Blog

  • Higher Education Needs to Prioritize for Impact

    Higher Education Needs to Prioritize for Impact

    Last month, a few of our Collegis leaders attended the Google Public Sector Leaders Connect summit in Chicago. This event brought together technology, education, and government leaders to address one major question: How can public institutions unlock the true value of AI?

    Institutions are grappling with a fast-changing AI landscape

    The summit served up plenty of insight, data, and dialogue about the promises and pitfalls of artificial intelligence in higher ed. One stat that hit home: 80% of students think universities are falling short when it comes to integrating AI.

    That’s not just a tech gap, it’s a relevance gap. Today’s students are living in an AI-powered world, and if institutions can’t keep pace, they risk losing credibility and connection.

    They are also failing to prepare students for a new job market, where AI is “attacking” entry-level jobs that their graduates would previously fill. With many entry-level jobs being fulfilled by AI, what are schools doing to help their graduates get the skills they need to thrive in this new world?

    Fragmented priorities are holding higher ed back

    As we listened to leaders at the summit and reflected on our partner conversations, it became clear that the challenges institutions face go beyond AI adoption.

    Other concerns surfaced as well:

    • 71% of institutions say their top priority is attracting and retaining students.
    • 56% are worried about data security threats like phishing, ransomware, and breaches.
    • 42% cite operational pressures as a major barrier, from business model constraints to process inefficiencies.

    On their own, these numbers signal urgency. But together, they reveal something deeper:

    Institutions aren’t just overwhelmed by change, they’re unsure where to focus and where to invest.

    Competing priorities and limited resources make it hard to know what matters most. These three statistics may look unrelated, but they are all very much related and impact each other. Operational pressure can heighten data security risks, which can trigger breaches that erode student trust and enrollment. Those same pressures often stem from — and lead to — inefficient processes that hurt the student experience and, ultimately, retention.

    Throughout the day, multiple speakers kept reinforcing the importance of “prioritizing for impact.” Because while AI offers enormous potential, the technology itself won’t drive transformation — leadership will.

    It’s not about adopting more tech — it’s about focusing on impact

    Now this struck a chord with me, especially given how we approach partner onboarding at Collegis. Even during early conversations with potential partners, our first question is always the same: “What are you trying to impact?”

    It’s a simple question, but the answers we hear are very telling, and can drastically vary depending on who at the institution is answering. What I like about this question is that it helps focus the conversation on a desired end result, providing an immediate opportunity to pressure test strategies, tactics, and competing priorities.

    Is this getting you closer to, or further away from, your desired impact? If the latter, perhaps it’s time to consider reallocating resources and budget to what gets you toward the finish line faster.

    How to prioritize for impact in higher ed

    Take the AI example. Instead of asking, “What AI tools should we adopt?” instead ask, “Where can AI meaningfully move the needle for our institution AND our students?” That shift from solution-first to strategy-first is everything.

    Here are a few guideposts we recommend:

    1. Start with your outcomes. Whether it’s student success, operational efficiency, or enrollment growth, define what success looks like before introducing any new technology.
    2. Connect C-suite ambition with frontline reality. Consider forgoing a top-down approach that prioritizes selling to leadership. To enable real change, your strategies must reflect on-the-ground needs. Build from the bottom up and bring the insight and intel back to your cabinet leaders to help inform prioritization conversations.
    3. Break down the silos. So many institutions are decentralized and highly matrixed, which means that critical data, digital infrastructure, and internal departments are often disconnected. Aligning them is essential to enable AI to operate at scale. Consider cloud platforms like Connected Core®, which extract, clean, and connect data across systems, applications, and third-party tools. This enables actionable institutional intelligence across the student lifecycle.
    4. Build AI literacy, institution-wide. Google shared that only 14% of campuses have adopted AI literacy as a learning outcome. That’s a missed opportunity to empower both staff and students to engage with AI responsibly and effectively.
    5. Don’t go it alone. With 62% of institutions lacking the internal expertise to fully leverage AI, choosing the right partner matters. Not someone just trying to sell you tech, but to help you translate it into impact. This is the talent component of Collegis Education’s data, tech, and talent approach. It does you no good to own a plane if you don’t have a pilot, crew, and maintenance team. When you align your data, tech, and talent, you’ve enabled impact, and sustainable impact at that.

    The Google event confirmed what we see every day: Higher ed has a prioritization problem. Leaders have been sold more tech tools than they can use; what they truly need is help implementing them for impact.

    A smarter path forward for institutional leaders

    Institutional leaders know their schools better than anyone and have a clear vision of where they need to go to thrive.  Building a strategic plan focused on the areas that will drive the greatest impact to that vision is the next critical step.  A great way to start is by finding a partner who understands that progress isn’t about doing more, it’s about doing what matters.

    Prioritize for impact. We’ll help you make it happen.

    Innovation Starts Here

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

    Source link

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE FUTURE OF HBCUS: A CALL FOR INVESTMENT, INNOVATION, AND INCLUSION

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE FUTURE OF HBCUS: A CALL FOR INVESTMENT, INNOVATION, AND INCLUSION

    Dr. Emmanuel LalandeHistorically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have always stood on the frontlines of educational equity, carving pathways to excellence for generations of Black students against overwhelming odds. Today, as higher education faces a shift driven by technology, declining enrollment, and resource disparities, a new opportunity emerges: the power of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to reshape, reimagine, and reinforce the mission of HBCUs.

    From admissions automation and predictive analytics to personalized learning and AI-powered tutoring, artificial intelligence is no longer theoretical, it is operational. At large institutions, AI-driven chatbots and enrollment algorithms have already improved student engagement and reduced summer melt. Meanwhile, HBCUs, particularly smaller and underfunded ones, risk being left behind.

    The imperative for HBCUs to act now is not about chasing trends about survival, relevance, and reclaiming leadership in shaping the future of Black education.

    AI as a Force Aligned with the HBCU Mission

    Artificial intelligence, when developed and implemented with intention and ethics, can be one of the most powerful tools for educational justice. HBCUs already do more with less. They enroll 10% of Black students in higher education and produce nearly 20% of all Black graduates. These institutions are responsible for over 25% of Black graduates in STEM fields, and they produce a significant share of Black teachers, judges, engineers, and public servants.

    The power of AI can amplify this legacy.

    • Predictive analytics can flag at-risk students based on attendance, financial aid gaps, and academic performance, helping retention teams intervene before a student drops out.
    • AI chatbots can provide round-the-clock support to students navigating complex enrollment, financial aid, or housing questions.
    • AI tutors and adaptive platforms can meet students where they are, especially for those in developmental math, science, or writing courses.
    • Smart scheduling and resource optimization tools can help HBCUs streamline operations, offering courses more efficiently and improving completion rates.

    For small HBCUs with limited staff, outdated technology, and tuition-driven models, AI can serve as a strategic equalizer. But accessing these tools requires intentional partnerships, resources, and cultural buy-in.

    The Philanthropic Moment: A Unique Opportunity

    The recent announcement from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that it plans to spend its entire $200 billion endowment by 2045 presents a monumental opportunity. The foundation has declared a sharpened focus on “unlocking opportunity” through education, including major investments in AI-powered innovations in K-12 and higher education, particularly in mathematics and student learning platforms.

    One such investment is in Magma Math, an AI-driven platform that helps teachers deliver personalized math instruction. The foundation is also actively funding research and development around how AI can close opportunity gaps in postsecondary education and increase economic mobility. Their call for “AI for Equity” aligns with the HBCU mission like no other.

    Now is the time for HBCUs to boldly approach philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation as strategic partners capable of leading equity-driven AI implementation. 

    Other foundations should follow suit. Lumina Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, Kresge Foundation, and Strada Education Network have all expressed interest in digital learning and postsecondary success. A targeted, collaborative initiative to equip HBCUs with AI infrastructure, training, and research capacity could be transformative.

    Tech Industry Engagement: From Tokenism to True Partnership

    • The tech industry has begun investing in HBCUs, but more is needed.
    • OpenAI recently partnered with North Carolina Central University (NCCU) to support AI literacy through its Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Research. The vision includes scaling support to other HBCUs.
    • Intel has committed $750,000 to Morgan State University to advance research in AI, data science, and cybersecurity.
    • Amazon launched the Educator Enablement Program, supporting faculty at HBCUs in learning and teaching AI-related curricula.
    • Apple and Google have supported HBCU initiatives around coding, machine learning, and entrepreneurship, though these efforts are often episodic or branding-focused. What’s needed now is sustained, institutional investment.
    • Huston-Tillotson University hosted an inaugural HBCU AI Conference and Training Summit back in April, bringing together AI researchers, students, educators, and industry leaders from across the country. This gathering focused on building inclusive pathways in artificial intelligence, offering interactive workshops, recruiter engagement, and a platform for collaboration among HBCUs, community colleges, and major tech firms.

    We call on Microsoft, Salesforce, Nvidia, Coursera, Anthropic, and other major EdTech firms to go beyond surface partnerships. HBCUs are fertile ground for workforce development, AI research, and inclusive tech talent pipelines. Tech companies should invest in labs, curriculum development, student fellowships, and cloud infrastructure, especially at HBCUs without R1 status or multi-million-dollar endowments.

    A Framework for Action Across HBCUs

    To operate AI within the HBCU context, a few strategic steps can guide implementation:

    1. AI Capacity Building Across Faculty and Staff

    Workshops, certification programs, and summer institutes can train faculty to integrate AI into pedagogy, advising, and operations. Staff training can ensure AI tools support, not replace, relational student support.

    2. Student Engagement Through Research and Internships

    HBCUs can establish AI learning hubs where students gain real-world experience developing or auditing algorithms, especially those designed for educational equity.

    3. AI Governance

    Every HBCU adopting AI must also build frameworks for data privacy, transparency, and bias prevention. As institutions historically rooted in justice, HBCUs can lead the national conversation on ethical AI.

    4. Regional and Consortial Collaboration

    HBCUs can pool resources to co-purchase AI tools, share grant writers, and build regional research centers. Joint proposals to federal agencies and tech firms will yield greater impact.

    5. AI in Strategic Planning and Accreditation

    Institutions should embed AI as a theme in Quality Enhancement Plans (QEPs), Title III initiatives, and enrollment management strategies. AI should not be a novelty, it should be a core driver of sustainability and innovation.

    Reclaiming the Future

    HBCUs were built to meet an unmet need in American education. They responded to exclusion with excellence. They turned marginalization into momentum. Today, they can do it again, this time with algorithms, neural networks, and digital dashboards.

    But this moment calls for bold leadership. We must go beyond curiosity and into strategy. We must demand resources, form coalitions, and prepare our institutions not just to use AI, but to shape it.

    Let them define what culturally competent, mission-driven artificial intelligence looks like in real life, not in theory. 

    And to the Gates Foundation, Intel, OpenAI, Amazon, and all who believe in the transformative power of education: invest in HBCUs. Not as charity, but as the smartest, most impactful decision you can make for the future of American innovation.

    Because when HBCUs lead, communities rise. And with AI in our hands, the next 
    level of excellence is well within reach.

    Dr. Emmanuel Lalande currently serves as Vice President for Enrollment and Student Success and Special Assistant to the President at Voorhees University.

     

     

    Source link

  • Building Skills to Lead | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Building Skills to Lead | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Building on a career with impact, Chartarra Joyner continues to embody a sense of purpose to become an even stronger leader in academia.

     Chartarra JoynerJoyner is assistant vice chancellor, budget and planning, at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NC A&T). She oversees the administration, analysis and strategic management of the university’s $470 million budget. As head of the budget and planning team, she is responsible for compliance and fiscal integrity while managing the comprehensive budget and reporting process.

    Having attended Fisk University as an undergraduate, where she studied accounting, Joyner appreciates working at a Historically Black College and University but admits that a career in academia happened unexpectedly. After graduating from college, she spent more than a decade working in fi nancial services. Her last position before NC A&T was as a senior business analyst clinical services at HCA Healthcare, noting that her diverse background enables her to bring a unique lens to higher education.

    “In my positions, I led cross-functional teams, cost reduction strategies and other process improvement initiatives,” she says. “All this combined experience helps me. I started out in accounting, but most of my roles then progressed, and I found a love for operational excellence and process-improvement initiatives.”

    When her family moved to Greensboro, North Carolina, she planned to be a stay-at home mother but realized that was not where her strengths lie. Twelve years ago, she took on a contract assignment at NC A&T, which evolved into a full-time position. While the industry was different, she saw the move as a natural progression. Joyner has been in her current position since 2016. Because NC A&T is a large employer in Greensboro, her work has had a positive impact on the local economy.

    “I was able to apply my skills and experience in financial strategies,” Joyner says. “I wanted to help assist with the educational access for students as well as equity for those students. NC A&T has a lot of fi rst-generation college students. This is what brought me and made me stay in academia. It’s been fulfilling to see the student success stories that resulted from the strategic 
    financial leadership decisions made here at the university.”

    NC A&T initiated a “bring your child to work” program, and her three children have all experienced the campus and seen her busy at work. Then, as part of their coursework in school, there were assignments where they described what she does.

    “Children’s natural curiosity, they just ask questions,” she quips. Joyner is a third generation college graduate—stretching back to her grandmother
     (also an HBCU graduate)—and her second oldest son is fourth generation, having graduated from NC A&T. While higher education is the norm in her family, she thrives in an environment where first-gen students are able to flourish. She says that in her current role, she is able to mentor students and other professionals and contribute to the larger mission of the university.

    “I value thought leadership,” she says. “There’s a lot of collaboration in academia and there is continuous learning, which aligns with my personal mission and my core values. It also gives me the opportunity to make an impact through student support and developing our future global leaders. [At NC A&T] we have over 14,000 students that we have an impact on every day who are future global leaders.

    “I found a place where I can lead strategically and contribute to the larger mission of the university and the global community,” she adds. “What is meaningful to me is having an impact on the students to ensure that the students have the resources and support needed. [We’re] helping to produce engineers, doctors, lawyers and other professions… and the cooperative extension programs we do with the community and the research.”

    With the goal of becoming a chief business officer (CBO), Joyner applied for the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) Fellows Program and was recently selected to take part in the highly competitive immersive leadership development program. The NACUBO program will help her refine her leadership skills and deepen her ability to communicate complex financial information. This includes aligning resources with institutional goals, developing flexible budget models and exploring diversified revenue streams. Due to current university priorities, she has postponed her participation until next year.

    As part of her work at NC A&T, Joyner has chaired and participated in strategic committees and spearheaded initiatives in staff development, operational efficiency and implementation of best practices to support long-term financial planning and institutional effectiveness.

    She describes her career trajectory as building a diverse portfolio that has helped her grow and lead at the executive level.

    “I want to create a path for other people, drive innovation while effectively managing resources of the institution,” Joyner says with confidence. “I also hope to contribute to national conversations on equity, sustainability and operational excellence for higher education. Ultimately, my goal is to make a lasting impact.”

     

    Source link

  • AI teacher tools display racial bias when generating student behavior plans, study finds

    AI teacher tools display racial bias when generating student behavior plans, study finds

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

    Asked to generate intervention plans for struggling students, AI teacher assistants recommended more-punitive measures for hypothetical students with Black-coded names and more supportive approaches for students the platforms perceived as white, a new study shows.

    These findings come from a report on the risks of bias in artificial intelligence tools published Wednesday by the non-profit Common Sense Media. Researchers specifically sought to evaluate the quality of AI teacher assistants — such as MagicSchool, Khanmingo, Curipod, and Google Gemini for Education — that are designed to support classroom planning, lesson differentiation, and administrative tasks.

    Common Sense Media found that while these tools could help teachers save time and streamline routine paperwork, AI-generated content could also promote bias in lesson planning and classroom management recommendations.

    Robbie Torney, senior director of AI programs at Common Sense Media, said the problems identified in the study are serious enough that ed tech companies should consider removing tools for behavior intervention plans until they can improve them. That’s significant because writing intervention plans of various sorts is a relatively common way teachers use AI.

    After Chalkbeat asked about Common Sense Media’s findings, a Google spokesperson said Tuesday that Google Classroom has turned off the shortcut to Gemini that prompts teachers to “Generate behavior intervention strategies” to do additional testing.

    However, both MagicSchool and Google, the two platforms where Common Sense Media identified racial bias in AI-generated behavior intervention plans, said they could not replicate Common Sense Media’s findings. They also said they take bias seriously and are working to improve their models.

    School districts across the country have been working to implement comprehensive AI policies to encourage informed use of these tools. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft have partnered with the American Federation of Teachers to provide free training in using AI platforms. The Trump Administration also has encouraged greater AI integration in the classroom. However, recent AI guidelines released by the U.S. Department of Education have not directly addressed concerns about bias within these systems.

    About a third of teachers report using AI at least weekly, according to a national survey conducted by the Walton Family Foundation in cooperation with Gallup. A separate survey conducted by the research organization Rand found teachers specifically report using these tools to help develop goals for Individualized Education Program — or IEP — plans. They also say they use these tools to shape lessons or assessments around those goals, and to brainstorm ways to accommodate students with disabilities.

    Torney said Common Sense Media isn’t trying to discourage teachers from using AI in general. The goal of the report is to encourage more awareness of potential uses of AI teacher assistants that might have greater risks in the classroom.

    “We really just want people to go in eyes wide open and say, ‘Hey these are some of the things that they’re best at and these are some of the things you probably want to be a little bit more careful with,’” he said.

    Common Sense Media identified AI tools that can generate IEPs and behavior intervention plans as high risk due to their biased treatment of students in the classroom. Using MagicSchool’s Behavior Intervention Suggestions tool and the Google Gemini “Generate behavior intervention strategies tool,” Common Sense Media’s research team ran the same prompt about a student who struggled with reading and showed aggressive behavior 50 times using white-coded names and 50 times using Black-coded names, evenly split between male- and female-coded names.

    The AI-generated plans for the students with Black-coded names didn’t all appear negative in isolation. But clear differences emerged when those plans from MagicSchool and Gemini were compared with plans for students with white-coded names.

    For example, when prompted to provide a behavior intervention plan for Annie, Gemini emphasized addressing aggressive behavior with “consistent non-escalating responses” and “consistent positive reinforcement.” Lakeesha, on the other hand, should receive “immediate” responses to her aggressive behaviors and positive reinforcement for “desired behaviors,” the tool said. For Kareem, Gemini simply said, “Clearly define expectations and teach replacement behaviors,” with no mention of positive reinforcement or responses to aggressive behavior.

    Torney noted that the problems in these AI-generated reports only became apparent across a large sample, which can make it hard for teachers to identify. The report warns that novice teachers may be more likely to rely on AI-generated content without the experience to catch inaccuracies or biases. Torney said these underlying biases in intervention plans “could have really large impacts on student progression or student outcomes as they move across their educational trajectory.”

    Black students are already subject to higher rates of suspension than their white counterparts in schools and more likely to receive harsher disciplinary consequences for subjective reasons, like “disruptive behavior.” Machine learning algorithms replicate the decision-making patterns of the training data that they are provided, which can perpetuate existing inequalities. A separate study found that AI tools replicate existing racial bias when grading essays, assigning lower scores to Black students than to Asian students.

    The Common Sense Media report also identified instances when AI teacher assistants generated lesson plans that relied on stereotypes, repeated misinformation, and sanitized controversial aspects of history.

    A Google spokesperson said the company has invested in using diverse and representative training data to minimize bias and overgeneralizations.

    “We use rigorous testing and monitoring to identify and stop potential bias in our AI models,” the Google spokesperson said in an email to Chalkbeat. “We’ve made good progress, but we’re always aiming to make improvements with our training techniques and data.”

    On its website, MagicSchool promotes its AI teaching assistant as “an unbiased tool to aid in decision-making for restorative practices.” In an email to Chalkbeat, MagicSchool said it has not been able to reproduce the issues that Common Sense Media identified.

    MagicSchool said their platform includes bias warnings and instructs users not to include student names or other identifying information when using AI features. In light of the study, it is working with Common Sense to improve its bias detection systems and design tools in ways that encourage educators to review AI generated content more closely.

    “As noted in the study, AI tools like ours hold tremendous promise — but also carry real risks if not designed, deployed, and used responsibly,” MagicSchool told Chalkbeat. “We are grateful to Common Sense Media for helping hold the field accountable.”

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

    For more news on AI, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • A smarter way to manage public dollars

    A smarter way to manage public dollars

    Key points:

    For public school districts across Florida and much of the country, employee benefits–particularly health insurance–are among the largest and fastest-growing budget line items. But too often, decision-makers in these districts manage benefits with incomplete information, little visibility into vendor practices, and limited tools for addressing escalating costs.

    Part of the problem is the complexity of the healthcare delivery system itself. The supply chain encompasses numerous moving parts, making cost drivers challenging to identify. While not intentional, school districts need to both educate and empower their agents and their team of specialists to peel back the layers that create added costs. Districts must also be willing to look inward.

    One of the real secrets to cost containment is transparency. A committed school district that wants to take control of its program must first understand its strengths and weaknesses, then fill gaps with specialists who can uncover hidden costs–an ongoing, vigilant effort that reveals the actual sources of waste and inefficiency. These efforts include transparent procurement and optimizing deal tension, as well as pharmacy contract negotiation, claims repricing, claims redirection, and more. Only then can districts make informed, strategic decisions that control costs and improve outcomes.

    The cost of opaque processes

    The result is a system that too often lacks meaningful transparency. School boards are presented with insurance renewals but not the data behind cost increases, insights into why claims costs are as they are, or guidance on how to contain them. Carriers field calls from district employees, but little to no reporting is returned to help the district understand what’s driving service demand. Without actionable data and intelligence, many districts default to passive renewals, accepting annual rate hikes without a clear strategy to contain costs or improve the employee experience.

    Building a foundation for smart decision‑making

    It doesn’t have to be this way. True transparency–in procurement, data, and intelligence–is not just a matter of regulatory compliance; it’s the foundation for smarter decision-making, better benefits engagement, and long-term cost control. When school districts gain access to previously unavailable data and unfiltered insights into how their benefits programs are performing, they can better serve their educators and protect their budgets.

    One example is call utilization data. Many school boards have no visibility into how often–and why–their employees contact their insurance carriers. Without this insight, they may not realize, for instance, that a large number of calls could pertain to prescription benefit confusion–something they could address through targeted employee education or plan redesign. Transparency in that data enables the district to act rather than react. It transforms benefits management from a cycle of guesswork into a proactive strategy, where decisions are driven by real needs rather than assumptions.

    Beyond call utilization, pharmacy and provider network fees can quietly escalate into six- or seven-figure losses if not monitored. Pharmacy contracts in particular demand negotiation by seasoned experts who understand the contractual nuances and levers that drive real savings. Ideally, a benefits partner will have a pharmacy benefits consultant or Doctor of Pharmacy on staff to review contracts and formularies line by line. Likewise, provider network claims and therapies must be benchmarked against competitive pricing. Transparency in these areas unleashes competition, and competition drives costs down.

    Operationalizing and incentivizing transparency leads to cost containment

    When a school district commits to operationalizing and incentivizing transparency, it can start to regain control of its costs. This process begins with examining the bigger picture of why and how the health-delivery supply chain can be leveraged or disintermediated to produce better outcomes. District leaders realize they have the power to effect change. Superintendents, HR, and finance departments can work in unison to embed transparency by empowering and incentivizing their benefits consultants to focus on solutions that reduce the district’s costs. This includes aligning agent compensation models with the district’s cost-containment roadmap.

    Equally important is how this transparency gets operationalized. Most small- to mid-sized school districts don’t have the staff or resources to analyze claims trends, facilitate wellness programs, or manage a complex benefits ecosystem. That’s why some are turning to outside partners to act as an extension of their internal team–not just as benefits brokers but as collaborative advisors who help design, implement, and maintain smarter benefits strategies. The difference is night and day: Instead of a transactional approach focused solely on renewals, these partners bring a year-round, data-driven mindset to benefits administration.

    Reclaiming control through radical transparency

    Ultimately, it’s about control. For too long, many public entities have ceded control of their benefits strategy to intermediaries operating behind closed doors. Radical transparency flips the script. It empowers school districts to take ownership of their benefits programs to lower costs and improve outcomes for the people they serve.

    That change doesn’t happen overnight. It starts with asking better questions:

    • Do we receive actionable data on employee engagement and utilization, and are we using it to drive measurable change?
    • Is our procurement process fully competitive and transparent, or are outdated practices perpetuating the status quo?
    • Do we have the tools and thought leadership from our broker to act on these insights?
    • Is our broker delivering transparent, cost-containment strategies, and are those solutions proven to reduce expense?
    • Are we empowered by a partnership structured around ROI?
    • Are we incentivizing our broker and vendor partners to prioritize ROI, transparency and ongoing savings?
    • Is our internal team contributing to transparency, data analysis and ROI? If not, what organizational changes are needed?

    The answers may be uncomfortable, but they’re necessary for reclaiming control. And in today’s fiscal climate, where every dollar matters and expectations for good governance are higher than ever, doing what’s always been done is no longer good enough.

    Transparency is more than a buzzword. It’s a path to fiscal responsibility, employee trust, and strategic clarity. And for public school districts facing mounting healthcare costs, it may be the smartest investment they can make.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • University of Utah board moves to cut 81 academic programs

    University of Utah board moves to cut 81 academic programs

    Dive Brief: 

    • The University of Utah’s trustee board approved plans Tuesday to discontinue 81 courses and degree programs in response to a new state law ordering public colleges to cut funding for certain academic offerings and administrative functions and invest in high-demand fields. 
    • The programs up for elimination range from a bachelor’s in chemistry teaching to a Ph.D. in theater. Most of them are graduate programs, and about one-quarter are in the university’s humanities college. The programs can be discontinued once the Utah System of Higher Education and state lawmakers sign off on the plan, according to a Tuesday announcement from the university. 
    • Each of the programs graduated at most one student over the past eight years, Richard Preiss, president of the university’s Academic Senate, said in a July 22 letter to the board. Students in affected programs will either be given pathways to complete their studies or referred to “academically appropriate alternatives,” the university said. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Earlier this year, Utah lawmakers cut 10% from the instruction budgets for each of the state’s eight public colleges, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. The cuts amounted to $60.5 million, with University of Utah facing the largest budget reduction of $19.6 million. 

    To reclaim the funding, the legislation orders colleges to craft three-year plans for cutting certain academic programs and administrative expenses and redirecting the money to high-demand programs. 

    In guidance released earlier this year, the Utah System of Higher Education said the funds could be reinvested in programs that meet the state’s workforce needs, lead to high-wage careers, teach students “durable skills” such as critical thinking and problem-solving, or focus on services to increase student retention. 

    The law came on the heels of a 2024 legislative audit that said the state’s public universities were losing students to “private non-traditional” colleges, such as Western Governors University, a large online institution. The audit also found that university leaders largely weren’t able to calculate program-level data about costs, enrollment and completion rates. 

    “Because institutions currently lack metrics required to calculate program-level efficiencies — including returns on investment — presidents are unable to fully understand the degree to which programs maximize their use of student and taxpayer resources,” the audit stated. 

    The University of Utah submitted a draft of its three-year plan to the state’s higher education board in May. 

    Under the plan, the university said it would cut $7.5 million from its fiscal 2026 budget— including reductions in academic support services and administrative costs — and reallocate that money to instruction aligned with the state’s workforce needs. 

    The university said it plans to devote more money to instruction in engineering, artificial intelligence, nursing, biotechnology and behavioral health, as well as to provide more support for general education about civic engagement. 

    Utah lawmakers aren’t the only ones ordering public colleges to shed certain programs. Six of Indiana’s public institutions are moving to either cut or consolidate over 400 programs to comply with a new state law aiming to end academic offerings that award low numbers of degrees. 

    The impacted programs account for 19% of all degree offerings at Indiana’s public colleges.

    Source link

  • Trump administration illegally axed NIH grants, government watchdog says

    Trump administration illegally axed NIH grants, government watchdog says

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The Trump administration acted illegally when it delayed and canceled billions of dollars of biomedical research grants, despite Congress appropriating funds to the National Institutes of Health, the Government Accountability Office said on Tuesday. 
    • Between February and June, the watchdog agency estimates the NIH awarded about $8 billion less in funds for research grants and awards compared to the prior year and cut more than 1,800 active grants as it attempted to follow President Donald Trump’s directive to weed out “equity-related” projects.
    • The GAO’s report concludes the administration violated the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the president to provide notice before delaying or blocking congressionally directed spending. GAO can file a lawsuit in an attempt to restore the grants. However, the watchdog agency has not yet opted to do so in its dealings with Trump.

    Dive Insight:

    NIH grants came under scrutiny this winter following a series of executive orders directing federal agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants or contracts, federal funding of projects supporting “gender ideology” and DEI programs. 

    The NIH began carrying out these directives in February. In addition to the grant cuts, the agency also dragged its feet on approving new projects, GAO found. From late January to early March, the NIH paused grant reviews entirely, delaying funds from being allocated to hospitals and universities.

    When contacted for comment, a spokesperson for the HHS referred Healthcare Dive to the agency’s testimony to GAO. The testimony states that NIH has since “moved rapidly to reschedule and hold meetings impacted by the short pause, and to process grant applications.”

    The HHS said between March 24 and June 30, NIH scheduled or held 837 peer review meetings — 186 more than for the same period the year prior.

    Still, GAO said that the department hadn’t adequately explained its decision to pause the review process in the first place, despite its resumption of grant review.

    “If the executive branch wishes to make changes to the appropriation provided to NIH, it must propose funds for rescission or otherwise propose legislation to make changes to the law for consideration by Congress,” the watchdog group wrote in its report. The HHS had done neither, the GAO said, adding: “In short, HHS has offered no evidence that it did not withhold amounts from obligation or expenditure, and it has not shown that the delay was a permissible programmatic one.”

    The report also suggests the Trump administration may be continuing efforts to block NIH funds from flowing to medical research.

    The office said the Office of Management and Budget asked NIH to “pause the issuing of grants, research contracts and training” in late July. There are reports that decision was later reversed, but GAO said it could not confirm whether the pause was lifted.

    Following the release of the report, Democratic lawmakers called for the Trump administration to resume funding NIH grants as Congress specified, warning that medical research progress is at stake.

    “Cutting off investments Congress has made into research that saves millions of lives is as backward and as inexcusable as it gets,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., in a statement. “It is critical President Trump reverse course, stop decimating the NIH, and get every last bit of this funding out.”

    This report is not the first time Trump’s funding cuts have been challenged.

    Researchers, unions and a coalition of 16 states sued over the NIH cuts, with academics saying they needed the funds to perform critical medical research, including learning about alcohol’s impact on Alzheimer’s risk and suicide prevention among LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness. In June, a U.S. district judge ordered the NIH to reinstate the plaintiffs’ canceled funds. However, litigation remains ongoing after the Trump administration appealed that ruling.

    GAO has the potential to bring its own suit against the NIH, but it will likely be a last resort, according to reporting by the New York Times. The watchdog group has previously found the administration violated the ICA on a range of topics and opted not to sue.

    Source link

  • Why Educators and Students Should Read Disillusioned by Benjamin Herold

    Why Educators and Students Should Read Disillusioned by Benjamin Herold

    Benjamin Herold’s Disillusioned: Five Families and the Unraveling of America’s Suburbs offers a rare and urgent account of how postwar suburbia—often seen as the apex of the American Dream—has become a fractured and unstable landscape, especially when it comes to public education. Through the personal stories of five families across the US, Herold builds a layered portrait of promise and betrayal.

    This is a book educators and students should read—not for comfort, but for clarity.

    Rutgers professor Kevin Clay (L) interviews Benjamin Herold (R), July 2025

    Suburbia as an Engine of Inequality

    Herold’s central thesis is as unsettling as it is undeniable: the post-WWII suburban boom was not a neutral act of growth, but a racialized, exclusionary economic project that served some families at the expense of others. Communities that were once predominantly white and upwardly mobile—like Compton and Penn Hills—are now struggling with declining school enrollment, shrinking tax bases, and rising segregation by income and race. In places like Evanston and Atlanta, attempts to reckon with inequality are often met with community resistance, bureaucratic inertia, and political backlash. Meanwhile, rapidly diversifying suburbs around Dallas reflect the shifting demographics of the country—and the urgency of crafting a new educational and civic infrastructure that doesn’t fall into the same traps.

    Herold doesn’t flatten these places into statistics. Instead, he follows five families trying to raise their children in what were once considered “good” school districts. Some are Black families confronting the limits of inclusion. Others are white families grappling with their own privilege and discomfort. Through them, we see how suburban schools continue to promise opportunity while too often delivering disappointment—especially for children of color, immigrant families, and those living paycheck to paycheck.

    A Curriculum for Truth

    Educators reading Disillusioned will recognize the impossible pressures placed on schools: to close racial achievement gaps, maintain property values, please demanding parents, and adapt to political mandates—often without adequate funding or community cohesion. Herold shows how schools, even with the best intentions, are asked to solve problems they did not create and are not empowered to fix on their own.

    This book is especially useful for those who teach about inequality, education policy, or American history. It connects housing policy, school funding, and institutional trust in ways that are personal and accessible. For students, it opens up a broader view of how structural forces—redlining, white flight, suburban sprawl, and tax policy—shape their daily lives and futures, often invisibly.

    Beyond the Classroom

    Disillusioned also serves as a sobering reflection for anyone involved in reform efforts. School choice, desegregation programs, testing regimes, anti-racism initiatives—all have had mixed results, in part because they fail to challenge the core structures of suburban exclusion. Without deeper shifts in housing, taxation, and civic engagement, educational equity remains aspirational.

    Herold’s reporting does not offer easy solutions. But it does offer something more valuable: context, empathy, and a sense of urgency. He shows us that while the suburbs may look different than they did in 1950, many of the underlying rules remain the same—and the consequences are growing more severe.

    A Necessary Reckoning

    The five towns Herold explores are not outliers. They are bellwethers. The racial and economic tensions playing out in Compton, Evanston, Penn Hills, Atlanta, and Dallas are already shaping the future of America’s suburbs—and its public education system. These are not just stories about local politics or school board fights. They are about the future of democracy, the erosion of public goods, and whether the next generation will inherit anything better.

    For anyone serious about education, equity, or the American future, Disillusioned is essential reading. It demands not just understanding, but action.

    Sources

    Herold, Benjamin. Disillusioned: Five Families and the Unraveling of America’s Suburbs. The New Press, 2024.

    Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liveright, 2017.

    Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford University Press, 1985.

    Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta. Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership. University of North Carolina Press, 2019.

    Source link

  • Georgetown Fellow Detained by ICE May Resume Work for Now

    Georgetown Fellow Detained by ICE May Resume Work for Now

    The Georgetown fellow, an Indian citizen, was released from detention in May.

    Andrew Thomas/AFP via Getty Images

    A Georgetown University researcher who was detained by immigration agents in March will be allowed to resume his work, at least for now, according to a court settlement released Tuesday. Politico first reported the development.

    The agreement does not guarantee that the postdoctoral fellow, Badar Khan Suri, will be able to stay in U.S. long term, and it doesn’t resolve his claim that the government violated his First Amendment rights by detaining him because of his pro-Palestinian comments and what the government claims are ties to Hamas. Those aspects of the case will be determined by a later ruling.

    That said, as litigation continues, Suri will be protected, maintain his status as a student and remain employed.

    Suri was first released from detention in May. His wife is a citizen, but her father has been identified as a former Hamas adviser, which likely was a key factor that influenced Suri’s arrest, Politico reported.

    Both parties in the case agreed the settlement was a result of “good faith” negotiations, Politico noted, though the State Department and Department of Homeland Security declined to comment.

    “We are encouraged that the government agreed to restore Dr. Suri and his children’s status and records,” Eden Heilman, an ACLU lawyer representing Suri, told Politico. “We know Dr. Suri is eager to rejoin the academic community at Georgetown and this will give him the opportunity to do that this fall.”

    Source link

  • UC Will “Dialogue” With Feds Over Civil Rights Investigation

    UC Will “Dialogue” With Feds Over Civil Rights Investigation

    The UC system says it will “engage in dialogue with the federal administration” over grant cuts.

    Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

    The University of California system announced Wednesday that it would negotiate with the federal government. The response comes a day after the Department of Justice’s deadline for the institution to express its interest in finding a “voluntary resolution agreement” to the agency’s investigation into antisemitism on the University of California, Los Angeles, campus. 

    On the line is—according to a UC estimate—$584 million in funding that at least three different federal agencies announced they were suspending in the week between the DOJ’s July 29 letter to system officials and its Aug. 5 deadline for them to respond.

    If the UC system comes to a resolution with the Trump administration, UCLA would become the first public university to openly make a deal with the federal government to restore grant funding. In the past month, Columbia and Brown Universities have agreed to collectively pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get their funding back.

    In the two-paragraph statement, UC system president James B. Milliken said, “Our immediate goal is to see the $584 million in suspended and at-risk federal funding restored to the university as soon as possible,” but he argued that the “cuts do nothing to address antisemitism.”

    “The extensive work that UCLA and the entire University of California have taken to combat antisemitism has apparently been ignored,” he said. “The announced cuts would be a death knell for innovative work that saves lives, grows our economy, and fortifies our national security. It is in our country’s best interest that funding be restored.”

    The DOJ’s July 29 letter to the system said its months-long investigations, which remain ongoing, have so far found that UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its response to a protest encampment on its campus in the spring of 2024.

    In a press release about the letter, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, “DOJ will force UCLA to pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk and continue our ongoing investigations into other campuses in the UC system.” The agency said in the letter that it is prepared to sue by Sept. 2 “unless there is reasonable certainty that we can reach an agreement.”

    But the Trump administration still hasn’t made clear what exactly it wants UCLA to do. Unlike with Columbia and Harvard, the federal government hasn’t listed its overarching demands. And the administration doesn’t appear to only be interested in addressing last year’s encampment at UCLA.

    In their own letters to UCLA last week, the National Science Foundation and the Energy Department announced funding suspensions, citing UCLA’s failure “to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias” and saying it “endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces.” Both agencies also accused UCLA of considering race in admissions.

    The Health and Human Services agency, which includes the National Institutes of Health, didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed with NIH’s grant suspension letter, and an HHS spokesperson declined to comment Wednesday. A DOJ spokesperson also declined to comment, and the White House didn’t respond to a request for comment. UC system spokespeople didn’t provide interviews or answer written questions.

    UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk said in a separate statement that the institution is doing everything it can “to protect the interests of faculty, students and staff—and to defend our values and principles.”

    “We will continue to hold town halls, convene office hours and share information with you, particularly those who are in the most directly affected areas,” Frenk told his employees. “This includes departments that rely on funding from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and Department of Energy.”

    Source link