Blog

  • GOP-led House panel proposes 15% cut to Education Department

    GOP-led House panel proposes 15% cut to Education Department

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • House Republicans on Monday proposed a 15% cut to the U.S. Department of Education’s budget for the 2026 fiscal year, in line with President Donald Trump’s own plan to deeply reduce funding to the agency. 

    • The plan would advance several of Trump’s key budget proposals, including deep cuts to the Education Department and certain federal student aid programs. However, the plan would reject some of the Trump administration’s proposals, including by preserving the maximum Pell Grant at $7,395

    • House lawmakers will need to eventually square their proposals with the Senate, which is considering a different proposal that would largely maintain the Education Department’s current level of discretionary funding. Lawmakers face a government shutdown if they don’t fund the government or pass a stopgap budget measure by Oct. 1. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The House Appropriations Committee’s education subcommittee will mark up the proposal Tuesday evening. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican who chairs the subcommittee, framed the proposal as being in line with the priorities of the Trump administration. Trump has pitched deep spending cuts at the Education Department with the ultimate goal of closing the agency.

    Even last year, we were dedicated to getting government spending under control,” Aderholt said in a Monday statement. “But now, it’s particularly encouraging to have a partner in the White House that shares this commitment.”

    The House panel’s plan would reduce funding for the Education Department to $67 billion. That’s in line with Trump’s own budget proposal, which critics argued would reduce access to college. 

    Like Trump’s proposal, the House plan would eliminate all funding for the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, according to committee Democrats, who have slammed the proposal. FSEOG, which provides need-based financial aid to undergraduate students, was allocated $910 million in fiscal 2025. 

    It would similarly make deep cuts to the Federal Work-Study program, which provides part-time jobs to college students who demonstrate sufficient financial need. The federal government currently pays up to 75% of students’ wages, while employers pay the remainder. 

    The plan would reduce funding to the program to $779 million, $451 million less than 2025 levels, according to committee Democrats. The Trump administration has proposed even deeper cuts, calling for the program to receive only $250 million in the 2026 fiscal year. 

    The House Appropriations Committee’s plan would also embrace Trump’s proposal to cut funding to the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates discrimination, harassment and sexual violence complaints on college campuses. Under the proposal, OCR would receive $91 million, a decrease of $49 million. 

    And it would zero out funding for several grant and fellowship programs administered by the Education Department, including those that support teacher preparation, campus-based childcare for students and foreign language instruction. 

    However, House Republicans rejected some of the Trump administration’s proposals. For instance, the plan would preserve the maximum Pell Grant, in contrast with the White House’s plan to reduce it by roughly 23% to $5,710

    The plan would also keep funding level for TRIO and Gear Up, two programs that help low-income and other disadvantaged students prepare for and complete college. Trump has proposed eliminating the nearly $1.6 billion in funding allocated for TRIO and Gear Up in fiscal 2025, raising concerns from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. 

    The House Appropriations Committee would also cut funding to the National Institutes of Health. It would allocate $47.8 billion to the agency, a $456 million drop from 2025 levels, according to committee Democrats. Trump’s plan, in contrast, called for a nearly $18 billion funding reduction to the agency. 

    Additionally, the plan seeks to rename Workforce Pell Grants, which will provide funding for programs as short as eight weeks, following Republicans’ recent passage of a massive domestic policy bill. Under the proposal, the awards would be renamed Trump Grants “to reflect the President’s commitment to growing the American workforce and expanding opportunities for American workers,” according to a bill summary.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee advanced its own budget proposal in July. It would keep funding largely level for the Education Department at $79 billion for fiscal 2026. 

    That would include maintaining funding levels for TRIO, Gear Up, Federal Work-Study and FSEOG. It would also maintain OCR’s current funding level and provide support for teacher preparation grants.

    Source link

  • Most Popular Articles in the Higher Education Inquirer (8-26 to 9-2)

    Most Popular Articles in the Higher Education Inquirer (8-26 to 9-2)

    The Higher Education Inquirer continues to attract readers with investigations into corruption, scandal, and the financial burdens placed on students and families. This week’s most-read articles reflect a strong interest in for-profit institutions, university leadership controversies, and the growing student loan crisis.

    Source link

  • 5 Ways Higher Ed Marketing Is Evolving in 2025 & Beyond

    5 Ways Higher Ed Marketing Is Evolving in 2025 & Beyond

    Higher ed marketing is changing faster than ever.

    From generative AI to shifting student expectations, higher ed marketing in 2025 is a whole new game. And institutions that fail to adapt risk falling behind. 

    The past few years have brought seismic shifts to the way colleges and universities connect with prospective students. From AI-driven search to heightened public scrutiny of higher education’s value, the marketing landscape looks very different than it did even three years ago. 

    Institutions now operate in an environment where: 

    • Search behavior is changing as generative AI delivers instant answers that bypass traditional search results. 
    • Trust is under pressure as students and families weigh the true return on a college investment. 
    • Student journeys are more complex with expectations for personalized, multi-channel engagement from first inquiry through alumni relations. 
    • Data integrity is paramount as analytics get clouded by bots and misleading signals. 

    The good news? These changes also open new opportunities for colleges and universities to stand out with authentic storytelling, data-driven strategies, and student-centered engagement. 

    Keep reading to discover five of the most important higher education marketing trends in today’s landscape — and how institutions can adapt to thrive in this new era. 

    5 Higher education marketing strategies to keep your institution ahead 

    Before diving into the specifics, it’s important to recognize that these strategies build on one another to reflect today’s most pressing challenges and opportunities in higher ed marketing. 

    Here’s a closer look at the strategies every institution should be considering today: 

    1. Optimizing for the AI searcher 

    Generative AI is redefining how prospective students find information. Zero-click searches — where answers appear directly in AI Overviews like Google’s AI-generated summaries or conversational search tools — now account for the majority of queries. That’s a paradigm shift for higher ed marketing. 

    Organic traffic has dropped dramatically, in some cases by more than 30%. But while volume is down, conversion rates are rising, as the students who do land on institutional websites are more informed and further along in their decision-making. 

    Strategic response 
    To adapt, institutions must embrace Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). This means: 

    • Creating structured, conversational content designed for AI retrieval. 
    • Prioritizing FAQs, clear definitions, and outcome-driven data. 
    • Diversifying traffic sources with a mix of SEO, paid campaigns, and strong digital experiences. 

    This is no longer just an SEO shift. It’s a cornerstone of higher education marketing strategy for 2025 and beyond. 

    2. AI-supported, human-centered creative 

    AI is now embedded in higher ed marketing workflows, helping generate campaign ideas, personalize messaging, and predict outcomes. But the real competitive edge comes when AI enhances, not replaces, human creativity. 

    Approach for higher education marketing teams 

    • Use AI to accelerate production: ideation, headlines, personalization cues. 
    • Keep teams focused on authentic, human-driven storytelling. 
    • Build a culture that values both technological fluency and creative intuition. 

    This approach delivers efficiency while preserving empathy — critical when communicating complex outcomes like institutional ROI or program value. This balance is what separates innovative higher education marketing trends from short-lived tactics. 

    3. Building institutional trust 

    Public skepticism about the value of higher education is rising. Families are asking: Is the investment worth it? What outcomes can we expect? With the demographic cliff looming, institutions must double down on proving their value. 

    Strategic levers for higher ed marketing 

    • Spotlight outcomes: Share data on job placement, graduate earnings, and alumni success stories. 
    • Showcase testimonials: Humanize ROI with student voices and career impact narratives. 
    • Reinforce program value: Use research and rankings to strengthen credibility. 

    Trust is now a competitive differentiator. Institutions that clearly communicate value, ROI, and outcomes position themselves for long-term success in a skeptical environment. 

    4. Cross-lifecycle marketing 

    Higher education marketing strategy can no longer stop at the inquiry. The student journey is long, nonlinear, and filled with digital touchpoints that extend well past enrollment. 

    How to approach it 

    • Use remarketing to reinforce brand and program value throughout the funnel. 
    • Engage students across the lifecycle — from inquiry to enrollment to retention and even alumni relations. 
    • Tailor content to each stage, aligning messages to nurture confidence, reduce uncertainty, and strengthen connection. 

    Success isn’t always about clicks or form fills. Sometimes the goal is reassurance, engagement, or retention. Adopting lifecycle-based KPIs ensures institutions are measuring what truly matters. 

    5. Bot mitigation 

    Bot traffic is a growing challenge for institutions. Automated hits can inflate website visits, distort engagement metrics, and ultimately mislead decision-makers about which campaigns are working. When analytics are clouded by non-human activity, institutions risk allocating resources to the wrong strategies and missing opportunities to connect with real prospective students. 

    Best practices for higher ed marketing teams 

    • Set up filters in Google Analytics to remove known bot traffic. 
    • Partner with bot mitigation providers to extend protections to include inquiry and application forms, safeguarding against fraudulent submissions. 
    • Regularly audit campaign data to ensure accuracy. 

    Clean data leads to better decisions and in higher education marketing, clarity is non-negotiable. 

    Embracing the future of higher ed marketing 

    The most effective higher education marketing strategies today are those that combine technology with authenticity. AI search and personalization will continue to evolve, but the fundamentals remain constant: institutions must build trust, deliver value, and guide students throughout their entire lifecycle. 

    Collegis Education partners with institutions to design and deliver data-enabled marketing strategies that drive enrollment, build trust, and support student success. Let’s talk about what that could look like for your campus. 

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Student AI Use on the Rise: Why Universities Must Lead with Ethical Support

    Student AI Use on the Rise: Why Universities Must Lead with Ethical Support

    Title: 2025 U.S. Student Wellbeing Survey

    Source: Studiosity in partnership with YouGov

    The higher education landscape is undergoing a profound transformation shaped by rapid technological advancements and shifting student expectations. The 2025 U.S. Student Wellbeing Survey, conducted by Studiosity in partnership with YouGov, offers in-depth insights into student behavior, particularly their growing reliance on AI tools for academic support.

    The report states that 82 percent of U.S. students have used AI for assignments or study tasks. This trend is even more pronounced among international students, with 40 percent reporting regular AI use compared with 24 percent of domestic students. The findings make clear: AI is no longer emerging—it’s central to the student academic experience.

    While student use of AI is high, only 58 percent of respondents feel their universities are adapting quickly enough to provide institution-approved AI tools, a figure that shows minimal improvement from 2024 (57 percent). Furthermore, 55 percent of students now expect their institution to provide AI support, reflecting shifting priorities among students. This year, “confidence” overtook “speed” as the main reason students prefer institution-provided AI tools, underscoring the demand for reliable and ethical solutions.

    The data also highlight heightened stress levels linked to AI use, with 66 percent of students reporting some level of anxiety about incorporating AI into their studies. Students voiced concerns about academic integrity, accidental plagiarism, and cognitive offloading. One student said, “AI tools usually need a well-detailed prompt. Most times AI gets outdated data. Most importantly, the more reliable AI tools require payment, which makes things unnecessarily hard.” This highlights an equity issue in AI use, as some students reported paying for a premium AI tool to get better results. Those experiencing constant academic stress were more likely to report regular AI use, suggesting a need for support systems that integrate human connection with technological assistance.

    The research emphasizes actionable strategies for universities:

    • Develop or purchase institution-backed AI tools with clear ethical guidelines.
    • Provide transparent and consistent policies to help students understand how to use AI responsibly.
    • Integrate AI support with existing academic services to preserve human interaction and peer engagement.
    • Ensure equitable, affordable access to AI technologies to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities.

    As students navigate an increasingly AI-driven academic environment, universities must step into a leadership role. Providing ethical, institution-approved AI tools isn’t just about keeping pace with technology; it’s about safeguarding learning, reducing stress, and fostering confidence in academic outcomes. The 2025 survey makes one thing clear: students are ready for universities to meet them where they are in their AI use, but they are asking for guidance and assurance in doing so.

    To download a copy of the USA report, click here. For global reports and surveys, including cross-institutional meta-analyses and educator surveys, click here.


    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Apollo Wants Investors to Buy Back the University of Phoenix. They Shouldn’t. (David Halperin)

    Apollo Wants Investors to Buy Back the University of Phoenix. They Shouldn’t. (David Halperin)

    Having failed to complete deals to sell the troubled giant for-profit University of Phoenix to major state universities in Arkansas and Idaho — after people in those states got cold feet — the school’s owner, private equity behemoth Apollo Global Management, just before the holiday weekend announced an initial public offering for the school. 

    Phoenix’s parent company had been publicly traded until AGM and two other firms took the company private in 2017. Now they have gone back to Wall Street to re-sell the school to investors. 

    But should investors want to buy this operation? The presence of the heavily-advertised University of Phoenix in the college market has been bad for U.S. students, taxpayers, and the economy, because it has led many students to enroll in a school that often deceives people, and often leaves students with heavy debts and without the careers they sought — when they could be using taxpayer support and their own money to enroll in better value programs. 

    Moral and macro-economic concerns aside, it’s not even clear that buying Phoenix will be good for investor bottom lines. 

    The University of Phoenix, which has received tens of billions from federal taxpayers for student grants and loans — at times more than $2 billion in a single year — has faced numerous law enforcement investigations and actions for its deceptive recruiting of veterans, military service members, and other students across the country.

    Most notably, in 2019, Phoenix reached a record $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which claimed the school had lured students with false claims about partnerships with major employers. Phoenix ran ads falsely indicating that the school had deals with companies including AT&T, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, and the American Red Cross to create job opportunities for its students and tailor school programs for such jobs, when that was not the case. The deceptive claim went to the heart of prospective students’ motivations for enrolling. Andrew Smith, then the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at the time of the agreement, “Students making important decisions about their education need the facts, not fantasy job opportunities that do not exist.”

    And last year California’s attorney general reached a settlement with Phoenix to resolve allegations that the school’s aggressive recruitment tactics directed at military students violated consumer protection laws. 

    The now almost entirely online school did a two-year dance with the University of Idaho that drew immense criticism from lawmakers, executive branch officials, newspaper editorial boards, and others in that state before the deal was finally called off in June.

    Bloomberg reported earlier this year that an IPO might value the University of Phoenix operation, which had $810 million in revenue for 2023-24 (81 percent of that from federal taxpayer dollars), at $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion. And the new Trump administration has signaled in multiple ways that it is reducing protections for students against predatory college abuses, a development that may make investors more willing to buy a piece of a school like Phoenix.

    But new federal legislation requires schools to provide some financial value for students. Also, state attorneys general, who have curbed and even slayed a number of for-profit giants over a decade, are watching; the media understands this issue, as it did not in the last wild west era fifteen years ago; and more potential students are wary after a generation of abuses.

    So it may end up being much tougher to thrive in the predatory college business than some might think. 

    Source link

  • Job Description Form

    Job Description Form

    Job Descriptions

    Job Description Form

    If you have descriptions you are willing to share, please use this form to submit them for consideration. Thank you for helping us build this valuable resource.

    The post Job Description Form appeared first on CUPA-HR.

    Source link

  • How Small College Presidents Are Leading Through Uncertainty – Edu Alliance Journal

    How Small College Presidents Are Leading Through Uncertainty – Edu Alliance Journal

    Insights from three post-COVID presidents on enrollment, financial sustainability, and strategic innovation

    September 3, 2025, by Dean Hoke: Small colleges across America face an unprecedented convergence of challenges—demographic shifts, federal policy changes, evolving student expectations, and the lingering effects of COVID-19. In an August 27th Small College America webinar hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds, three presidents shared how they are navigating these pressures with fresh strategies and resilient leadership: Dr. Anita Gustafson of Presbyterian College, Dr. Andrea Talentino of Augustana College, and Dr. Tarek Sobh of Lawrence Technological University.

    Their conversation revealed that while the obstacles are significant, thoughtful leadership and adaptive strategies can position small colleges to not just survive but thrive.

    The Enrollment and Financial Sustainability Imperative

    Finding Opportunity in Transfers

    For Presbyterian College, located in growing South Carolina, President Gustafson has found opportunity amid challenge. “About 60% of our students come from South Carolina, and the state is growing, which helps us,” she noted. However, rather than relying solely on traditional recruitment, the college has pivoted to focus on transfer students—a population they hadn’t previously targeted.

    This strategic shift required significant cultural change. “We have very robust general education requirements, and we are working with our faculty to be more transfer-friendly,” Gustafson explained. The result has been a notable enrollment bump, demonstrating how institutional flexibility can open new pathways to growth.

    The Four R’s Framework

    At Augustana College in Illinois—a state that isn’t growing—President Talentino has developed what she calls the “four R’s” approach: recruitment, retention, revenue, and results. This framework drives their strategic planning and helps the entire campus community understand how their work connects to institutional sustainability.

    “We budget actually 11 years out,” Talentino shared, acknowledging that “it’s a little bit like the weather—once you get past day three or four, it could rain when it’s supposed to be sunny.” This long-term perspective allows the college to anticipate challenges and make gradual adjustments rather than reactive cuts.

    Both presidents emphasize conservative budgeting practices. As Gustafson put it: “When we build our budget, we build it on conservative numbers so that we’re not trying to overextend our budget. I think that’s really key to sustainability—making sure you’re being realistic.”

    Confronting Federal Policy and International Student Challenges

    The STEM Advantage and Vulnerability

    Lawrence Technological University’s focus on STEM education has provided both advantages and vulnerabilities in the current environment. President Sobh noted that domestic demand for technologically trained professionals has driven significant interest in their programs. “Our programming, given the surge and the need for technological education, has been serving us well from a domestic growth point of view,” he explained.

    However, like many engineering-focused institutions, Lawrence Tech has experienced a decline in international student enrollment. Sobh emphasized that this challenge extends beyond individual institutions: “The same statement would probably be true of every single one of the universities in the country that is home to a college of engineering.”

    International Student Success Stories

    Despite broader challenges, Augustana College achieved remarkable success with international student recruitment. President Talentino reported that they expect to bring in close to 85% of their original international student goal, “probably one of the few places in the country where we’re going to come that close.”

    This success resulted from intensive, hands-on communication and their focus on undergraduate rather than graduate international students, who faced fewer visa complications. About 20% of Augustana’s student body consists of international students, making this achievement particularly significant for their financial sustainability.

    Managing Financial Aid Changes

    The recent changes to federal financial aid programs have created additional complexity. Talentino noted that Augustana has some protection through a generous alumnus who funds a program meeting 100% of the needs of high-achieving, high-need students. However, she acknowledged ongoing challenges: “There’s a lot of folks in the middle where parent loans are being squeezed and caps on borrowing are being squeezed.”

    Strategic Technology Investment and AI Integration

    The Liberal Arts Approach to AI

    President Gustafson acknowledged the challenge of staying current with AI developments at a liberal arts institution. Presbyterian College has taken a pragmatic approach, partnering with external agencies for micro-credentialing programs that will eventually extend to alumni.

    “Our graduates need to understand AI. They need to know how to use it in order to be competitive in the job market,” Gustafson emphasized. The college has also established a technology committee with campus-wide representation to develop long-term budgeting strategies for technology infrastructure.

    AI as an Institutional Efficiency Tool

    At Lawrence Tech, President Sobh described AI integration as both natural and transformative. Beyond curriculum integration, the university has embraced AI for business processes. “Our marketing, branding, and public relations departments are using AI for the development of marketing campaigns, which is 100 times more efficient, faster, cheaper, and more productive than not using AI,” he noted.

    This efficiency extends across departments, from budget management to communications, though Sobh acknowledged that implementation remains “work in progress” for non-academic staff who need training and support.

    Evolving Student Experience and Support

    Becoming “Student Ready”

    President Talentino introduced the concept of institutions becoming “student ready” rather than expecting students to be “college ready.” This perspective shift has driven comprehensive changes at Augustana, from streamlining onboarding processes to reconsidering when and how students want to engage with services.

    “We can’t take things that we used to take for granted,” Talentino observed, noting that students today have different expectations and needs than previous generations. The college has revamped peer mentor programs, developed success teams for every student, and created specialized support centers like their new STEM center.

    Supporting First-Generation Students

    Presbyterian College’s focus on first-generation students—about one-third of its population—has led to innovative programming. Their “PresbyFirst Plus” program brings first-gen students to campus two days early and has earned recognition as a “first-gen forward network champion.”

    This targeted support reflects broader changes in student demographics. As Gustafson noted: “Students of today don’t have the reading skills and the math skills that previous generations have had.” This reality has required faculty to adapt their approaches, sometimes focusing on foundational skills before advancing to advanced content.

    Bold Strategic Moves

    Creating New Academic Pathways

    Lawrence Tech’s establishment of a fifth college—the College of Health Sciences—represents a significant strategic pivot for the 95-year-old institution. “It was quite a bold move to establish a new college 50 years or so after the last one had been established,” President Sobh noted.

    This expansion into health sciences aligns with the growing demand for technologically trained healthcare professionals. The college now offers programs in nursing, physician assistant studies, and cardiovascular perfusion, and more programs are planned.

    Community Development as Institutional Strategy

    Perhaps the most innovative approach comes from Augustana College’s creation of a community development corporation (CDC). President Talentino explained that the condition of the surrounding neighborhood had become a recruiting challenge, with prospective students and families expressing concerns about the area.

    Rather than simply hoping for external improvement, Augustana committed to an active partnership with the city of Rock Island. The CDC purchases and renovates properties to create mixed-use developments with retail on the first floor and housing above. “We really committed to putting our money where our mouth is,” Talentino said.

    This initiative aligns with Lutheran principles of service to neighbor while addressing a practical institutional need. The city has become an enthusiastic partner, and the project has energized both campus and community.

    Leadership Principles for Uncertain Times

    Transparency and Partnership

    President Gustafson’s leadership philosophy centers on transparency and symbiotic relationships. Her first-year theme, “Symbiosis—stronger together,” emphasized that the academic community functions best when operating collaboratively rather than in silos.

    Her second-year pivot to “don’t panic, navigate”—borrowed from the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities—has helped the leadership team manage multiple simultaneous challenges. This approach emphasizes thoughtful response over reactive decision-making.

    Cultural Understanding and Patience

    President Sobh, who transitioned from provost to president at the same institution, emphasized the importance of cultural understanding. Despite the temptation to implement changes quickly, he spent his first semester meeting with every colleague on campus—”literally hundreds” of people—to understand institutional culture and aspirations.

    “The tendency of leaders to effect changes immediately is, in my opinion, the wrong decision,” Sobh reflected. “Waiting and listening to the culture of the institution, understanding the aspiration and history, and how my own interests can be integrated into that vision is absolutely worthwhile.”

    Institutional vs. Individual Focus

    President Talentino identified a key leadership challenge: helping people understand institutional needs beyond their individual or departmental perspectives. She noted that this represents one of her biggest adjustments from faculty and provost roles to the presidency.

    “Focus on self and focus on own department rather than institutional-wide awareness was a little bit of a surprise to me,” she admitted, “but I guess that’s what makes it challenging and never boring.”

    The Value Proposition Message

    All three presidents emphasized the importance of clearly articulating their institutions’ value propositions to various constituencies. President Sobh stressed the power of concrete outcomes: “Being able to say 97% of my students continue on and are employed at this level and they are guaranteed a job and 85% live locally—that’s an incredibly powerful statement.”

    President Gustafson focused on framing liberal arts education in terms of workforce development and democratic leadership: “All of us are important contributors to workforce development. If we can shape our message around workforce development, economic development, and providing leaders for a democratic society, that’s very helpful.”

    Looking Forward

    These three presidents demonstrate that successful leadership during uncertain times requires a combination of strategic thinking, cultural sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Their approaches vary based on institutional type and regional context, but common themes emerge: the importance of transparency, the need for long-term planning with short-term flexibility, and the value of viewing challenges as opportunities for innovation.

    As small colleges continue to navigate demographic shifts, policy changes, and evolving student needs, these leadership insights offer practical guidance for presidents, boards, and stakeholders committed to the distinctive mission of small college education.

    The conversation reveals that while the challenges facing small colleges are significant, innovative leadership and strategic adaptation can position these institutions not just to survive, but to thrive in serving their communities and students.

    The complete webinar is available on the Small College America YouTube Channel at https://youtu.be/ya1FBu9eS5Q, and the audio podcast can be accessed at https://smallcollegeamerica.transistor.fm/19


    Small College America is a podcast series that presents critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast will delve into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience. The series is co-hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds.

    Source link

  • Job Descriptions – Academic Affairs

    Job Descriptions – Academic Affairs

    Job Description Index

    Academic Affairs

    Developed with the help of volunteer leaders and member institutions across the country, The Job Descriptions Index provides access to sample job descriptions for positions unique to higher education.

    Descriptions housed within the index are aligned with the annual survey data collected by the CUPA-HR research team. To aid in the completion of IPEDS and other reporting, all position descriptions are accompanied by a crosswalk section like the one below.

    Crosswalk Example

    Position Number: The CUPA-HR position number
    BLS SOC#: Bureau of Labor Statistics occupation classification code
    BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Bureau of Labor Statistics occupation category title
    US Census Code#: U.S. Census occupation classification code
    VETS-4212 Category: EEO-1 job category title used on VETS-4212 form

    ***SOC codes are provided as suggestions only. Variations in the specific functions of a position may cause the position to better align with an alternate SOC code.

    Sample Job Descriptions

    Academic Advisor/Counselor

    Academic Evaluator

    Academic Support Coordinator

    Continuing Education Conference/Workshop Coordinator

    Continuing Education Specialist

    Credential Specialist

    Curriculum Development Specialist

    Faculty Development Professional

    Head, Executive Education

    Head, Campus Educational Media Services

    Head, Campus Learning Resources Center

    Head, Campus Teaching Center

    Head, Foreign Student Services

    Head, Intensive English Program

    Head, Student Academic Counseling

    Head, Theater/Performing Arts Center

    Head, Tutoring Program

    Instructional Technology, Faculty Support Manager

    Instructional Technology, Specialist

    Librarian, Data Services

    Librarian, Digital Scholarship

    Librarian, Research and Instruction (Ref Level I)

    Librarian, Scholarly Communications

    Librarian, Systems/Digital Resources

    Online Instructional Designer

    Study Abroad Advisor

    Study Abroad Program Coordinator

    The post Job Descriptions – Academic Affairs appeared first on CUPA-HR.

    Source link

  • Job Description Index

    Job Description Index

    Job Description Index

    About the Job Description Index

    Developed with the help of volunteer leaders and member institutions across the country, The Job Description Index provides access to sample job descriptions for positions unique to higher education.

    Descriptions housed within the index are aligned with the annual survey data collected by the CUPA-HR research team. To aid in the completion of IPEDS and other reporting, all position descriptions are accompanied by a crosswalk section like the one below.

    Crosswalk Example

    Position Number: The CUPA-HR position number
    BLS SOC#: Bureau of Labor Statistics occupation classification code
    BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Bureau of Labor Statistics occupation category title
    US Census Code#: U.S. Census occupation classification code
    VETS-4212 Category: EEO-1 job category title used on VETS-4212 form

    ***SOC codes are provided as suggestions only. Variations in the specific functions of a position may cause the position to better align with an alternate SOC code.

    Find a Description – Job Categories

    • Academic Affairs
    • Athletic Affairs
    • Extension Programs
    • External Affairs
    • Facilities
    • Fiscal Affairs
    • Institutional Affairs
    • Research Professionals
    • Student Affairs
    Help Build the List

    All examples in the Job Description Index come directly from member contributions. You can help us grow the index further by sharing sample descriptions for any of the positions on our desired positions list.

    The post Job Description Index appeared first on CUPA-HR.

    Source link

  • Phones, devices, and the limits of control: Rethinking school device policies

    Phones, devices, and the limits of control: Rethinking school device policies

    Key points:

    By now, it’s no secret that phones are a problem in classrooms. A growing body of research and an even louder chorus of educators point to the same conclusion: students are distracted, they’re disengaged, and their learning is suffering. What’s less clear is how to solve this issue. 

    Of late, school districts across the country are drawing firmer lines. From Portland, Maine to Conroe, Texas and Springdale, Arkansas, administrators are implementing “bell-to-bell” phone bans, prohibiting access from the first bell to the last. Many are turning to physical tools like pouches and smart lockers, which lock away devices for the duration of the day, to enforce these rules. The logic is straightforward: take the phones away, and you eliminate the distraction.

    In many ways, it works. Schools report fewer behavioral issues, more focused classrooms, and an overall sense of calm returning to hallways once buzzing with digital noise. But as these policies scale, the limitations are becoming more apparent.

    But students, as always, find ways around the rules. They’ll bring second phones to school or slip their device in undetected–and more. Teachers, already stretched thin, are now tasked with enforcement, turning minor infractions into disciplinary incidents. 

    Some parents and students are also pushing back, arguing that all-day bans are too rigid, especially when phones serve as lifelines for communication, medical needs, or even digital learning. In Middletown, Connecticut, students reportedly became emotional just days after a new ban took effect, citing the abrupt change in routine and lack of trust.

    The bigger question is this: Are we trying to eliminate phones, or are we trying to teach responsible use?

    That distinction matters. While it’s clear that phone misuse is widespread and the intent behind bans is to restore focus and reduce anxiety, blanket prohibitions risk sending the wrong message. Instead of fostering digital maturity, they can suggest that young people are incapable of self-regulation. And in doing so, they may sidestep an important opportunity: using school as a place to practice responsible tech habits, not just prohibit them.

    This is especially critical given the scope of the problem. A recent study by Fluid Focus found that students spend five to six hours a day on their phones during school hours. Two-thirds said it had a negative impact on their academic performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 77 percent of school leaders believe phones hurt learning. The data is hard to ignore.

    But managing distraction isn’t just about removal. It’s also about design. Schools that treat device policy as an infrastructure issue, rather than a disciplinary one, are beginning to implement more structured approaches. 

    Some are turning to smart locker systems that provide centralized, secure phone storage while offering greater flexibility: configurable access windows, charging capabilities, and even low admin options to help keep teachers teaching. These systems don’t “solve” the phone problem, but they do help schools move beyond the extremes of all-or-nothing.

    And let’s not forget equity. Not all students come to school with the same tech, support systems, or charging access. A punitive model that assumes all students have smartphones (or can afford to lose access to them) risks deepening existing divides. Structured storage systems can help level the playing field, offering secure and consistent access to tech tools without relying on personal privilege or penalizing students for systemic gaps.

    That said, infrastructure alone isn’t the answer. Any solution needs to be accompanied by clear communication, transparent expectations, and intentional alignment with school culture. Schools must engage students, parents, and teachers in conversations about what responsible phone use actually looks like and must be willing to revise policies based on feedback. Too often, well-meaning bans are rolled out with minimal explanation, creating confusion and resistance that undermine their effectiveness.

    Nor should we idealize “focus” as the only metric of success. Mental health, autonomy, connection, and trust all play a role in creating school environments where students thrive. If students feel overly surveilled or infantilized, they’re unlikely to engage meaningfully with the values behind the policy. The goal should not be control for its own sake, it should be cultivating habits that carry into life beyond the classroom.

    The ubiquity of smartphones is undeniable. While phones are here to stay, the classroom represents one of the few environments where young people can learn how to use them wisely, or not at all. That makes schools not just sites of instruction, but laboratories for digital maturity.

    The danger isn’t that we’ll do too little. It’s that we’ll settle for solutions that are too simplistic or too focused on optics, instead of focusing  not on outcomes.

    We need more than bans. We need balance. That means moving past reactionary policies and toward systems that respect both the realities of modern life and the capacity of young people to grow. It means crafting strategies that support teachers without overburdening them, that protect focus without sacrificing fairness, and that reflect not just what we’re trying to prevent, but what we hope to build.

    The real goal shouldn’t be to simply get phones out of kids’ hands. It should be to help them learn when to put them down on their own.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link