This blog is by Rod Bristow is CEO of College Online which provides access to lifelong learning, Chair of Council at the University of Bradford, Visiting Professor at the UCL Institute of Education, Chair of the Kortext Academic Advisory Board and former President at Pearson.
I am an advocate for education technology. It is a growing force for good, providing great solutions to real problems:
Reducing teacher workload through lesson planning, curriculum development, homework submission and marking, formative assessments, course management systems and more;
Improving learning outcomes through engaging, immersive experiences, adaptive assessments and the generation of rich data about learning;
Widening access to content and tools through aggregation platforms across thousands of publishers and millions of textbooks; and
Widening access to courses and qualifications for the purpose of lifelong learning using online and blended modes of delivery.
Products and services that solve these problems will continue to take root.
All that said, we have not seen the widespread transformation in education that technology promised to deliver, and investors have had their fingers burned. We could argue this results from unrealistic expectations rather than poor achievement, but there are lessons to be learned.
According to HolonIQ:
2024 saw $2.4 billion of EdTech Venture Capital, representing the lowest level of investment since 2015. The hype of 2021 is well and truly over, with investors seeking fundamentals over ‘fluff’.
The chart says it all. Steady growth in investment over the last decade culminated in a huge peak during Covid. Hype and ‘fluff’ overtook rational thinking, and several superficially attractive businesses spiked and then plummeted in value. In education, details and evidence of impact (or efficacy) matter. Without them, lasting scale is much harder to achieve.
The pendulum has now swung the other way, with investors harder to convince. Investors and entrepreneurs need to ask the question, ‘Does it work?’ before considering how it scales. If they do, they will see plenty of applications that both work and scale, and better-educated investors will be good for the sector.
One of the biggest barriers to scale is the complexity of implementation with teachers, without whom there is little impact. Without getting into the debate about teacher autonomy, most teachers like to do their own thing. And products which bypass teachers, marketed directly to consumers, often struggle to show as much impact and financial return.
Will things be different with AI? The technology, being many times more powerful, will handle much greater flexibility of implementation for teachers than we have seen so far. AI has even greater potential to solve real problems: widening access to learning, saving time for teachers and engaging learners through adaptive digital formative assessment and deeply immersive learning experiences through augmented reality.
But risks of ‘over-selling’ the benefits of AI technologies are potentially heightened by its very power. AI can generate mind-boggling ‘solutions’ for learners which dramatically reduce workload. Some of these are good in making learning more efficient, but questions of efficacy remain. Learning intrinsically requires work: it is done by you, not to you. Technology should not try to make learning easy, but to make hard work stimulating and productive if it is to sustain over the long term.
There is a clear and present danger that AI will undermine learning if high-stakes assessments relying on coursework do not keep pace with the reality of AI. This is a risk yet to be gripped by regulators. There is also little evidence that, for example, AI will ever replace the inspiration of human teachers, and those saying their solutions will do so must make a very strong case. Technology companies can help, but they can also do harm.
New technologies must be grounded in what improves learning, especially when unleashing the power of AI. This is entirely possible.
There are many areas of great promise, but none more so than the enormous expansion in online access to lifelong learning for working people who are otherwise denied the education they need. There are now eight million people (mainly adults) studying for degrees online and tens of millions of people taking shorter online skills courses. Opening access to lifelong learning to everyone remains education’s biggest unmet need and opportunity. Education technologies can be ‘designed in’ to the entire learning experience from the beginning, rather than retrofitted by overworked teachers. Widening access to lifelong learning could deliver a greater transformation to the economy and society than we have seen in 100 years.
Learning tools and platforms are one thing, but what do people need to learn in a world changed by AI? Much has been written about the potential for technology and especially AI to change what people need to learn. A popular narrative is that skills will be more important than knowledge; that knowledge can be so easily searched through the internet or created with AI, there is no need for it to be learned.
Skills do matter, but these statements are wrong. We should not choose between skills and knowledge. Skills are a representation of knowledge. With no knowledge or expertise, there is no skill. More than that, in a world in which AI will have an unimaginable impact on society, we should remember that knowledge provides the very basis of our ability to think and that human memory is the residue of thought.
Only a deeper understanding of learning and the real problems we need to solve will unleash the huge potential for technology to unlock wider access, a better learning experience and higher outcomes. To simultaneously hold the benefits and the risks of AI in a firm embrace, we will need courage, imagination and clarity about the problems to be solved before we get swept up in the hype and fluff. The opportunity is too big to put at risk.
PITTSBURGH — Stephen Wells was trained in the Air Force to work on F-16 fighter jets, including critical radar, navigation and weapons systems whose proper functioning meant life or death for pilots.
Yet when he left the service and tried to apply that expertise toward an education at Pittsburgh’s Community College of Allegheny County, or CCAC, he was given just three credits toward a required class in physical education.
Wells moved forward anyway, going on to get his bachelor’s and doctoral degrees. Now he’s CCAC’s provost and involved in a citywide project to help other people transform their military and work experience into academic credit.
What’s happening in Pittsburgh is part of growing national momentum behind letting students — especially the increasing number who started but never completed a degree — cash in their life skills toward finally getting one, saving them time and money.
Colleges and universities have long purported to provide what’s known in higher education as credit for prior learning. But they have made the process so complex, slow and expensive that only about 1 in 10 students actually completes it.
Many students don’t even try, especially low-income learners who could benefit the most, according to a study by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, or CAEL.
“It drives me nuts” that this promise has historically proven so elusive, Wells said, in his college’s new Center for Education, Innovation & Training.
Stephen Wells, provost at the Community College of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh. An Air Force veteran, Wells got only a handful of academic credits for his military experience. Now he’s part of an effort to expand that opportunity for other students. Credit: Nancy Andrews for The Hechinger Report
That appears to be changing. Nearly half of institutions surveyed last year by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, or AACRAO, said they have added more ways for students to receive these credits — electricians, for example, who can apply some of their training toward academic courses in electrical engineering, and daycare workers who can use their experience to earn degrees in teaching.
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
The reason universities and colleges are doing this is simple: Nearly 38 million working-age Americans have spent some time in college but never finished, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Getting at least some of them to come back has become essential to these higher education institutions at a time when changing demographics mean that the number of 18-year-old high school graduates is falling.
“When higher education institutions are fat and happy, nobody looks for these things. Only when those traditional pipelines dry up do we start looking for other potential populations,” said Jeffrey Harmon, vice provost for strategic initiatives and institutional effectiveness at Thomas Edison State University in New Jersey, which has long given adult learners credit for the skills they bring.
Being able to get credit for prior learning is a huge potential recruiting tool. Eighty-four percent of adults who are leaning toward going back to college say it would have “a strong influence” on their decision, according to research by CAEL, the Strada Education Foundation and Hanover Research. (Strada is among the funders of The Hechinger Report, which produced this story.)
The Center for Education, Innovation & Training at the Community College of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh. The college is part of a citywide effort to give academic credit for older students’ life experiences. Credit: Nancy Andrews for The Hechinger Report
When Melissa DiMatteo, 38, decided to get an associate degree at CCAC to go further in her job, she got six credits for her previous training in Microsoft Office and her work experience as everything from a receptionist to a supervisor. That spared her from having to take two required courses in computer information and technology and — since she’s going to school part time and taking one course per semester — saved her a year.
“Taking those classes would have been a complete waste of my time,” DiMatteo said. “These are things that I do every day. I supervise other people and train them on how to do this work.”
On average, students who get credit for prior learning save between $1,500 and $10,200 apiece and nearly seven months off the time it takes to earn a bachelor’s degree, the nonprofit advocacy group Higher Learning Advocates calculates. The likelihood that they will graduate is 17 percent higher, the organization finds.
Justin Hand dropped out of college because of the cost, and became a largely self-taught information technology manager before he decided to go back and get an associate and then a bachelor’s degree so he could move up in his career.
He got 15 credits — a full semester’s worth — through a program at the University of Memphis for which he wrote essays to prove he had already mastered software development, database management, computer networking and other skills.
“These were all the things I do on a daily basis,” said Hand, of Memphis, who is 50 and married, with a teenage son. “And I didn’t want to have to prolong college any more than I needed to.”
Meanwhile, employers and policymakers are pushing colleges to speed up the output of graduates with skills required in the workforce, including by giving more students credit for their prior learning. And online behemoths Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University, with which brick-and-mortar colleges compete, are way ahead of them in conferring credit for past experience.
“They’ve mastered this and used it as a marketing tool,” said Kristen Vanselow, assistant vice president of innovative education and partnerships at Florida Gulf Coast University, which has expanded its awarding of credit for prior learning. “More traditional higher education institutions have been slower to adapt.”
It’s also gotten easier to evaluate how skills that someone learns in life equate to academic courses or programs. This has traditionally required students to submit portfolios, take tests or write essays, as Hand did, and faculty to subjectively and individually assess them.
Now some institutions, states, systems and independent companies are standardizing this work or using artificial intelligence to do it. The growth of certifications from professional organizations such as Amazon Web Services and the Computing Technology Industry Association, or CompTIA, has helped, too.
“You literally punch [an industry certification] into our database and it tells you what credit you can get,” said Philip Giarraffa, executive director of articulation and academic pathways at Miami Dade College. “When I started here, that could take anywhere from two weeks to three months.”
Data provided by Miami Dade shows it has septupled the number of credits for prior learning awarded since 2020, from 1,197 then to 7,805 last year.
“These are students that most likely would have looked elsewhere, whether to the [online] University of Phoenix or University of Maryland Global [Campus]” or other big competitors, Giarraffa said.
Fifteen percent of undergraduates enrolled in higher education full time and 40 percent enrolled part time are 25 or older, federal data show — including people who delayed college to serve in the military, volunteer or do other work that could translate into academic credit.
“Nobody wants to sit in a class where they already have all this knowledge,” Giarraffa said.
At Thomas Edison, police academy graduates qualify for up to 30 credits toward associate degrees. Carpenters who have completed apprenticeships can get as many as 74 credits in subjects including math, management and safety training. Bachelor’s degrees are often a prerequisite for promotion for people in professions such as these, or who hope to start their own companies.
The University of Memphis works with FedEx, headquartered nearby, to give employees with supervisory training academic credit they can use toward a degree in organizational leadership, helping them move up in the company.
The University of North Carolina System last year launched its Military Equivalency System, which lets active-duty and former military service members find out almost instantly, before applying for admission, if their training could be used for academic credit. That had previously required contacting admissions offices, registrars or department chairs.
Among the reasons for this reform was that so many of these prospective students — and the federal education benefits they get — were ending up at out-of-state universities, the UNC System’s strategic plan notes.
“We’re trying to change that,” said Kathie Sidner, the system’s director of workforce and partnerships. It’s not only for the sake of enrollment and revenue, Sidner said. “From a workforce standpoint, these individuals have tremendous skill sets and we want to retain them as opposed to them moving somewhere else.”
California’s community colleges are also expanding their credit for prior learning programs as part of a plan to increase the proportion of the population with educations beyond high school.
“How many people do you know who say, ‘College isn’t for me?’ ” asked Sam Lee, senior advisor to the system’s chancellor for credit for prior learning. “It makes a huge difference when you say to them that what they’ve been doing is equivalent to college coursework already.”
In Pittsburgh, the Regional Upskilling Alliance — of which CCAC is a part — is connecting job centers, community groups, businesses and educational institutions to create comprehensive education and employment records so more workers can get credit for skills they already have.
That can provide a big push, “especially if you’re talking about parents who think, ‘I’ll never be able to go to school,’ ” said Sabrina Saunders Mosby, president and CEO of the nonprofit Vibrant Pittsburgh, a coalition of business and civic leaders involved in the effort.
“Our members are companies that need talent,” Mosby said.
There’s one group that has historically pushed back against awarding credit for prior learning: university and college faculty concerned it might affect enrollment in their courses or unconvinced that training provided elsewhere is of comparable quality. Institutions have worried about the loss of revenue from awarding credits for which students would otherwise have had to pay.
That also appears to be changing, as universities leverage credit for prior learning to recruit more students and keep them enrolled for longer, resulting in more revenue — not less.
“That monetary factor was something of a myth,” said Beth Doyle, chief of strategy at CAEL.
Faculty have increasingly come around, too. That’s sometimes because they like having experienced students in their classrooms, Florida Gulf Coast’s Vanselow said.
Still, while many recognize it as a recruiting incentive, most public universities and colleges have had to be ordered to confer more credits for prior learning by legislatures or governing boards. Private, nonprofit colleges remain stubbornly less likely to give it.
More than two-thirds charge a fee for evaluating whether other kinds of learning can be transformed into academic credit, an expense that isn’t covered by financial aid. Roughly one in 12 charge the same as it would cost to take the course for which the credits are awarded.
Debra Roach, vice president for workforce development at the Community College of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh. The college is working on giving academic credit to students for their military, work and other life experience. Credit: Nancy Andrews for The Hechinger Report
There are other confounding roadblocks and seemingly self-defeating policies. CCAC runs a noncredit program to train paramedics, for example, but won’t give people who complete it credits toward its for-credit nursing degree. Many leave and go across town to a private university that will. The college is working on fixing this, said Debra Roach, its vice president of workforce development.
It’s important to see this from the students’ point of view, said Tracy Robinson, executive director of the University of Memphis Center for Regional Economic Enrichment.
“Credit for prior learning is a way for us to say, ‘We want you back. We value what you’ve been doing since you’ve been gone,’ ” Robinson said. “And that is a total game changer.”
Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556, [email protected]orjpm.82 on Signal.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Higher education stands at an unprecedented inflection point. After decades of incremental change, universities worldwide are grappling with converging forces that are fundamentally reshaping what it means to deliver truly connected digital experiences to students, faculty, and staff.
This disconnect reveals the challenge: traditional approaches to digital transformation in universities focused on digitising existing processes rather than reimagining the entire student experience.
According to Paul Towers, country manager for Liferay Australia, “there’s a clear mismatch between how fast student expectations are evolving and how slow institutions are responding. The next generation of learners have higher expectations than ever for what an optimal student experience looks like.”
Today, four powerful forces are converging to redefine what “connected” truly means in the university context.
Force 1: The consumer-grade expectations revolution
Today’s students are digital natives who don’t differentiate between university services and the consumer applications they use daily. They expect the same personalisation they get from Netflix, the same convenience they experience with Amazon, and the same responsiveness they receive from their banking app.
This convergence of financial pressure, everyday student challenges, and digital nativity creates unprecedented expectations. Universities must deliver consumer-grade personalisation while addressing the complex, multifaceted nature of student success.
It’s no longer enough to have separate portals for academics, student services, and campus life, students expect one unified experience that understands their complete journey and responds to their changing needs.
Force 2: The everything online imperative
The second force reshaping university digital experiences is students’ expectation that anything they can do on campus, they should be able to do online – efficiently and intuitively.
However, recent research reveals an important nuance – while students want digital convenience for routine transactions, they increasingly value in-person interactions for complex, collaborative activities.
“Students don’t think in terms of departments or administrative offices, they think in terms of outcomes. If your digital experience adds friction, you’re making student success harder than it needs to be,” Mr Towers said.
Leading universities embrace ‘digital-first, human-when-it-matters’ models – removing friction from routine tasks while preserving meaningful human connection.
Force 3: The AI acceleration effect
Perhaps no force is reshaping university digital experiences as rapidly as artificial intelligence. The statistics are staggering: 92 per cent of students now use AI in some form, with 88 per cent having used generative AI for assessments.
“AI is no longer a future trend – it’s a present reality in student workflows,” Mr Towers said.
Universities that proactively integrate AI into their connected digital experiences can deliver unprecedented personalisation and support. Leading institutions envision AI-powered learning analytics and improved accessibility for both students and faculty.
The AI revolution in university digital experiences isn’t about replacing human connection – it’s about augmenting it. AI handles routine tasks, supports 24/7, and predicts student challenges early. This frees human staff to focus on the complex, empathetic, relationship-building activities that truly matter in education.
Force 4: Real-time connected experience
These three forces are converging toward a vision of truly connected digital experiences that goes far beyond current university technology implementations. The future of a real-time connected experience includes:
Predictive intelligence: Systems that anticipate student needs before they arise, identifying at-risk students early and proactively connecting them with appropriate support services.
Hyper-personalisation: Modern learners expect flexible, personalised study paths that align with their commitments.
Seamless integration: Rather than forcing students to navigate separate systems for academics, student services, career development, and campus life, connected experiences will provide a unified platform with a single source of truth about each student’s complete university journey.
Accessibility excellence: Universities recognise that AI tools can significantly improve accessibility, creating more inclusive experiences for students with diverse needs and learning preferences.
As Mr Towers outlines, “this future for students is not just digital. It’s intelligent, integrated and deeply personalised. And more importantly it will become what students expect by default.”
What this means for universities
The convergence of these forces is redefining what “connected” means in university digital experiences. It’s no longer sufficient to simply digitise existing processes or provide students with access to multiple systems. True connection requires:
Ecosystem thinking: View university experiences as a unified whole.
Student-centric design: Design around student journeys, not silos.
Proactive engagement: Anticipate needs with data and AI.
Human-digital balance:Use tech to enhance human interaction.
Universities that embrace these principles and invest in truly connected digital experience platforms will be positioned to thrive in an increasingly competitive landscape. Those that continue with fragmented, process-centric approaches risk falling behind as student expectations continue to evolve.
The question isn’t whether these forces will reshape higher education – they already have. The question is how quickly and strategically institutions will adapt to serve their students in this new reality.
The universities that get this right won’t just improve their digital offerings; they’ll transform their ability to support student success at scale while maintaining the human connections that make higher education transformational.
With the AI education market projected to reach $20 billion by 2027, the investment and innovation in this space will only accelerate. The time for universities to reimagine their digital experiences isn’t tomorrow – it’s today.
Universities like Queensland and George Washington are already moving from fragmented systems to unified digital experiences that meet evolving student expectations.
If you’re exploring how to unify your university’s digital ecosystem and create more responsive student experiences, Liferay has the expertise and platform to support your journey.
If you still imagined that the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) would mean that a student studying any module from any course would be eligible for 30 credits of funding, it’s long past time to disabuse yourself of that notion.
Under the latest plans, eligibility only extends to short courses dealing with those subjects identified as national priorities – via a somewhat tenuous link to the industrial strategy – along with HTQ modules. Everything else in higher education will be funded by year of study, as is currently the case.
If you were thinking that this latest round of changes – taking us even further away from the initial dreams of Boris Johnson (or even Philip Augar) – completes the long gestation of the LLE in full detail you will be disappointed. For instance, the credit transfer nettle has yet to be grasped – with a consultation due in early 2026, not far in advance of the September 2026 soft launch. And there are, as we shall see, a number of other issues still dangling.
It’s a continuation of DfE’s gradual retreat from a universal system of funding that was supposed to transform the higher education landscape. No variable intensity, a vast reduction in modular availability – it just allows some of the short courses that universities and colleges already offer to be funded via the loan system (a measure, lest we forget, of dubious attractiveness to learners).
A bridge to nowhere
The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (originally known as the Lifelong Loan Entitlement) was announced by Prime Minister Boris Johnson on 29 September 2020, as a part of the government’s lifetime skills guarantee:
we’ll expand and transform the funding system so it’s as easy to get a loan for a higher technical course as for a university degree, and we’ll enable FE colleges to access funding on the same terms as our most famous universities; and we’ll give everyone a flexible lifelong loan entitlement to four years of post-18 education – so adults will be able to retrain with high level technical courses, instead of being trapped in unemployment.
Like most of Boris’ wheezes it was originally somebody else’s idea – in this case Philip Augar. He had a few more specifics:
The government should introduce a single lifelong learning loan allowance for tuition loans at Levels 4, 5 and 6, available for adults aged 18 or over, without a publicly funded degree. This should be set, as it is now, as a financial amount equivalent to four years’ fulltime undergraduate degree funding. Learners should be able to access student finance for tuition fee and maintenance support for modules of credit-based Level 4, 5 and 6 qualifications. ELQ rules should be scrapped for those taking out loans for Levels 4, 5 and 6.
But it makes more sense to think of the idea as being 100 per cent Boris in that it was a massive infrastructure initiative that he had no clue how to actually deliver (in all honesty, not much of Augar was deliverable either – perhaps that was the attraction). As has proved to be the case.
As you were
Let’s start by looking at what’s unchanged, following the latest revisions. The timeline for getting started remains as was: applications from September 2026 for courses and modules starting in January 2027. This still feels extremely optimistic. Plus – as has been the case for a while – a staggered rollout of standalone modules is planned, rather than an enormous platter of bitesize options spread out to pick from come next September.
The use of the current plan 5 student loan model, with its 40-year term and nine per cent repayment rate above what is currently around minimum wage, is still there – with all the peculiarities this will inevitably engender. If anyone was expecting a large scale shake-up of the student finance system any time soon, this should serve as an enormous hint that no radically new model is arriving in the short to medium term.
Also retained from DfE’s planning under the Conservatives is the system of “residual eligibility”, meaning how much loan is available to those who have already, for example, studied one undergraduate degree. You still get the equivalent of four years overall, though with lots of wrinkles.
The aspiration for each member of the public to have an LLE personal account continues – this will still include, in theory, information on one’s loan balances, an application tracker, and advice and guidance on career planning.
And in broad strokes the government’s rationale for the LLE persists: more flexible routes through tertiary education, support for upskilling and retraining throughout one’s career, and the promise of more learner mobility between institutions.
Picking winners
The LLE is replacing England’s entire student funding system, and so funding for full years of study at levels 4 to 6 – such as degrees or higher technical qualifications – will flow through it. In many cases, though, this is just a shift on paper.
What’s always been the more significant change is how it will bring the funding of individual modules into scope, along with the resulting interplay between single modular courses and larger programmes of study in a learner’s lifelong journey.
Modular provision that would be eligible had previously been defined as “modules of technical courses of clear value to employers” – this is now rejigged to:
modules of higher technical qualifications, and level 4, 5 and 6 modules from full level 6 qualifications, in subject groups that address priority skills gaps and align with the government’s industrial strategy.
We flagged this link between the LLE and the industrial strategy priority areas when the latter was published last month – and the updated LLE policy paper does say that DfE has worked with Skills England to assess skills priorities, though there is no detail on this.
What we very much don’t get is a mapping between LLE subjects and the industrial strategy sectors (the IS-8), or the priority sub-sectors and their corresponding links to certain regions or clusters which is, y’know, what the industrial strategy is all about. Arguably the main bone thrown to the industrial strategy is the concept of the government “picking winners” – but note there is no stumping up of public funds to support this.
So we get a list of which subject groups will be in scope for modular study:
computing
engineering
architecture, building and planning, excluding the landscape gardening subgroup
physics and astronomy
mathematical sciences
nursing and midwifery
allied health
chemistry
economics
health and social care.
Common Academic Hierarchy (CAH) fans will be delighted to spot that this appears to have been done (with the curious landscape gardening exception) at the very top level. These are very broad subject groups, which will contain multiple subjects with questionable relevance to the industrial strategy.
While on the face of it there is some ambiguity about whether this subject list refers to only level 6 qualifications, or to these and higher technical qualifications (HTQs), the accompanying provider preparation guide makes clear that the subject groups here are for level 6 qualifications only – and provision via HTQ modules covers many other subject areas, which in some cases overlap. This currently includes subjects such as business and administration, education and early years, legal and accounting, and many others – but these will need to go through the HTQ approval route.
The provider preparation guide suggests that institutions should be looking at their current degree provision, working out where it aligns to the priority skills gaps areas that DfE has identified, and then proceeding from there in thinking about what could be modularised. All modular study, remember, needs to form part of an existing designated full course which the provider delivers – we’re a long way from some of the previous visions of universities coming up with new stand-alone bitesize offers.
All the other funding eligibility rules for modular provision remain – they must have a single qualification level at level 4, 5 or 6, they must be at least 30 credits (though bundling up modules to meet that minimum is allowed), and a standardised transcript of some form to be determined must be delivered upon completion, to facilitate credit transfer.
But there is one change to eligibility rules – modular provision must not be delivered through franchised arrangements. This had always sounded like a recipe for disaster. The government has been gradually setting its face against a lot of existing franchising activity, given concerns about quality and reports of fraud.
Getting approved
The previous plan for approving modules (outside of HTQs) for LLE eligibility was what was being labelled a “qualifications gateway”, which the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education consulted on last January. This terminology has been scrubbed entirely out of the policy paper now, with just a note that “we will set out details on how level 4 to 6 Ofqual regulated qualifications could enter the market and access LLE funding.”
But there’s a new approval process in town – providers who are interested in delivering modular provision from January 2027 will need to submit an expression of interest, from this month.
This process will involve an “assurance check” – seemingly run centrally by DfE, rather than Skills England as might have previously been expected. There’s a wonderful flowchart in the provider guide, which you may or may not be able to read depending on how enormous your screen is:
That’s right – TEF! Providers with gold or silver will have access to a “simpler and quicker approval process” for modular provision. Those who do not will be asked to provide additional information around “readiness, capability and successful delivery of the parent course.”
Hang on, you cry, doesn’t the fact a provider is registered with the Office for Students demonstrate that it has “readiness” and “capability” to deliver courses of any type? Well, yes, it does. It is possible that DfE simply doesn’t trust OfS to make this kind of judgement – which would point to a rather larger issue with higher education regulation – or it could be that this is a last gasp attempt to give TEF awards some regulatory relevance.
This is also the case for those rated “good” or “outstanding” for Ofsted provision – and if Ofsted inspects your skills provision and you have a TEF award, they both need to make the grade. Now headline Ofsted assessments were supposed to disappear from September 2025, which makes this all a bit confusing.
If you don’t deliver HTQs or appropriate level 6 qualifications, it’s noted that modular provision is anticipated to “gradually expand when appropriate to do so” and so you may, one day, come in line for eligibility.
Regulatory issues
One of the areas the previous version of the policy paper promised was further information on the regulation of modular funding. This, rather oddly, is no longer listed under “next steps”, given that the update we do get is relatively slim.
What we might have expected was a follow-up to the Office for Students’ call for evidence on positive outcomes for students studying on a modular basis – a call for evidence which closed in November 2023, and we’ve heard little of since. As DK set out at the time, the quasi-consultation asked how things like the B3 conditions could apply to individual modules, and the regulator’s initial thinking seemed to be that completion would still be a valuable metric for regulation, as would progression – though exactly how progression was assessed would need to be refined.
There’s still no news on this complicated issue. The new section of regulation focuses more on registration categories, while noting that DfE “will refine the existing regulatory framework to ensure it is proportionate, is targeted [and] supports a high quality, flexible system.” If you were thinking that a whole new approach to learning would need a new oversight framework, the direction of travel suggests not.
The bigger regulatory news is that, likely to the surprise of few, the idea of having a third registration category for smaller providers offering level 4 and 5 qualifications has been scrapped. Instead the government will extend the current system of advanced learner loan funding for levels 4 to 6 until the end of summer 2030. This will give unregistered providers more time to apply for OfS registration in one of the two existing categories, though OfS is scheduled to consult in autumn 2025 on proposals to disapply some conditions of registration for providers in the further education statutory sector (which already has a regulator looking after most of this stuff).
Maintenance chunks
As expected, student maintenance support will be available on a pro-rata basis (depending on course, location, and personal circumstances) in an equivalent way to the existing undergraduate offer. Because this support is intended to deal with “living costs”, DfE has decided to continue to restrict availability to students attending in person – there’s nothing for online or distance learning.
Additional targeted grants (most likely this just refers to existing disabled students’ allowance and such like) will still be available – but there’s more to come on this later this year, alongside more guidance on maintenance generally. We can perhaps hope that a forthcoming announcement modifying the decades-old system (or even just the parental income thresholds) is playing a part in this delay.
That feeling of entitlements
Another area where things have mostly stayed the same is the personal entitlement for tuition fee funding equivalent to four full-time years (480 credits, currently £38,140) of traditional study – with the welcome clarification that where a provider charges less than the maximum the cash value rather than the credit value will be deducted from the total. Maximum borrowing is for 180 credits a year (which would just about cover a year of an accelerated degree). And for existing graduates (with the frankly wild caveats as before) there will be an entitlement to funding equivalent to unused residual credits.
But what happens when your balance reaches £0? No more learning for you? Not quite – a “priority additional entitlement” may be available (fees plus maintenance) in order to complete a full course in a small number of subjects (medicine, dentistry, nursing and midwifery, allied health professions, initial teacher training, social work).
For those who follow career paths that require five years or more of study (veterinary surgery, architecture part 2, an integrated masters in Scotland) there will be a “special additional entitlement” of up to two years, again covering fees and maintenance. There’s also additional entitlements for those who take foundation years, placement years, or study abroad years. It’s by-and-large a smoothing-out of some of the unintended consequences with existing provision where representations had been made.
Plus, importantly, the government will now play a part in mitigating circumstances – if you are resitting a year because of “compelling personal reasons” (illness, bereavement) you will have the costs of your study covered. And resits on longer courses will be covered anyway.
The credit transfer question
“The LLE and modular provision will provide a pathway to strengthen opportunities for credit transfer and learner mobility,” the new version of the paper states. While no-one would deny that the LLE could be a “pathway to strengthen opportunities,” especially given how tepid the phrasing is, there has still been essentially no progress on the thorny question of credit transfer.
The largely new section on “recognition of prior learning, credit transfer, and record of learning” sets out aspirational areas where the government thinks it can work collaboratively with the sector – to promote pathways between providers, to improve guidance for both incoming and outgoing learners, and to generally square the recognition of prior learning circle despite all the intractable problems therein.
Interestingly, DfE also wants institutions to embed all this into “broader strategies for widening access”. It’s not immediately clear how this will come off – but we get the note that this year will bring an update on “proposed changes that will start to embed this flexibility and greater learner mobility across LLE funded provision.” This might be a reference to the post-16 education and skills white paper.
To facilitate all this flexibility, DfE had previously said it would be introducing a “standardised transcript template.” Tellingly, this has now been revised down to “a standardised transcript as part of modular funding designation.” So it appears the plan is now to look at enforcing this standardisation for the (potentially scant) modular provision that the LLE will generate, while sidestepping the much bigger question of how portability between modules and larger qualifications including degrees will work. This is a substantial scaling down in ambition – and yet it’s still a complicated thing to get agreed implemented in little over a year.
What’s next
As is probably coming across, there is still an awful lot yet to be confirmed. Secondary legislation to implement the LLE fee limits and funding system still needs to be laid. Fee loan limits for non-fee capped provision are pending confirmation. The Student Loans Company needs to get its systems ready.
There will be another consultation too, in addition to OfS’ further education one. While it’s not mentioned in the updated policy paper, the accompanying provider preparation guide reveals that the Department for Education will consult on “learner mobility across LLE-funded provision in early 2026” (maybe this will be the moment when credit transfer finally gets sorted out once and for all). Opening a consultation in early 2026 when big chunks of the whole shebang are supposed to be ready to go that September does not necessarily inspire confidence.
And the drip-by-drip announcements about the policy plumbing of the LLE mean that it’s a long time since the government has really restated its belief that there is demand out there for modular provision, or committed to working to drum some up. Really it’s baffling why this week’s announcements haven’t been packaged up with the skills white paper, as surely they must form part of a wider vision. Some clarity within this about overlaps and interplay with the apprenticeship levy would have been welcome too.
The provider preparation guide entreats institutions to start thinking about how they will market modular provision, which is a tricky question given the absence of demand that pilots have demonstrated. But one of the examples given is particularly problematic:
if you seek to target mature students, do you need to start building relationships with local employers and/or recruitment agents, rather than only relying on existing recruitment channels?
This isn’t a new addition to the guidance – but since the last update, Bridget Phillipson has told Parliament that the government will “take immediate action on the use of agents to recruit students,” adding that “the government can see no legitimate role for domestic agents in the recruitment of UK students,” following the Sunday Times franchising investigation fallout. So DfE is at the same time banning the use of domestic agents – or at least it said it would – while acknowledging that recruitment to modular provision might be tricky without them.
It’s of a piece with much of the preparation guide – the responsibility to iron out the holes in the LLE’s business case is being passed onto providers. Supposedly over the rest of the year universities and colleges should be reviewing everything from accommodation to wrap-around support, while building up relationships with employers and potentially rewriting their academic regulations. All while plenty remains unclear at the sector level. It would be unsurprising to see providers reluctant to leap into the approvals process right away, and instead assess how others fare.
Given all this, it’s perhaps unsurprising that the ambition of the LLE has diminished a little bit each time the policies around it have been updated. We’re a long way from where we started.
Probably the most damning assessment you could make is that, were Labour to have opted to cancel the whole LLE and just allow students to take out loans for a handful of higher education short courses tenuously linked to industrial strategy priorities, the sector would be in a very similar situation to the one it is in now. And – given clear indications of lack of student demand, and common sense assessments of the general public’s appetite for more tuition fee debt wrapped up in confusing bitesize-but-lifelong repayment obligations – few would think it was a good idea.
When a crisis hits a school campus, communication can either save lives or contribute to chaos. Whether it’s a lockdown, severe weather, or a gas leak, the first moments matter most, and so does the ability to reach the right people instantly. For school leaders, this reality has turned the mass notification system for schools from a nice-to-have into a non-negotiable.
In today’s education landscape, safety isn’t just a responsibility; it’s an expectation. Parents demand it. Students rely on it. And legislation like the Jeanne Clery Act mandates it. From K-12 schools to sprawling universities, institutions are under growing pressure to prepare for emergencies. That means having a reliable, fast, and flexible way to communicate campus-wide emergencies across multiple platforms.
Mass notification systems (MNS) offer that capability. They enable school officials to send real-time alerts through text messages, emails, voice calls, desktop pop-ups, sirens, and public address systems, all from a single dashboard. But with so many systems available, selecting the right one can be overwhelming. Some platforms specialize in panic buttons and mobile alerts; others focus on layered communication and integrations with existing infrastructure.
The stakes are high, but the path forward doesn’t have to be murky. This guide will walk you through what a mass notification system is, why it matters for schools of all sizes, and how to evaluate your options with confidence.
Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?
Try the HEM’s Mautic CRM!
What Is a Mass Notification System for Schools?
So, what is a mass notification system for schools?A mass notification system for schools is a platform that enables institutions to quickly inform students, faculty, and staff about emergencies or critical situations.
These alerts, sent via SMS, email, voice calls, app notifications, and digital signage, can communicate anything from severe weather and campus lockdowns to service disruptions and safety instructions from one central platform. This ensures rapid, widespread communication during emergencies.
They integrate with existing infrastructure such as fire alarms, intercoms, and digital signage to ensure every possible communication pathway is covered.
Schools often turn to systems like Rave Alert, Everbridge, Alertus, and Intrado Revolution, among others. These platforms are designed specifically for emergencies, but what if you had a tool that could do that and more?
How Do Mass Notification Systems Work?
Most MNS platforms are cloud-based and integrate with school databases or SIS (student information systems). Here’s how they function:
Message Creation: Administrators draft a message through a web-based interface or mobile app.
Audience Segmentation: Messages can be sent to specific groups (e.g., staff, students, grade levels).
Multichannel Distribution: The system pushes the message across chosen channels simultaneously.
Acknowledgement and Tracking: Some systems allow recipients to confirm receipt, and administrators can track who received what.
Two-Way Communication: More advanced systems allow for replies and real-time updates.
Why MNS Is a Necessity, Not a Luxury
The need for several types of communication channels has made the need for timely notifications undeniable. In response, many universities adopted robust mass notification systems, and today, the Jeanne Clery Act mandates that all U.S. colleges maintain systems for timely warnings and emergency notifications.
In Canada, provinces like Ontario require school boards to implement emergency and lockdown procedures, which may include notification systems. Globally, ISO 22301 emphasizes communication strategies in business continuity planning, applicable to schools.
But this isn’t just a higher ed concern. K–12 schools face their own risks. And communication needs often extend beyond the campus to include parents and guardians.
Mass Notification Has Multiple Uses
Your mass notification system doesn’t have to be reserved for emergency use. It can and should be the most important part of your everyday communications strategy. Ensuring your mass notification system includes all of your main communications mediums like email newsletters, text messages, website alerts, and social media channels will allow you to do it all in one single platform, saving you time and streamlining your efforts.
Need to send your email newsletter, a text reminder, and a social media push all at once? There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to do that using your mass communications system. Need to send a mobile app and website alert while you’re at it? You’ll save hours by having everything bundled in one mass notifications toolbox.
Think of it this way: your institution already collects valuable contact information, behavioral data, and engagement history through its CRM. That same infrastructure can power smarter alerting during a crisis. Instead of a generic campus-wide message, you could send tailored updates, like notifying only international students during a visa-related policy change, or alerting online learners about digital platform outages. It’s the intersection of immediacy and intelligence: delivering the right message to the right people, at exactly the right moment.
This synergy is especially relevant in higher education, where the line between operational communication and marketing is increasingly blurred. Institutions must build trust not just through promotional emails but also through reliable, timely updates that reassure students and their families. A CRM-integrated mass notification system supports both missions, emergency preparedness and ongoing relationship-building.
HEM’s Mautic CRM: Smarter Messaging in Every Scenario
Mautic by HEM allows institutions to segment their contact lists by criteria such as program, campus, or enrollment stage, ensuring each person gets the right message at the right time. The platform also supports multi-channel outreach; staff can send automated emails and SMS messages, all from one centralized system.
With features like workflow automation to schedule campaigns and trigger communications (for instance, event invitations or follow-up messages), a CRM like this can unify both emergency notifications and routine marketing outreach. In practice, that means a school could broadcast critical alerts to affected individuals during a crisis and also manage day-to-day communications with students or customers, all through the same integrated system.
Key Features to Look For
How do you decide which system is right for your school? The key is to carefully evaluate each option’s capabilities against your institution’s needs. Below, we outline the key features to look for when choosing a mass notification system for schools, and how those features play out in practice at schools and universities.
1. Multi-Channel Delivery
Not everyone will be reached by the same medium, so your system should use multiple channels at once. At minimum, it must support SMS/text, email, and voice calls, since one person might see a text first while another picks up a phone call.
More advanced systems go further, triggering alerts over public address speakers, digital signage, desktop pop-ups, and mobile push notifications. Using multiple channels in parallel provides redundancy to ensure your message gets through. If cellular service is down or a phone is silenced, a desktop or PA alert might still reach them.
Example: Harvard University’s Everbridge-powered Harvard Alert blasts out texts, emails, and phone calls to students and staff simultaneously.
In a crisis, every second counts. The person sending the alert could be under extreme stress, so the interface must be very quick and simple to operate. Ideally, launching an alert should be as easy as pressing a single panic button.
Look for a system with an intuitive dashboard, pre-written templates, and minimal steps to send a message. If the process is too convoluted (requiring multiple logins or too many clicks), precious time will be lost.
One university learned this the hard way. It found that issuing an alert took nearly 30 minutes because staff had to activate separate systems for texts, emails, and PA announcements. Needless to say, that delay was unacceptable. The school eventually moved to a unified platform (the same Everbridge solution now used by the University of Michigan) so that one action triggers every channel at once.
Example: The University of Michigan employs the U-M Emergency Alert system (via Everbridge) to issue real-time emergency messages to students, faculty, and staff.
Will the MNS play nicely with the technology your school already uses? The best platforms can plug into and leverage your existing infrastructure. For example, can it broadcast through your classroom intercoms and PA speakers, or trigger fire alarm strobes and door locks? Many schools have piecemeal safety tools that don’t automatically coordinate with each other. A strong notification system serves as the central hub to unify these.
Example: McGill University’s campus-wide alert system ties into multiple platforms already on campus, including a digital signage network (Omnivex), mass text/email alerts, and loudspeakers. This means one alert can simultaneously pop up on phones, computers, and PA systems across the university, rather than requiring separate actions for each.
Can you target alerts to specific groups or locations when needed? In some situations, you won’t want to blast everyone. The system should let you easily narrow the recipient list based on location or role.
For example, if a small chemical spill affects only the science building, you might alert just that building’s students and staff rather than the entire campus. Conversely, if you have multiple campuses, you may need to send a message only to one site. A good MNS supports both wide-area alerts and precise targeting.
Example: Hubspot’s SMS features offer personalized tokens, contact integration, and workflows, allowing schools to create targeted SMS campaigns and engage in live two-way personalized conversations.
You need a system that works even when things go wrong. Ensure the provider’s network has redundant infrastructure (backup servers, multiple data centers) and built-in fail-safes if one communication mode fails.
For example, if text messages aren’t going through, can it automatically switch to another channel, like email or voice calls? On your side, plan for overlapping alert methods so there’s no single point of failure.
Example: HEM’s Mautic allows you to send notifications via text, email, and mobile app all at once, while the campus also uses sirens and PA announcements as backup.
In an emergency, communication shouldn’t be just one-way. It can be very useful to get feedback or confirmation from recipients and to empower people on the ground to initiate alerts. Some mass notification systems for schools allow two-way interaction. For instance, letting recipients click “I’m Safe” in a mobile app or reply to a text to give their status. This helps account for people and gather instant feedback from the scene.
Equally important is a panic-button capability. Many schools now provide staff with a mobile app or wearable panic button that lets them trigger an emergency alert or call for help with one touch.
Example: University of Southern California’s emergency notification ecosystem is integrated with a smartphone safety application, known as the Trojan Mobile Safety App, powered by LiveSafe. This free downloadable app, managed by the USC Department of Public Safety and Emergency Planning, complements the TrojansAlert system by putting emergency assistance tools directly in users’ hands. Notably, the app includes a panic-alert feature in the form of one-touch emergency calling.
Consider the management and support aspects of the system. You’ll want to control who can send alerts (and to whom). Robust platforms allow role-based permissions. For instance, limiting campus-wide alerts to senior officials while enabling more localized alerts by authorized staff. This ensures alerts can be sent out quickly but still securely by the appropriate personnel.
Data security is critical as well: the system will hold contact info for your students and staff, so it must safeguard that data and comply with privacy laws (such as FERPA or GDPR). Additionally, evaluate the vendor’s customer support and training.
Emergencies can happen anytime, so 24/7 technical support is highly desirable. If an issue arises at 3 AM, you’ll want immediate help. A good provider will also help train your team so everyone knows how to use the system effectively before an emergency occurs.
Example: The University of Washington uses a Rave-powered UW Alert system to manage communications for its large campus community. With tens of thousands of students and employees, UW relies on the system’s strong admin controls to ensure only authorized officials can send out mass alerts, and on the vendor’s support to keep the platform running smoothly.
Prices vary. Some platforms bill per message or user, others charge flat annual fees. Don’t choose based solely on price. Focus on total value and required features, and check for educational discounts.
9. Scalability and Future-Proofing
As your school grows or tech evolves, your MNS should scale accordingly. Look for vendors with a proven track record of innovation and regular updates.
In a nutshell, what features should a good campus mass notification system include? A reliable campus notification system should have multi-channel messaging (SMS, email, phone, app alerts), easy integration with existing databases and software, real-time analytics and reporting, mobile accessibility, and role-based controls. Ideally, it should also allow for geotargeted alerts, two-way communication, and scheduled test alerts. These features help schools deliver timely, relevant updates during both emergencies and routine situations.
Why HEM’s Mautic CRM Is a Smart Choice for Mass Notification and Communication
Choosing a mass notification system is not just a technical decision: it’s a strategic one. That’s why many institutions are turning to HEM’s Mautic CRM, a powerful platform that blends emergency communication with everyday engagement, all in one intuitive system.
HEM’s Mautic isn’t just a marketing tool: it’s a communication hub designed for the complex needs of modern schools. Built specifically for educational institutions, it provides the flexibility and automation required to send the right message to the right person, at exactly the right moment, whether you’re dealing with an emergency or simply sending out a campus newsletter.
Unified Communication Across Channels
Mautic CRM allows schools to centralize their messaging efforts, supporting email, SMS, and in-app alerts from a single dashboard. In a crisis, that means no delays switching between systems, just fast, targeted communication when every second counts.
But its value extends beyond emergencies. With Mautic, you can schedule and automate routine announcements, manage event outreach, and nurture prospective students through personalized workflows, making it a powerful asset for both marketing and crisis response teams.
Segmentation and Personalization
The platform’s segmentation features let you target messages based on program, campus, enrollment stage, or any other custom criteria. This ensures your messages are always relevant, crucial when issuing alerts that may only apply to certain groups, buildings, or locations.
Need to notify only international students about a visa-related change? Or send an urgent weather alert to your downtown campus while leaving other sites unaffected? Mautic makes it easy.
Automation for Every Scenario
From workflow triggers to dynamic content, HEM’s Mautic helps schools automate communication with precision. For example:
Trigger follow-up emails after an info session
Send reminders about registration deadlines
Automate alerts for emergency drills or test scenarios
These workflows can be adapted for both emergency preparedness and ongoing communications, creating a seamless experience for students, faculty, and administrators alike.
Easy Integration and Expert Support
HEM’s CRM integrates with leading SIS and web platforms, enabling real-time syncing of contact data and activity tracking. That makes implementation smooth and ensures your alert system always has up-to-date recipient information.
And because it’s backed by HEM’s education marketing experts, you get more than just software; you get strategic onboarding, training, and long-term support tailored to your institution’s needs.
Ready to Future-Proof Your School Communication?
Whether you’re managing crisis alerts or student outreach campaigns, HEM’s Mautic CRMdelivers reliability, flexibility, and peace of mind. Join institutions that are redefining campus communication and doing it smarter.
Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?
Try the HEM’s Mautic CRM!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question:What is a mass notification system for schools? Answer: A mass notification system for schools is a platform that enables institutions to quickly inform students, faculty, and staff about emergencies or critical situations.
Question: What features should a good campus mass notification system include? Answer: A reliable campus notification system should have multi-channel messaging (SMS, email, phone, app alerts), easy integration with existing databases and software, real-time analytics and reporting, mobile accessibility, and role-based controls.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Faced with an “unsustainable compounding deficit,” George Washington University is freezing hiring and could lay off employees down the road, the private Washington, D.C.-based institution said in a community messageTuesday.
The hiring freeze applies to positions funded directly by the university and is set to last at least until Oct. 1.GWU also plans to review large procurement contracts, cut back on capital spending,and tighten budgets for travel, events and entertainment, among other moves.
Despite earlier budget-tightening measures, senior university leaders said the outlook for the upcoming fiscal year has deteriorated since April. Officials plan to present a full fiscal 2026 budget to the university’s governing board in early September.
Dive Insight:
In their announcement, university President Ellen Granberg, Interim Provost John Lach and other officials cited political, economic and demographic challenges that are exacerbating GWU’s budget pressures.
On the policy front, they pointed to the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to limit funding for indirect research costs, such as facilities, utilities and other overhead, to federal grant awardees. While federal courts have paused or struck down those moves at four federal agencies, they have created deep financial uncertainty for many universities.
The officials also pointed to “significant changes in the overall federal research landscape,” which has big implications for the university, a major nexus for federal grants. In fiscal 2024, GWU spent a total of $471.6 million in federal grants from a wide array of federal agencies and other grantors.
Along with research funding disruption, officials pointed to a slowdown in visa processing and President Donald Trump’s recent move to ban or restrict travel from 19 countries.They described these changes as “constraints on our ability to enroll international students.” In 2024, GWU enrolled 3,661 international students, according to institutional data.
Moreover, the university, with its deep ties to the D.C. area, is beginning to see domestic enrollment impacts from the Trump administration’s massive slashes to federal agency workforces, as well as general financial uncertainty among American consumers.
Even more pressure on graduate enrollment could come amid the elimination of Grad PLUS loans and caps on total student borrowing, brought on by the massive budget bill passed by Republicans and signed by Trump last week.
But GWU had financial challenges before Trump took office. As Granberg, Lach and other officials noted, revenue growth averaged 6.1% from fiscal 2022 through 2024 while expenses grew 6.8%.
“While this difference might not seem significant, its cumulative effect is an unsustainable compounding deficit,” they said.
That budget gap resulted from pre-Trump structural challenges in the higher education world, including rising costs and declining master’s degree enrollments.
Between 2018 and 2023, GWU’s total fall graduate student enrollment declined 9.2% to 14,181 students, according to federal data. The officials pointed to declines in international student enrollment, which began at the university before Trump’s newest travel bans and “at this point can no longer be viewed as temporary.”
University leaders in April announced a pause on merit-based salary increases and a 3% budget cut across units. But the challenges have only deepened since then.
Now officials aim for deeper budget cuts for fiscal 2026, “which we recognize will likely lead to some reductions in the number of staff and certain faculty positions, a step we have tried to avoid but cannot any longer,” they said Tuesday.
The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) may be facing state takeover within two years due to overextended hiring and budget mismanagement, as discussed during a May 2025 meeting of the Los Angeles Valley College (LAVC) Academic Senate. Faculty warned that the looming financial crisis could result in mass layoffs—including tenured staff—and sweeping program cuts.
Start Minutes LAVC Academic Senate
“R. Christian-Brougham: other campuses have brand new presidents doing strange things. If we don’t do things differently as a district, from the mouth of the president in two years we’ll be bankrupt and go into negative. Chancellor has responsibility C. Sustin asks for confirmation that it is the Chancellor that can and should step in to curb campus budgets and hirings. R. Christian-Brougham: the Chancellor bears responsibility, but in the takeover scenario, the Board of Trustees – all of them – would get fired E. Perez: which happened in San Francisco C. Sustin: hiring is in the purview of campuses, so they can’t directly determine job positions that move forward? R. Christian-Brougham: Chancellor and BoT could step in and fire the Campus Presidents, though. E. Perez: in next consultation with Chancellor, bringing this up. C. Maddren: Gribbons is not sitting back; he’s acting laterally and going upward E. Thornton: looping back to the example of City College of San Francisco: when the takeover happened there the reductions in force extended to multiple long-since-tenured members of a number of disciplines, including English. For this and so many other reasons, it was a reign of terror sort of situation. So we really need to push the Chancellor.”
The dire financial outlook comes as new scrutiny falls on LAVC’s Media Arts Department, already under fire for years of alleged fraud, resume fabrication, and manipulation of public perception. Central to these concerns is the department’s chair, Eric Swelstad, who also oversees a $40,000 Hollywood Foreign Press Association (Golden Globe) grant for LAVC students—a role now drawing sharp criticism in light of mounting questions about his credentials and conduct.
Over the past two months, a troubling wave of digital censorship has quietly erased years of documented allegations. In May 2025, nearly two years’ worth of investigative reporting—comprising emails, legal filings, and accreditation complaints—were scrubbed from the independent news site IndyBay. The removed content accused Swelstad of deceiving students and the public for over two decades about the quality and viability of the Media Arts program, as well as about his own professional qualifications.
In June 2025, a negative student review about Swelstad—posted by a disabled student—disappeared from Rate My Professor. These incidents form part of what appears to be a years-long campaign of online reputation management and public deception.
An AI-driven analysis of Rate My Professor entries for long-serving Media Arts faculty—including Swelstad, Arantxa Rodriguez, Chad Sustin, Dan Watanabe, and Jason Beaton—suggests that the majority of positive reviews were written by a single individual or a small group. The analysis cited “Identical Phrasing Across Profiles,” “Unusually Consistent Tag Patterns,” and a “Homogeneous Tone and Style” as evidence:
“It is very likely that many (possibly a majority) of the positive reviews across these faculty pages were written by one person or a small group using similar templates, tone, and strategy… The presence of clearly distinct voices, especially in the negative reviews, shows that not all content comes from the same source.”
A now-deleted IndyBay article also revealed emails dating back to 2016 between LAVC students and Los Angeles Daily News journalist Dana Bartholomew, who reportedly received detailed complaints from at least a dozen students—but failed to publish the story. Instead, Bartholomew later authored two glowing articles featuring Swelstad and celebrating the approval of LAVC’s $78.5 million Valley Academic and Cultural Center:
* *”L.A. Valley College’s new performing arts center may be put on hold as costs rise,”* Dana Bartholomew, August 28, 2017.
Among the most explosive allegations is that Swelstad misrepresented himself as a member of the Writer’s Guild of America (WGA), a claim contradicted by official WGA-West membership records, according to another redacted IndyBay report.
This appears to be the tip of the iceberg according to other also scrubbed IndyBay articles
Other questionable appointments, payments, and student ‘success stories’ in the Los Angeles Valley College Media Arts Department include:
* **Jo Ann Rivas**, a YouTube personality and former Building Oversight Committee member, was paid as a trainer and presenter despite reportedly only working as a casting assistant on the LAVC student-produced film *Canaan Land*.
* **Diana Deville**, a radio host and LAVC alumna with media credits, served as Unit Production Manager on *Canaan Land*, but her resume claims high-profile studio affiliations including DreamWorks, MGM, and OWN.
The film *Canaan Land*, made by LAVC Media Arts students, has itself raised eyebrows. Filmmaker Richard Rossi claimed that both it and his earlier student film *Clemente* had received personal endorsements from the late Pope Francis. These assertions were echoed on *Canaan Land*’s GoFundMe page, prompting public denials and clarifications from the Vatican in *The Washington Post* and *New York Post*:
Censorship efforts appear to have intensified following the publication of a now-removed article advising students how to apply for student loan discharge based on misleading or fraudulent education at LAVC’s Media Arts Department. If successful, such filings could expose the department—and the district—to financial liability.
But the highest-profile financial concern is the 2020 establishment of the **Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s $40,000 grant** for LAVC Media Arts students, administered by Swelstad:
As a disreputable academic administrator with a documented history of professional fraud spanning two decades and multiple student success stories that aren’t, future grant donors may reconsider supporting the Department programs – further pushing the Los Angeles Valley College and by extension the district as a whole towards financial insolvency.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Two federal agencies on Wednesday notified Harvard University’s accreditor of “strong evidence to suggest” the Ivy League institution no longer meets its accreditation standards.
In a letter to the New England Commission of Higher Education, the U.S. departments of Education and Health and Human Services cited recent HHS findings alleging that Harvard is in“violent violation” of federal antidiscrimination lawand has been “deliberately indifferent” to the harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its campus.
The announcement comes the week after Columbia University got word from its accreditor that its approval “may be in jeopardy” following similar findings by HHS against the New York institution.
Dive Insight:
A wide-ranging April executive order from President Donald Trump directed U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “promptly” provide accreditation agencies with any findings of noncompliance with Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs.
On Wednesday, McMahon did so for Harvard’s accreditor, NECHE.
“By allowing antisemitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers,” she said in a statement.
The Education Department expects NECHE to “enforce its policies and practices” and keep the agency “fully informed of its efforts to ensure that Harvard is in compliance with federal law and accreditor standards,” McMahon added.
Without accreditation, Harvard would lose eligibility to accept federal financial aid — a crucial revenue source for all colleges, even the wealthiest ones.
The commission made clear that the federal government cannot direct it to revoke a college’s accreditation.Likewise, a college does not automatically lose its accreditation if it is put under investigation, the FAQ said.
NECHE gives institutions “up to four years to come into compliance when found by the Commission to be out of compliance, which can be extended for good cause,” it said, adding that institutions remain accredited during that time.
Under NECHE policies, the commission will conduct an independent review of the allegations against Harvard.
Meanwhile, HHS’ findings heavily cited an April report from Harvard on antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias on its campus. The internal report found that Jewish, Israeli and Zionist students and employees at the university felt shunned or harassed at times during the 2023-24 academic year.
Since the report published in April, the Trump administration has repeatedly used it in attempts to cut off Harvard from enrolling international students and terminate more of its federal funding.
Harvard also released a second report in tandem that addressed anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias on campus, finding that Harvard students and employees in these demographics also said they experienced harassment and discrimination during the same time frame.
However, the Trump administration has not highlighted the findings from the second report in its news releases about Harvard’s alleged failure to protect students from harassment. And the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has thus far stayed silent on issues of Islamophobia under Title VI.
Scores of speech therapists across the country erupted last month when their leading professional association said it was considering dropping language calling for diversity, equity and inclusion and “cultural competence” in their certification standards. Those values could be replaced in some standards with a much more amorphous emphasis on “person-centered care.”
“The decision to propose these modifications was not made lightly,” wrote officials of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) in a June letter to members. They noted that due to recent executive orders related to DEI, even terminology that “is lawfully applied and considered essential for clinical practice … could put ASHA’s certification programs at risk.”
Yet in the eyes of experts and some speech pathologists, the change would further imperil getting quality help to a group that’s long been grossly underserved: young children with speech delays who live in households where English is not the primary language spoken.
“This is going to have long-term impacts on communities who already struggle to get services for their needs,” said Joshuaa Allison-Burbank, a speech language pathologist and Navajo member who works on the Navajo Nation in New Mexico where the tribal language is dominant in many homes.
In a written statement after this story published, a spokesperson for the association stressed that the proposed changes have not been finalized, and said that member feedback is currently under review.
“ASHA remains steadfast in our belief that all health care services should be non-discriminatory and address the needs of every individual,” the spokesperson added. She characterized the proposed changes as “an evolution, not a retreat,” and noted that person-centered care aims to ensure “clinicians are equipped to deliver services tailored to each person’s context, including their lived experience, language background, cultural identity, and home environment.”
A shift away from DEI and cultural competence — which involves understanding and trying to respond to differences in children’s language, culture and home environment — could have a devastating effect at a time when more of both are needed to reach and help multilingual learners, several experts and speech pathologists said.
They told me about a few promising strategies for strengthening speech services for multilingual infants, toddlers and preschool-age children with speech delays — each of which involves a heavy reliance on DEI and cultural competence.
Embrace creative staffing. The Navajo Nation faces severe shortages of trained personnel to evaluate and work with young children with developmental delays, including speech. So in 2022, Allison-Burbank and his research team began providing training in speech evaluation and therapy to Native family coaches who are already working with families through a tribal home visiting program. The family coaches provide speech support until a more permanent solution can be found, said Allison-Burbank.
Home visiting programs are “an untapped resource for people like me who are trying to have a wider reach to identify these kids and get interim services going,” he said. (The existence of both the home visiting program and speech therapy are under serious threat because of federal cuts, including to Medicaid.)
Use language tests that have been designed for multilingual populations. Decades ago, few if any of the exams used to diagnose speech delays had been “normed” — or pretested to establish expectations and benchmarks — on non-English-speaking populations.
For example, early childhood intervention programs in Texas were required several years ago to use a single tool that relied on English norms to diagnose Spanish-speaking children, said Ellen Kester, the founder and president of Bilinguistics Speech and Language Services in Austin, which provides both direct services to families and training to school districts. “We saw a rise in diagnosis of very young (Spanish-speaking) kids,” she said. That isn’t because all of the kids had speech delays, but due to fundamental differences between the two languages that were not reflected in the test’s design and scoring. (In Spanish, for instance, the ‘z’ sound is pronounced like an English ‘s.’)
There are now more options than ever before of screeners and tools normed on multilingual, diverse populations; states, agencies and school districts should be selective, and informed, in seeking them out, and pushing for continued refinement.
Expand training — formal and self-initiated — for speech therapists in the best ways to work with diverse populations. In the long-term, the best way to help more bilingual children is to hire more bilingual speech therapists through robust DEI efforts. But in the short term, speech therapists can’t rely solely on interpreters — if one is even available — to connect with multilingual children.
That means using resources that break down the major differences in structure, pronunciation and usage between English and the language spoken by the family, said Kester. “As therapists, we need to know the patterns of the languages and what’s to be expected and what’s not to be expected,” Kester said.
It’s also crucial that therapists understand how cultural norms may vary, especially as they coach parents and caregivers in how best to support their kids, said Katharine Zuckerman, professor and associate division head of general pediatrics at Oregon Health & Science University.
“This idea that parents sit on the floor and play with the kid and teach them how to talk is a very American cultural idea,” she said. “In many communities, it doesn’t work quite that way.”
In other words, to help the child, therapists have to embrace an idea that’s suddenly under siege: cultural competence,
Quick take: Relevant research
In recent years, several studies have homed in on how state early intervention systems, which serve children with developmental delays ages birth through 3, shortchange multilingual children with speech challenges. One study based out of Oregon, and co-authored by Zuckerman, found that speech diagnoses for Spanish-speaking children were often less specific than for English speakers. Instead of pinpointing a particular challenge, the Spanish speakers tended to get the general “language delay” designation. That made it harder to connect families to the most tailored and beneficial therapies.
A second study found that speech pathologists routinely miss critical steps when evaluating multilingual children for early intervention. That can lead to overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis and inappropriate help. “These findings point to the critical need for increased preparation at preprofessional levels and strong advocacy … to ensure evidence-based EI assessments and family-centered, culturally responsive intervention for children from all backgrounds,” the authors concluded.
Carr is a fellow at New America, focused on reporting on early childhood issues.
Contact the editor of this story, Christina Samuels, at 212-678-3635, via Signal at cas.37 or [email protected].
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
In the latest volley in the Trump administration’s war with Harvard University, federal agencies told Harvard’s accreditor the university is violating antidiscrimination laws, while Immigration and Customs Enforcement will subpoena Harvard’s “records, communications, and other documents relevant to the enforcement of immigration laws since January 1, 2020.”
The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security announced these moves Wednesday in news releases replete with condemnations from cabinet officials. The pressure comes as Harvard still refuses to bow to all of the Trump administration’s demands from April, which include banning admission of international students “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism.” In May, DHS tried to stop Harvard from enrolling international students by stripping it of its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, but a judge has blocked that move.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a Wednesday statement, “By allowing antisemitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers. The Department of Education expects the New England Commission of Higher Education to enforce its policies and practices.” (Only the accreditor can find a college in violation of its policies.)
Trump officials said last week that Harvard is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on shared ancestry, including antisemitism. They notified that accrediting agency of the HHS Office for Civil Rights’ finding that Harvard is displaying “deliberate indifference” to discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students.
HHS’s Notice of Violation said multiple sources “present a grim reality of on-campus discrimination that is pervasive, persistent, and effectively unpunished.” Wednesday’s release from HHS said the investigation grew from a review of Harvard Medical School “based on reports of antisemitic incidents during its 2024 commencement ceremony,” into a review of the whole institution from Oct. 7, 2023, through the present.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that “when an institution—no matter how prestigious—abandons its mission and fails to protect its students, it forfeits the legitimacy that accreditation is designed to uphold. HHS and the Department of Education will actively hold Harvard accountable through sustained oversight until it restores public trust and ensures a campus free of discrimination.”
The Trump administration also notified Columbia University’s accreditor after it concluded Columbia committed a similar violation of federal civil rights law. The accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, then told Columbia that its accreditation could be in jeopardy.
DHS’s subpoena announcement is the latest move in its targeting of Harvard over its international students, who comprise more than a quarter of its enrollment.
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a release, “We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard. Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way. Harvard, like other universities, has allowed foreign students to abuse their visa privileges and advocate for violence and terrorism on campus.”
DHS didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed information on what specific records ICE is subpoenaing. It said in its release that “this comes after the university repeatedly refused past non-coercive requests to hand over the required information for its Student Visitor and Exchange Program [sic] certification.”
The release said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem “demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus” back in April. The release further said that other universities “should take note of Harvard’s actions, and the repercussions, when considering whether or not to comply with similar requests.”
Harvard pushed back in statements of its own Wednesday. It called the DHS subpoenas “unwarranted” but said it “will continue to cooperate with lawful requests and obligations.”
“The administration’s ongoing retaliatory actions come as Harvard continues to defend itself and its students, faculty, and staff against harmful government overreach aimed at dictating whom private universities can admit and hire, and what they can teach,” one Harvard statement said. “Harvard remains unwavering in its efforts to protect its community and its core principles against unfounded retribution by the federal government.”
If Harvard were to lose its accreditation, it would be cut off from federal student aid. In another statement, Harvard officials say they are complying with the New England Commission of Higher Education’s standards “maintaining its accreditation uninterrupted since its initial review in 1929.”
Neither the Trump administration nor Larry Schall, president of NECHE, provided the letter the administration wrote to the commission. Schall told Inside Higher Ed the commission will request a response from Harvard within 30 days and that, plus the results of the federal investigation, will be presented to the commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting, currently set for September.
“We have processes we follow,” Schall said. “We follow them whether it’s Harvard or some other institution … Our processes are consistent and actually directed by federal regulation.”
