was no longer in the thick of the school day, I could still choose to stay connected — to show up, to ask real questions, to build trust not just through policy, but through presence.

    The classroom educators and school leaders I supported didn’t need someone who had knowledge of what it was like to be a teacher or principal. They needed someone who remembered what it felt like to be one. Someone who hadn’t forgotten the rush of the morning bell or the weight of a tough parent meeting or the impossible feeling of juggling school culture, teacher evaluations, instructional priorities, and a leaky roof all before noon.

    I think back often to my first year in central office. The silence. The absence of bells and kids and chaos. The invisible weight of missing something no one warned me I would lose. I remember walking through a school one afternoon and instinctively reaching for my walkie talkie. It wasn’t there. Of course it wasn’t there. But the reflex reminded me of something important: I still wanted to be tuned in.

    Leadership doesn’t have to grow lonelier as it grows broader. But staying connected takes intention. It takes habits, not just memories.

    I didn’t expect to grieve. But I’m grateful I did. Because grief has a way of reminding you what still deserves your presence.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on district management, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • To ‘think like a lawyer’: some thoughts on the pedagogy of international law

    To ‘think like a lawyer’: some thoughts on the pedagogy of international law

    by Paolo Amorosa & Sebastián Machado

    Most law professors face a similar challenge when designing their courses: how to explain to students the enduring gap between what the law says and how it functions in reality. One of the foundational assumptions of legal education is that law is more than just the written rules found in statutes, bills, or constitutions. Without an understanding of how these rules influence a judge’s decision-making, they remain little more than pretty playthings: abstract ideas with no real-world impact. This realist approach in domestic legal education helps bridge the divide between legal theory and practice; the same arguments might apply in most disciplines and fields with a similar divide between theory and practice. If you can examine a rule and confidently predict how it will be applied, you are engaging in the most basic form of legal research. But consider a legal system without a centralised rule-making authority or a single, binding interpreter – no supreme legislature or final court to settle disputes definitively. This is the reality of international law. While there are many judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, there is no universal, mandatory forum for resolving disputes, and most conflicts never reach a formal judgment. Instead, states, international organizations, and individuals all contribute to shaping the rules by advocating for their preferred interpretations, hoping to sway the broader consensus. International lawyers refer to this evolving consensus as the ‘invisible college of international lawyers’, a term that captures the discipline’s informal, socially constructed boundaries. In essence, international law is what international lawyers do.

    Teaching international law, then, comes with an added layer of complexity: the lack of formal structures undermines legal certainty. Every international lawyer, to some degree, can influence the field. Through journal articles, blog posts, social media debates, or legal practice, they argue for their version of the correct interpretation of a rule. Academics may even challenge established meanings, making persuasive cases that defy the literal text of foundational documents like the UN Charter.

    This is why international lawyers often say that the law is made, not found. Unlike domestic legal systems, where rules are either codified (as in civil law) or derived from judicial precedent (as in common law), international law is fundamentally discursive. This creates a twofold problem. First, without an authoritative interpreter, there is no clear way to separate theory from practice. A legal advisor in a Foreign Ministry might frame a state’s actions as part of a new trend that modifies a rule (such as pre-emptive self-defense), while others denounce it as a violation (like Article 51 of the UN Charter). In this environment, the line between legal theory and practice dissolves. Second, with no objective boundaries to the discipline, the distinction between mainstream international law and critical approaches collapses. What remains is the professor’s choice: which version of the law to teach.

    Yet teaching international law does not require taking a stance on the theory-practice divide, because that divide is not inherent to the discipline. Law professors are not bound by the same rigid distinctions as, say, natural scientists, who must separate theoretical models from empirical observation. Instead, legal education can bypass this dichotomy entirely by focusing on the deeper conditions that shape how we understand both theory and practice. Rather than treating practice as a constraint on theory, students can learn to apply theoretical insights pragmatically. This approach allows law schools to teach practical skills without forcing an artificial separation between legal thought and legal action, following larger trends in pedagogical training outside legal academia.

    Still, many international law professors struggle with curriculum design because of these perceived divides. On one hand, students must master a baseline of doctrinal knowledge to enter legal practice. On the other, mere knowledge acquisition is not enough – students must also develop the ability to analyse, synthesise, and critically evaluate legal arguments. A well-rounded legal education should cultivate these higher-order skills, enabling students to engage in meta-cognitive reflection about the law they are learning.

    Moreover, there is no strong evidence that ‘thinking like a lawyer’ is a unique cognitive skill. Legal reasoning shares much with other forms of reasoning, meaning that better teaching methods alone will not necessarily produce better lawyers. Instead, what matters is equipping students with evaluative tools to interpret and refine legal arguments. By treating core legal knowledge as a foundation rather than a rigid boundary, and critical thinking as a method for engaging with that knowledge, the supposed divide between mainstream and critical approaches begins to fade.

    The same logic applies to the theory-practice debate. The tension between these approaches persists only if we assume they are mutually exclusive. Law schools often face criticism from practitioners who argue that graduates lack practical skills, while academics defend the importance of theoretical training. But must these roles be in conflict?

    Perhaps the real issue in international law is not the existence of these divides, but our insistence on treating them as inevitable. If there is little evidence that ‘thinking like a lawyer’ is a distinct cognitive skill, there is even less reason to impose it as a rigid framework for international legal education. Instead, we might focus on cultivating adaptable, reflective practitioners who can navigate both theory and practice – not as opposing forces, but as complementary dimensions of the same discipline. This is a lesson relevant for many if not all professional disciplines.

    Sebastian Machado Ramírez is Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Helsinki, where he works on the PRIVIGO project examining private governance and international law. He holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, where his dissertation analyzed interpretive approaches in the law governing the use of force.

    Paolo Amorosa is University Lecturer in International Law at the University of Helsinki. He holds a PhD from the same institution and specializes in the history and theory of international law and human rights. His monograph Rewriting the History of the Law of Nations (OUP 2019) critically re-examines the ideological foundations of international law’s canon.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Data, privacy, and cybersecurity in schools: A 2025 wake-up call

    Data, privacy, and cybersecurity in schools: A 2025 wake-up call

    Key points:

    In 2025, schools are sitting on more data than ever before. Student records, attendance, health information, behavioral logs, and digital footprints generated by edtech tools have turned K-12 institutions into data-rich environments. As artificial intelligence becomes a central part of the learning experience, these data streams are being processed in increasingly complex ways. But with this complexity comes a critical question: Are schools doing enough to protect that data?

    The answer, in many cases, is no.

    The rise of shadow AI

    According to CoSN’s May 2025 State of EdTech District Leadership report, a significant portion of districts, specifically 43 percent, lack formal policies or guidance for AI use. While 80 percent of districts have generative AI initiatives underway, this policy gap is a major concern. At the same time, Common Sense Media’s Teens, Trust and Technology in the Age of AI highlights that many teens have been misled by fake content and struggle to discern truth from misinformation, underscoring the broad adoption and potential risks of generative AI.

    This lack of visibility and control has led to the rise of what many experts call “shadow AI”: unapproved apps and browser extensions that process student inputs, store them indefinitely, or reuse them to train commercial models. These tools are often free, widely adopted, and nearly invisible to IT teams. Shadow AI expands the district’s digital footprint in ways that often escape policy enforcement, opening the door to data leakage and compliance violations. CoSN’s 2025 report specifically notes that “free tools that are downloaded in an ad hoc manner put district data at risk.”

    Data protection: The first pillar under pressure

    The U.S. Department of Education’s AI Toolkit for Schools urges districts to treat student data with the same care as medical or financial records. However, many AI tools used in classrooms today are not inherently FERPA-compliant and do not always disclose where or how student data is stored. Teachers experimenting with AI-generated lesson plans or feedback may unknowingly input student work into platforms that retain or share that data. In the absence of vendor transparency, there is no way to verify how long data is stored, whether it is shared with third parties, or how it might be reused. FERPA requires that if third-party vendors handle student data on behalf of the institution, they must comply with FERPA. This includes ensuring data is not used for unintended purposes or retained for AI training.

    Some tools, marketed as “free classroom assistants,” require login credentials tied to student emails or learning platforms. This creates additional risks if authentication mechanisms are not protected or monitored. Even widely-used generative tools may include language in their privacy policies allowing them to use uploaded content for system training or performance optimization.

     

    Data processing and the consent gap

    Generative AI models are trained on large datasets, and many free tools continue learning from user prompts. If a student pastes an essay or a teacher includes student identifiers in a prompt, that information could enter a commercial model’s training loop. This creates a scenario where data is being processed without explicit consent, potentially in violation of COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) and FERPA. While the FTC’s December 2023 update to the COPPA Rule did not codify school consent provisions, existing guidance still allows schools to consent to technology use on behalf of parents in educational contexts. However, the onus remains on schools to understand and manage these consent implications, especially with the rule’s new amendments becoming effective June 21, 2025, which strengthen protections and require separate parental consent for third-party disclosures for targeted advertising.

    Moreover, many educators and students are unaware of what constitutes “personally identifiable information” (PII) in these contexts. A name combined with a school ID number, disability status, or even a writing sample could easily identify a student, especially in small districts. Without proper training, well-intentioned AI use can cross legal lines unknowingly.

    Cybersecurity risks multiply

    AI tools have also increased the attack surface of K-12 networks. According to ThreatDown’s 2024 State of Ransomware in Education report, ransomware attacks on K-12 schools increased by 92 percent between 2022 and 2023, with 98 total attacks in 2023. This trend is projected to continue as cybercriminals use AI to create more targeted phishing campaigns and detect system vulnerabilities faster. AI-assisted attacks can mimic human language and tone, making them harder to detect. Some attackers now use large language models to craft personalized emails that appear to come from school administrators.

    Many schools lack endpoint protection for student devices, and third-party integrations often bypass internal firewalls. Free AI browser extensions may collect keystrokes or enable unauthorized access to browser sessions. The more tools that are introduced without IT oversight, the harder it becomes to isolate and contain incidents when they occur. CoSN’s 2025 report indicates that 60 percent of edtech leaders are “very concerned about AI-enabled cyberattacks,” yet 61 percent still rely on general funds for cybersecurity efforts, not dedicated funding.

    Building a responsible framework

    To mitigate these risks, school leaders need to:

    • Audit tool usage using platforms like Lightspeed Digital Insight to identify AI tools being accessed without approval. Districts should maintain a living inventory of all digital tools. Lightspeed Digital Insight, for example, is vetted by 1EdTech for data privacy.
    • Develop and publish AI use policies that clarify acceptable practices, define data handling expectations, and outline consequences for misuse. Policies should distinguish between tools approved for instructional use and those requiring further evaluation.
    • Train educators and students to understand how AI tools collect and process data, how to interpret AI outputs critically, and how to avoid inputting sensitive information. AI literacy should be embedded in digital citizenship curricula, with resources available from organizations like Common Sense Media and aiEDU.
    • Vet all third-party apps through standards like the 1EdTech TrustEd Apps program. Contracts should specify data deletion timelines and limit secondary data use. The TrustEd Apps program has vetted over 12,000 products, providing a valuable resource for districts.
    • Simulate phishing attacks and test breach response protocols regularly. Cybersecurity training should be required for staff, and recovery plans must be reviewed annually.

    Trust starts with transparency

    In the rush to embrace AI, schools must not lose sight of their responsibility to protect students’ data and privacy. Transparency with parents, clarity for educators, and secure digital infrastructure are not optional. They are the baseline for trust in the age of algorithmic learning.

    AI can support personalized learning, but only if we put safety and privacy first. The time to act is now. Districts that move early to build policies, offer training, and coordinate oversight will be better prepared to lead AI adoption with confidence and care.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • ‘Who’s going to want these jobs?’: How the role of college president is changing

    ‘Who’s going to want these jobs?’: How the role of college president is changing

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

    In early June, the governing board of Florida’s university system surprised the higher education sector when it rejected Santa Ono as the sole finalist for the presidency of the University of Florida. Ono had faced backlash — led by conservative activist Christopher Rufo — over his past embrace of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts while head of the University of Michigan. 

    Later that month, University of Virginia President Jim Ryan abruptly stepped down after the U.S. Department of Justice pressured him to resign over the institution’s diversity efforts. Ryan said he wouldn’t fight to keep his job when staying would have cost the institution research funding and student aid and hurt international students. 

    The duties of the modern college president extend far beyond keeping their institutions viable.  For decades, how the head of a college is selected and who fills the position has been steadily shifting. Now, whoever assumes the role will likely take vitriol from both the public and policymakers.

    James Finkelstein, professor emeritus at George Mason University’s public policy school, researches leadership in higher education. We spoke with him about the changing role of the college president, the increased influence a presidency faces from both the political and private sectors and what that means for higher ed in the long run.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    HIGHER ED DIVE: How does one become a college president? And has that changed in recent decades?

    James Finkelstein, professor emeritus in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University

    James Finkelstein, professor emeritus at George Mason University

    Permission granted by Judith Wilde

     

    JAMES FINKELSTEIN: The traditional route would start with becoming an assistant professor. You get tenure next, and then you may start to move up the administrative ranks. The most common path was to go from provost to president. For now, that’s still the most common path, but it’s on the decline. 

    The problem is, provosts don’t fundraise. Deans do. And the No. 1 qualification that a board now looks for in a university president is their ability to raise money.

    Given that shift in priorities, how do college boards pick their institution’s next presidents?

    My colleague, Judith Wilde, and I have studied this process extensively, and boards are increasingly relying on executive search firms.

    We found that only 2% or 3% of presidential classified ads mentioned a search firm in 1975. Today, it’s almost 100%. And based on the data, that change has also correlated with the beginning of the decline in the length of university presidents’ tenure.

    Search firms do the initial screening and determine for the board which candidates are really viable. But very few of the search firm senior executives have any real experience in higher education and their No. 1 responsibility as fiduciaries is to return profit to investors. 

    From there, the board picks from the candidates highlighted by the search firm? What do they look for?

    Yes. People tend to look for candidates who look like them. And boards are not primarily made up of academics — the only thing most board members know about a university is that they got a degree from one. You’re seeing a lot more political types on the boards, as is the case in Virginia, or corporate types.

    It’s interesting, corporations don’t turn to universities for their leadership. They don’t select a college president to run them. The former president of TIAA [Clifton Wharton Jr.] was the only university president to become a CEO of a Fortune 500 company — and he led a company designed to serve universities.

    But many universities, at least 10% or so, will select a corporate executive to lead them.

    If boards expect university presidents to behave more like corporate executives than leaders of an educational, social and cultural institution — someone who serves the public — then the next generation of university leadership is going to look very different. You’re going to see a different kind of person be not only sought after but interested in these jobs because they think they can take their private sector skill set directly into higher ed.

    In recent years, the presidential compensation packages at some colleges have mirrored those of Fortune 500 CEOs. In 2022, Ben Sasse received a notably lucrative package when he was hired to lead the University of Florida, as you and Judith have discussed. What effect does that shift have on colleges?

    When I was an undergraduate, the university president probably wore a tweed sport coat with leather patches on the elbows. And the patches weren’t there to make a style statement; it’s because the elbows were worn out. If he had a car — and it was far and away “he” when I was in school —  it was a car from the university’s car pool that was several years old. 

    And in the past, presidents maintained some academic interests. They taught. They were visible on campus. 

    Now, university presidents drive expensive cars and are more likely to associate with people outside the university than faculty inside the university.

    Our sector does not enjoy the reputation with the public that it used to. There are all sorts of questions now about the value of a college degree. People generally think faculty get paid a lot of money and don’t do very much.

    More than anything, presidents today are facing the question of if there is a way to win back that trust.

    While college presidents are grappling with that question, though, they are also watching their positions become increasingly precarious. One recent example is Santa Ono, who had been set up as Sasse’s replacement. Traditionally, the vote from the Florida universities’ governing board would have been pro forma. What shifted the tides and left Ono out of a job?

    Ono was targeted by the Chris Rufo machine. You can go back and read Rufo’s interview with Politico and listen to his interview with The New York Times — he’s very public about his strategy to delegitimize leaders in higher ed. His team made a decision early on that they wanted one of their own in Florida. And Ono wasn’t it.

    Having watched the entire governing board meeting in Florida, my professional assessment is that I’ve never seen a president or someone of Ono’s stature so ill-prepared and give so poor a performance on every level.

    Whoever prepared him, didn’t. And if they did, they weren’t preparing him for the right thing. It was much like what happened to the college presidents who testified at congressional committee hearings. Ono wasn’t completely prepared that he was going to be essentially cross-examined by a former state legislator. 

    By that point, Ono had already announced his departure from the University of Michigan, leaving a highly debated track record on diversity efforts and the handling of student protests in his wake. Does he stand a chance of getting another job heading a university?

    About 75% of presidents are what we call one-and-done — they report they’ll hold one presidency, and that’s more than enough. The Gordon Gees of the world are the exception, not the rule.

    Ono was, in my view, the modern-day equivalent of [former West Virginia University President] Gordon Gee. He’s the professional president who developed a public persona. He developed it at the University of Cincinnati, refined it at the University of British Columbia, and then brought it to Michigan.

    But I’ve talked to people at Cincinnati and Michigan. The truth of the matter is, he wasn’t well-thought of by the faculty. And he burned out very quickly in Michigan.

    Ono shouldn’t be the model for the modern university president. Personally, I don’t think that he’s going to get another presidency after the Florida situation, at least not for a while. 

    Is the role of president still a consequential one? Do the heads of colleges wield influence in the same way they have in the past?

    Who the president is makes a difference. They set the tone of the institution in many ways. But presidents today can exercise less independent leadership than they did in the past — they’re being put on a shorter and shorter leash. 

    There are so many different constituencies that they’re having to serve, and a lot of those constituencies are in conflict with each other.

    Some presidents are engaging in what people call anticipatory compliance.

    “In order to avoid these conflicts,” the thinking goes, “I’m going to get one step ahead.” Sadly, what that means is that when the board intervenes, they want even more.

    Is there a world where that kind of interference becomes so unpleasant that it renders the job unpalatable? 

    I think for many serious potential candidates, the answer is yes. It doesn’t matter whether you’re being paid $1 million. Or if you have two country club memberships, a big car, a big house and staff, and all of that. These jobs have always been 24/7, 365. And the scrutiny is exponentially worse now. 

    The real question is: Who’s going to want these jobs? That’s part of the plan of critics of higher education. They want to drive people out so they can replicate what they’re doing in Florida and appoint political loyalists who have no experience in higher education.

    Even though conservatives are critical of what they see as judicial activism, they have been extraordinarily active on college boards, working to influence curriculum and promotions and tenure.

    The current climate changes things for all trustees, even those who don’t align with this thinking. Regardless of their backgrounds, no board will want to appoint a president who is going to put at risk all of their research funding. And the Trump administration has shown that it is willing to use any lever it has to bring these institutions under its thumb. Look how quickly Jim Ryan was gone from UVA.

    As you mentioned, presidents are serving increasingly shorter tenures, instead of holding the position for life, or at least until retirement. Beyond a loss of leadership consistency, does this turnover hurt colleges?

    Take Jim Ryan as an example. He’s 58 years old. 

    I assume the terms of his contract were renegotiated when he left, but based on my analysis of his 2022 contract, the university has a future liability of almost $17 million to him. He would actuarially retire from teaching in 15 years, and in 2038, his base salary would be over $1 million a year for teaching at most two courses a semester.

    The people who are actually doing most of the teaching at UVA in 2038 won’t be tenured or tenure track. They will be contingent faculty who are barely able to scrape together a living.

    If you put $10 million in a scholarship fund at UVA, would that be a better investment than keeping Ryan on the faculty? The answer is a no-brainer.  

    Source link

  • When American Greed is the Norm

    When American Greed is the Norm

    Greed is no longer a sin in America—it’s a system. It’s a curriculum. It’s a badge of success. In the American higher education marketplace, greed is not the exception. It’s the norm.

    We see it in the bloated salaries of university presidents who deliver austerity to everyone but themselves. We see it in billion-dollar endowments hoarded like dragon’s gold while students drown in debt. We see it in the metastasizing ranks of middlemen—consultants, online program managers, enrollment optimization firms—who profit off the dreams and desperation of working-class families.

    But greed in American higher education is more than a few bad actors or golden parachutes. It is institutionalized, normalized, and weaponized.

    The Student as Customer, the Campus as Marketplace

    It began with the rebranding of education as a “return on investment,” a transaction rather than a transformation. The purpose of college was no longer to liberate the mind but to monetize the degree.

    By the 1990s, under bipartisan neoliberal consensus, public colleges were defunded and forced to adopt the private sector’s logic: cut costs, raise prices, sell more. Tuition rose. Debt exploded. The ranks of administrators swelled while faculty were downsized and adjunctified. The market had spoken.

    But even that wasn’t enough. A generation of edu-preneurs emerged—Silicon Valley-funded disruptors, for-profit college chains, and online program managers—who turned learning into a scalable commodity. Robocolleges like Southern New Hampshire University, Purdue Global, and the University of Phoenix began operating more like tech platforms than institutions of thought.

    The result? Diploma mills at the front end and collection agencies at the back.

    Greed in the Name of God and Country

    Greed doesn’t always look like Wall Street. Sometimes it wears the face of morality. Religious colleges, some of them under the protection of nonprofit status, have become breeding grounds for political operatives and ideological grooming—while raking in millions through taxpayer-funded financial aid.

    Liberty University, Grand Canyon University, and a host of lesser-known Bible colleges operate under a warped theology of prosperity, turning salvation into a subscription plan. Meanwhile, they push anti-democratic ideologies and funnel money toward political causes far removed from the mission of education.

    Accreditation as a Shell Game

    The accreditors—the supposed watchdogs of educational quality—have been largely asleep at the wheel or complicit. When greed is the norm, accountability is an inconvenience. For-profit schools regularly reinvent themselves as nonprofits. Online program managers operate in regulatory gray zones. Mergers and acquisitions disguise collapse as growth.

    Accreditation agencies rubber-stamp it all, as long as the paperwork is tidy and the lobbyists are well-compensated.

    Debt as Discipline

    More than 43 million Americans carry federal student loan debt. Many will never escape it. This debt is not just financial—it’s ideological. It keeps the workforce compliant. It disciplines dissent. It renders critical thought a luxury.

    And those who push for debt relief? They are met with moral lectures about personal responsibility—from the same lawmakers who handed trillions to banks, defense contractors, and fossil fuel companies.

    Silicon Valley’s Hungry Mouth

    The new frontier of greed is AI. Tech giants like Google, Amazon Web Services, and Meta are embedding themselves deeper into education—not to empower learning, but to extract data, monetize behavior, and deepen surveillance. Every click, every quiz, every attendance record is a monetizable moment.

    Universities, starved for funding and afraid of obsolescence, are selling access to students in exchange for access to cloud infrastructure and algorithmic tools they barely understand.

    Greed Isn’t Broken—It’s Working as Designed

    In this system, who wins? Not students. Not faculty. Not society.

    The winners are those who turn knowledge into a commodity, compliance into virtue, and inequality into inevitability. Those who build castles from the bones of public education, then retreat behind walls of donor-backed endowments and think tanks. The winners are few. But they write the rules.

    A Different Future Is Possible

    If American greed is the norm, then what remains of education’s soul must be found in the margins—in the community college professor working three jobs. In the librarian defending open access. In the adjunct organizing a union. In the students refusing to be pawns in someone else’s game.

    The antidote to greed is not charity—it’s solidarity.

    Until justice is funded as well as football. Until learning is valued more than branding. Until access is more than a talking point on a donor brochure—then greed will remain not just a sin, but a system.

    Sources

    • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

    • The Century Foundation, “The OPM Industry: Profits Over Students” (2023)

    • Chronicle of Higher Education, “Administrative Bloat and the Adjunct Crisis”

    • IRS Nonprofit Filings, Liberty University and Grand Canyon University

    • Debt Collective, “The State of Student Debt” (2025)

    • Public records and audits of Title IV institutions, 2022–2024

    • Higher Education Inquirer archives

    Source link

  • More Campuses Earn “Green Light” Free Speech Ratings From FIRE

    More Campuses Earn “Green Light” Free Speech Ratings From FIRE

    The number of colleges and universities with written policies that do not seriously threaten student expression are on the rise this year, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 19th annual “Spotlight on Speech Codes” report, published Tuesday.

    Since 2006, FIRE has grouped hundreds of public and private higher education institutions into three overall categories based on their campus speech policies: green, yellow and red lights. This year, 73 of the 490 (14.9 percent) colleges and universities surveyed received a green light ranking—meaning their policies don’t threaten free expression—compared to 63 last year. It’s the highest share since 2012, when just 3.6 percent of institutions earned green-light ratings. 

    For the first time in 19 years, the number of green-light colleges outnumbered those in the red-light category (14.7 percent), reserved for institutions with policies that “clearly and substantially restrict free speech,” according to the report. Last year, 20 percent of institutions received a red-light rating.

    Although political and institutional responses to campus protests related to the Israel-Hamas war reignited debate over free expression last year, the report attributed the decrease in red-light ratings to colleges and universities revising their policies related to harassment, hate speech and bias-reporting systems. Specifically, the report said that while bias-reporting systems have become popular over the past decade, they “have invited students to report protected speech simply because it offends them,” turned academic institutions into “referees of political and academic speech,” and created a “chilling effect on campus expression.”

    Lawsuits, free speech advocacy—from students, alumni and groups like FIRE—and lawmaker scrutiny have all spurred changes in recent years.

    “Over a dozen institutions have either substantially revised or eliminated entirely their bias reporting systems,” the report said. “Others have significantly reduced the prominence of their bias reporting teams, either by reducing the number of places on their website the team is mentioned or by requiring students enter their credentials to access the policy information.”

    FIRE rated the majority of institutions—337, or 68.8 percent—as yellow, meaning they “maintain policies that impose vague regulations on expression.” And eight colleges—including Baylor University, Brigham Young University and Hillsdale College—received a warning rating for “clearly and consistently stat[ing] that they hold a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech.”

    Over all, private colleges have more restrictive policies than public colleges. Just 10.6 percent of public colleges earned red lights compared to 28 percent of private colleges—and only 7.1 percent of private colleges earned a green-light rating, compared to 17 percent of public ones.

    Source link